His main point is that visual arguments are not distinct in essence from verbal arguments. He goes on to say how text and visual arguments are different, but the same since they both serve the same purpose. I believe he is referring to the idea that everything is an argument... But as I remember from class that isn't what you told us. Lines like this are confusing...
"The need to give visual arguments premise-conclusion propositional embodiment has the consequence that plenty of dramatic visual statements fall short of being arguments."
He does state that visual arguments can be extremely powerful, but are less clear and precise as a written argument. I believe that is a true statement.. however what if you just combine them?
No comments:
Post a Comment