In Finnegan’s The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the Skull Controversy, she suggests that photos from the “skull controversy” of the 1930s constitute a “naturalistic enthymeme” in which “we assume photographs to be ‘true’ or ‘real’ until we are given reason to doubt them. (Finnegan, 135)” She explains that the that the controversy surrounding Rothstein’s infamous skull photograph resulted from the naturalistic enthymeme which allowed for an argument to be both useful for public debate and vulnerable to refutation (Finnegan, 136). The viewer’s experienced conflicting feelings toward understanding the manipulation of the scene or framing of the photographs versus their intended interpretation. The natural enthymeme within images works by drawing on cultural context, shared knowledge, or shared experience to carry a message and expects that viewers to have the ability to decode the links.
This is why so many images that we remember seeing in history classes held so much impact to us. For example, the following images from the Great Depression and the Civil Rights Movement.
https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression
Because of our education and the context that we had been given, even though these images were ‘real’ photographs, they made us feel and think a certain way. They were clearly framed by a photographer and due to our understanding of the context, they mean something to us.
Beyond historical documentations, while reading Finnegan’s analysis, it was hard not to read her ideas and relate them to my own life and current experience. I realized that there are so many images that I see on a regular basis that genuinely just make me feel some type of way. I think this has a lot to do with what Finnegan is talking about. For instance, I think about certain ads I remember seeing on TV when I was growing up for various dietary or beauty products where the female body was manipulated in some way. On one hand I remember thinking about how beautiful the women in the ads were and how it drew my attention to the product; but on the other I think about how harmful the ads often were, and how the feminist in me hated them. Similarly, I considered the way I am constantly conscious about how people on social media are heavily editing, adding effects, or overlaying filters to look a certain way or give off a certain perception online. If it’s too obvious, I often judge them for it or feel annoyed… almost like it is distrustful. But at the same time, even I edit my own photos to make them look better.
It is an interesting cycle and but I definitely think it is something to consider. Just because a photograph is displayed with some kind of intentionality or manipulation does that make it unrealistic? Understanding the naturalistic enthymeme as Finnegan describes is very useful. In my opinion it is about having the tools to decipher the image itself from the associated meaning. We can still look at photographs expect to see truth, but it is important that we understand there are often meanings within them, and they may have been manipulated.
Finnegan, C. A. (2001). The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the ‘Skull Controversy’. Argumentation & Advocacy, 37(3), 133-149.
Thinking Rhetorically at GCSU 