Hey everybody! The image I chose that reflects my Commonplace argument is an ad poster showing a picture of a very muscular Greek Olympian from the Ancient Olympics. Just read the poster, and you should get a pretty good idea of my argument.
Call me a dork, but I think images are pretty cool, when it comes to presenting an argument. An image can give you an immediate idea of an argument. Images, like text, can help identify what side of an argument you might be presenting. An image uses detail to show how relevant and current an argument is, as well as effectively persuade an argument. Images can also bring forth emotion and conviction into the mix.
However, what makes images different from text is that a provocative image, in my opinion, is usually confined to being subjective in nature, yet a provocative text can be far more flexible by being subjective or objective. Also, I believe that textual argumentation is more specific and pinpoint than images. So in fact, images give readers ideas but not necessarily a full understanding of an argument. Thus, images are best used to "peel the skin of an onion" when referring to argumentation. To examine the layers of an argument, one must use text to accomplish this goal.
As they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words", but I think that when it comes to argumentation, it might just be the opposite. Perhaps a written argument is worth a thousand pictures. Think about it.
You've been served another batch of fresh burnt rice. Enjoy and have a great day! ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment