Verbal and visual arguments

From my understanding, according to Blair, the main point is that we see arguments both in visual and verbal ways. "Visual arguments are not distinct in essence from verbal arguments. The argument is always a propositional entity, merely expressed differently in the two cases." (VR 362) He also mentions that visual arguments can be as strong as verbal arguments. Let me introduce one Japanese proverb, "Seeing is believing." This basically means "seeing once is as persuasive as hearing a hundred times." This sounds kind of extreme, but I mostly agree with both Blair's theory and the proverb. Visuals are sometimes very powerful; especially, when we see something we have never seen before.

For instance, when we see the pictures of disasters; although we read articles about huge earthquakes, without a visual we can't really realize how serious they are. In this case, descriptions of damages or numbers of deaths in a newspaper article (verbal elements) aren't really persuasive. Probably, not because of poor contexts, but because readers' lack of imagination. In some situations, we'll never understand something unless we experience on our own. Understanding verbal arguments sometimes requires us to have prior knowledge or experiences.

On the other hand, I also agree with Blair's point, "The sender of the message lacks the power to have his or her intentions well understood, since the receiver is free to interpret in various ways." (VR 361) There is always no guarantee that receivers interpret as senders mean. The diverse backgrounds and various kinds of common sense mean that misconceptions are basically unavoidable unless a message is particularly created for a common audience.

Blair, Anthony J. "The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments." Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World (2004): 344-362.