What visual language is NOT:
– semantic (comprised of arbitrary relationship between sounds and their meanings) –> not arbitrary
– syntactic (following a set of rules which governs editing or montage) –> not set; more fluid
What visual language IS:
– “analogical” –> showing similarity in things that may otherwise be dissimilar
- i.e. shapes, colours and overall structure correspond with features of the real world
- image and the message to be conveyed may not have to be visually similar –> “conceptual”
- “nonrepresentational” images = abstract art (conceptual) à we are engaged in abstract analogy
- i.e. MTV defying the norms of stylistic traits
- i.e. graph, charts, models à link between representation of models and some physical quantity
– this is important BECAUSE:
- 1. analogy has been shown to be “the basic component of creativity in both [artistic creativity and scientific reasoning and discovery”
- i.e. Friedrich von Kekule’s scientific discovery regarding the structure of the benzene molecule, when he applied the visual image of a snake which could move into a circle to the strings of atoms, which were previously believed to only be straight
- 2. the image’s producer can illicit responses in people by showing certain images that conjure up personal meaning for the viewer (“paraproxemics” as labelled by Meyrowitz)
- i.e. changing the camera angles to make someone look bigger/more powerful
- “because they appear to be simple extensions of our everyday, real-world perceptual habits, we may interpret them without much conscious awareness or careful scrutiny… mak[ing] them an especially elusive means of audience manipulation, requiring special attentiveness on the part of the critically inclined viewer”
– “lacks explicit relational indicators”
- images must often use verbal text (or contextual clues in film) to help the reader interpret the meaning of the visual structure
- i.e. two ads using the same photo, one as an antihistamine and one as an Echinacea Herb.
- i.e. memes!!!
- therefore, visuals WITHOUT verbal text can convey messages that may be socially unacceptable to portray WITH verbal text
- i.e. cigarettes and alcohol
– this is important BECAUSE:
- we must “encourage viewers to examine the extent to which they themselves have accepted the implications of that syntax”
- teach students to become critical viewers
– there must be “heightened attention to visual literacy in educational curricula – not in competition with verbal language learning, but as a valuable component to it”
Discussion Questions:
1. What is the main message in this article? Based on the thesis it presents, how might this line of thinking influence how we approach visual literacy in the secondary classroom?
2. In our English Language Arts classrooms, what are some ways that we can we use visual literacy to promote learning? (Brainstorm practical ideas and examples)
3. How can we “encourage viewers to examine the extent to which they themselves have accepted the implications of that syntax?” or, ensure that our students are critical of visual literacies that are presented in class? Do you think that there is a more effective way of teaching students to be critical viewers of visual literacy than another?
4. The article presents two different ways of being visually literate. To what extent do you feel these literacies are one or the other? Is one more important that the other?
5. How are visual images analogical? The article asks “what are the broader consequences of the analogical nature of visual language?” and “what difference does it make that visual literacy is so largely a matter of analogical perception and cognition?” Do you agree that visual images are analogical?
6. What is our role as educators in teaching the implications of visual syntax? How do we educate students to recognize implied information in visual texts and to critically assess information they are viewing from visual texts?
5 responses so far ↓
Mary Zolkiewski // Jul 3rd 2013 at 3:01 pm
I liked this article because it reminded me of the communications course in my undergrad where we got to talk about the semiotics of media and the implications of visual culture. Visual and media literacy is an incredibly interesting topic and one that has a continual presence in our lives!
I found the comparison between verbal and visual language interesting as we often use the textual as the reference for talking about all other forms of literacy. It is interesting however that the author indicates that the rules governing verbal language are quite different than the rules governing a visual literacy. In verbal language the semantic relationship between the meaning and the representation is purely abstract in that the words and letters used to represent the the object or idea have no concrete relation to that object or idea. It is an arbitrary symbol. In visual literacy the semantic relationship between the object or idea is almost never arbitrary, it has some connection to the object or idea. Syntactically, verbal language has a very strict set of rules that are always followed. Visual language is opposite in that it has almost no rules to follow.
I think that it is interesting that the semantic and syntactic rules are different for verbal and visual language because in school we are typically trained in reading and understanding verbal and written language and not in reading visual texts. And because the rules are so different for interpreting each I think that it is important for people and students to be trained in interpreting visual literacy and other forms of literacy as well.
Visual literacy is important particularly in assessing media directed at influencing people. People who are visually literate and media literate are able to critically assess what they are seeing instead of taking what they see without processing the validity of the information.
Katherine Spilsted // Jul 3rd 2013 at 3:08 pm
When reading the article, I was really drawn to the idea of images controlling the viewer’s positioning and thoughts pertaining to specific characters and situations and control what response the viewer will have. Mostly, using camera angles as an analogical device was very interesting considering most viewers don’t think about this aspect because we cannot control how we actually view situations/characters. When this is used, the article states viewers relate media images to real-life people, things, and actions that they have experienced or can relate in their own lives, thereby creating standard media images that will elicit the same response across the board from entire populations of viewers. For example, when watching a certain television show, most people who talk about the show will be drawn to specific characters and wanting to talk about specific parts of the hour program because the producers have created the conditions for these conversations to occur. For example, producers are generally able to choose which characters you will hate, love, and have several characters that populations of viewers can relate to personally. Unconsciously, you may be referring to your “favorite part”, but producers have actually chosen that scene to stick out and give you a particular message or have specific lines stand out.
