I agree that society is becoming a visual society, but I do not believe that visual arguments are more persuasive. At times they can be quiet effective, but in other circumstances they don’t get the point across like the author would want.
If the piece only has a weak argument then a visual argument can be better. Since arguments on TV, whether it is an ad or a subject on a TV show, come by only once and very quickly, the audience has little chance to truly dissect what they’re looking at. However, if the argument is deep and has many subtle points, I believe that a print argument is much more effective.
I also think that depending on the subject one type can be more effective than the other. If the subject is deep and really important to the world, then hitting it on TV glosses over the details that a print source might be able to cover more completely. However, if the aim is just to hit as many people as possible, the TV argument in much more effective.
Both print and Visual arguments have they’re ups and downs, but in today’s society is still very much believe that there is a place for both.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree. Well, the way you're looking at it as if all visual arguments just mean TV arguments, which then i understand. but it can mean a very powerful movie-( have you seen Hotel Rwanda?) or a photograph- and i think that both of those things can be potentially more powerful than writing; however, they must be used sparingly or else people will burn out and not be able to be "shocked" by the pictures anymore. I thin it is a lot harder for a person to be burned out from reading.
tonyfirefly..... you are wrong, I'm sorry. People are lazy! They don't want to read! I agree, a written argument could be more persuasive, but that means someone has to actually read it! Therefore, because we have become a visual society, a visual argument would be more effective.
the end
done
you're wrong
Post a Comment