When a chapter on narrative representation is difficult to understand, it may be reasonably understood that a chapter on conceptual representation and social constructs would be Burkean in complexity. Not so! This chapter seemed much easier to understand, though there are a few points to be made.
In much the same way the child in chapter 1 explained that his drawings were "in order," conceptual representations appear to build "order" from images. What is at issue when critically examining a conceptual image is that the order that is presented is an attempt to either reinforce or restructure a social construction. For example, advertisements which use sex appeal to associate a product with sexual success are attempting to build a conceptual connection between the product and success. Axe body spray or Marlboro cigarettes are two examples of this kind of conceptual marketing at work. These ads can also demonstrate that the line between conceptual and narrative representations in visual rhetoric can be blurred.
There are other kinds of conceptual images, however. A graphic which explains how to build something or the statistical images in news magazines also serve a very clear rhetorical purpose, but do so through conceptual social construction. The authors give us charts and graphs to help explain the concepts of "carrier," "relational process," and the attribute to be applied. However, these same kinds of images only illustrate the point they are making. Their charts (carrier) are (relational process) informative (attribute). Also, they can be confusing and off-putting.
Questions:
1) Do all advertisements inadvertently (or explicitly) use a conceptual representation?
2) Is it plausible to accept that social construction can occur through conceptual images?
3) Is social construction through conceptual representation a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment