Oct.31 09 - Questions based on The Psychology of Rhetorical Images by Charles A. Hill

The Psychology of Rhetorical Images by Charles A. Hill was really interesting. I enjoyed reading it, and learned so many things from it. However, I have several things that still bugging my mind.

1. Images are one of many keys in advertising. Images are used to attract people's attention. We see advertising everywhere, and most of the time we do not realize that we are being persuaded by those images. For example, I take bus everywhere, and nowadays, buses have images on every side. There are images inside and outside of every bus. Most of the advertisings are photos or images with little texts on it. However, even though there isn't any text to explain the advertisements, it attracts our attentions. How could this happen? How do images can attract our attention and persuade us? Is is because of our emotion, which allows us to react, relate, and respond to it?

2. I agree that images are important keys to attract audience; however, I still believe text should be included in every image. There is no need to have a very long explanation, but I think we need to put up a catchy phrase which can make the image understandable and interesting to the audience. For me, without text, people can have different interpretations about the images, and most of the time they misinterpret the true meaning behind the image. When we use an image to attract audience, we want to make sure that they get the right interpretation of the image. That is why using text (key messages) can prevent a false interpretation. In The Psychology of Rhetorical Images, Hill write, "Based on the interested scholar . . . people respond to visuals in much the same way as they respond to verbal arguments" (27). What are the differences between images and verbal argument? From my point of view argument or verbal is poweful than visuals because people hear it directly from the author, as a result there will not be wrong interpretations. So, what do you think about this?

3. Moreover, in the text, Hill also emphasizes about Presence, which "refers to the extent to which an object or concept is foremost in the conciousness of the audience members" (28). I think that all images need to fill with a presence to make it real and believeable to the audience. With this Presence I believe the image will be easier to persuade and transfom audience's way of thinking. So, what do you think the factors of Presence are?