This notion comes into our classrooms when we need our students to ask themselves, ‘why was that my favorite part?’ or ‘why is this my favorite character, what traits am I relating to?’ I do think this is definitely something I can incorporate into my classroom and actually encourage discussion about when we are watching films or youtube videos. I like to use visuals in my English classroom and I think it is important to follow up visuals with a discussion of what you are seeing and how the images are being presented. For example, I taught Romeo and Juliet to Grade 8 students and along with using the play script, I used the modern film version starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. My Student Advisor suggested using the older version but I stuck with my choice- and the students responded amazingly. They loved the film, and we were able to have discussions based on the images they saw in the film and the meaning behind them- rather than analyzing the script and words. By using images, my class could participate in discussions based on how we saw the scene, why the producer (Baz Luhrmann) used certain symbols, how we felt about characters in the film vs the play, what we were “told” through the camera lenses and what we could see or couldn’t see, and which characters they could relate to and why.
Continuing with ideas from the article, the film of Romeo and Juliet allowed analogical thinking through visual literacy in that students saw Shakespeare’s idea of being totally engulfed and disillusioned by love, and turned into Baz Luhrmann’s visual representation of a drug causing a state of ecstasy. When it came time to create final projects involving representations of the play, students never lacked ideas or motivation because I saw them really gaining insights from how themes are created visually and being able to discuss why they were used in the film.
Even with this example, it is still important to unpack visual images in the classroom and get students to become critical about what they are shown so they can take the same lens that they view Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet, and apply it to advertisements, television shows, movies, and media they are exposed to outside of the classroom.
apet17 // Jul 3rd 2013 at 8:22 pm
Messaris observes that “the lack of explicitness of visual syntax may seem less of an opportunity for the exercise of artistic creativity and more a means of manipulating the viewer (76)”. While educators are directed to use technology and media within the classroom, its inclusion is not without challenges. An interesting distinction is made between the proactive elements of visual literacy, such as the opportunity for creative exploration, versus the defensive elements that strive to teach viewers to be wary of potentially harmful images. Subsequently, educators have a responsibility to not only explore the creative elements of visual literacy, but also the possible threats that undermine a viewer’s ability to think independently. (Messaris mentions the control the image producer can elicit from a viewer, depending on camera angle, etc.)
As an example, throughout my women’s studies classes, we constantly explored the concept of “male gaze”, and the notion that women are highly sexualized in visual imagery, whether it is advertising, film, or television. The scary part, which Messaris notes, is that the syntax of visual language has the ability to “naturalize” the connection between two seemingly unrelated items. (I.e. smoking and the environment, or liquor and sex…) In other words, viewers may be subconsciously adopting these perspectives because of their prevalence in the visual realm and the lack of discussion surrounding these message(s). Whether or not these messages translate into action is always debateable, but one cannot deny the potentially harmful effects of such images. (One must only think of the beauty industry and its effect on female body image…)
Personally, I wonder how much of this visual propaganda has crept into my way of thinking, and if so, how can I, as an educator, guide my students to “denaturalize” an ads’ visual syntax? While some things may be clear to me, I imagine that there is an entire world of visual messages that I have unknowingly adopted as “natural”. If individuals who have been taught to think critically are capable of being duped, what does this mean for anyone who has not been exposed to such analytical tools? As media becomes more complex and its creators more creative, where does that leave the rest of us? 1984?
TMD // Jul 15th 2013 at 6:18 am
Thanks for this excellent presentation on Visual Language in Mass Media. The timing of your presentation was well within the guidelines set out on the class syllabus, your summary was clear, the activity with the Miriam Moss picture book, _Scritch Scratch_, was engaging (particularly as a pre-reading activity), and your questions elicited some good discussion from the class.
Just an aside in thinking further about this topic: In ELA education literature we hear a lot of discussion about students having an innate understanding of how to interpret visual media while lacking a metalanguage to put this innate knowledge to words. I think this is not necessarily the case — as teachers we would do well to draw on what students already know by bringing to their attention the fact that much of the metalanguage they learn in the study of written text (point of view, perspective, framing, metaphor, etc) may be applied, as well, to the visual. This is not to say that such metalanguage is comprehensive in accounting for the visual (evidently there are affordances of the visual that go beyond what is possible in writing); such an approach does, however, provide a way in, and learners may then build understanding drawing on concepts they have encountered elsewhere.
The materials you’ve posted on the blog here are a helpful summary of the article. It might be helpful, as well, were you to add a very brief summary of the activity along with a citation of the Moss book and the class reading so that others could replicate the activity should they wish to do so.
ehayman // Jul 15th 2013 at 10:37 am
Moss, Miriam and Delphine Durand. Scritch Scratch. New York, NY: Orchard Books, 2002.
The activity that we presented could be done with almost any book or visual image. We selected this particular children’s book randomly off the shelf which demonstrates the importance of visual literacies everywhere.
With the image we selected, we asked the class to come up with two captions or create two separate memes that interpret the photo in different ways. This quick activity that could easily be done in the English classroom is meant to illustrate the ways that images can be interpreted similarly and drastically differently. It also is interesting to begin a conversation about how written text and visuals function together.
You must log in to post a comment.