A naturalistic enthymeme is defined as the assumption that images and photographs are real until proven otherwise. The first image I thought of when I read this term was the first moon landing. This event and the images that came with it have gone back and forth in controversial discussions as to whether or not these images are real and ergo if the event is real or not. Based on the image alone, it could be assumed that it was staged as it wouldn’t be too difficult to replicate that type of seen but there was cultural awareness that the moon landing was happening and there is no concrete evidence going against this image to prove that it is in fact fake. Despite all the controversy theories, this image is a naturalistic enthymeme based on that it has yet to be disproven for being actual footage from the moon landing.

At first glance, a viewer may think this image in North Korea is one of child neglect lawlessness. Without the image’s context, the actual situation is completely up to the viewer’s implied knowledge, similar to the practice of enthymeme. The actual context is that the streets pictured are rarely ever busy because vehicles are slowly and only recently being publicly released in North Korea. 

Even with this context in mind, the photographer could be accused of incorrectly instilling a sense of immediacy. Let’s compare this image to the one used by Finnegan. The skull images were controversial because they incorrectly implied that the Dust Bowl was worse than it really was based on the staging of the image. The photographer of this image does something similar. By restricting the border of vision of the camera, the viewer is unable to see the bigger picture, and the fact that the road is actually not busy, save for the two vehicles in view. 

So, this image is an example of naturalistic enthymeme in that, when it is first viewed, one would assume and truly believe that the children in view are in danger; the viewer relies solely on what is presented to them to dictate what is true. However, upon further revelation, we realize that the photographer has intentionally staged the photo to appear this way, breaking the rules of mechanical realism by tampering with the image via it’s framing. 

I am using this picture of a dog in a shelter to represent the naturalistic enthymeme in terms of the life of a shelter dog. The representational reality of this image is that it illustrates the very real problem of sheltered animals being forgotten and eventually put to sleep if they are not adopted. The ontological realism of the situation is not only representative by the dog’s obviously wistful stare, but also the decrepit state of the confines in which it resides. Finally the mechanical realism is that we are seeing this very possible reality play out before us. There is no indication to the viewer that this would not be a real shelter dog, as this is a reality that many people are aware of which plays into the “adopt don’t shop” culture that this image is meant to highlight.

According to Pfister & Woods (241), an unnaturalistic enthymeme is an image where its figurative elements create an argument about its own unrealism. Unnaturalistic enthymemes are becoming more and more common in today’s society with the increase in digital manipulation and post-processing devices. This image is an example of an unnaturalistic enthymeme because the viewers do not assume that the photograph is true or realistic; they know and presume that the image has been altered and manipulated. The creators of the photo use the quadripartita ratio to manipulate this image and create rhetorical effect. Specifically, they use transcendence; they alter Jennifer Lopez’s rear to make it appear more large than it actually is. The transcendence causes the viewer to make cultural assumptions about how desirable having a large butt is, but also allows the viewer to see how the “desirable size” is unrealistic and has been inflated in this image.

             The picture above shows a protest against President Nixon’s war effort and shows how the American people don’t think that we should even be in war. On the other hand, the American government believes that we should be in this war and it is right for us. This is a great example of how representation can change the way we respond to images in many different ways. Representation connects meaning and language to culture. This essentially means that representation utilizes language to say something meaningful or to represent something in our immediate environment. This can negatively change the way we look at images if the representation is portrayed in a negative view. However, on the other hand, representation can be used in a positive way by showing us the good that an image can hold. Realism has a major impact because it attempts to represent something truthfully in a naturalistic manner. Realism doesn’t attempt to hide anything from the viewer because of the artist’s message he/she is trying to portray. A sketch can be hard to get a realistic sense from because we see it as something artificial, whereas a photograph allows us to “put” ourselves in the situation and feel like were living it. With that being said both photography and a painting can represent the same object but offer us a totally different perception. Photos can show us things in a much clearer way than painting or a sketch could ever. There are many “realistic” painting in the world but we do not get the same feel from them as we get from photographs. I think that this is the case because a photograph can’t technically be of something fake or not real. What I mean by this is that when someone takes a photograph of something it is physically in our world. As a viewer when we see that we can put ourselves into that situation or images meaning because we know it is something real. Whereas a painting can be of things that are unrealistic like a utopian society. I am not saying that all paintings are not of real things, but I think that photographs can have a much bigger impact on how a person can perceive and internalize an image. The claim that images only persuade at an emotional level can go either way based on the situation at hand. In most situations people respond based on their emotions and feel the need to rationalize their actions with reason and logic. An image that is completely based on emotion will set off triggers for certain people to feel connected and apart of the situation.  The human race solely depends on emotions when going through day-to-day activities and as they fluctuate we make decisions. If images didn’t evoke any emotions when trying to persuade a consumer, there wouldn’t be any feeling to understand what the artist is trying to reach or sell. The distinction of language=rationality and image=emotion is a good thing to consider when talking about an image. In language we use reason and logic to depict a situation or image because words can only tell us what it is. Images can give us an emotional sense from viewing it without any words attached. Language consists of literal meanings of speech whereas an image can elicit many emotions and speak many words without any context.  For the most images that persuade by using emotions are ethical. Take for example a commercial that encourages safe sex, or getting people off drugs, both of these commercials rely on emotion or else the ad wouldn’t be effective. For these circumstances using emotion to persuade is ethical but there are images that can be seen as unethical. For example, a commercial that encourages you drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes would be considered as an unethical way of using emotions to persuade a consumer. Image events can become propaganda when the common goal or call to action shifts toward an opposite viewpoint. This can happen due to disagreement or perspective of how that image event is portrayed and can negatively alter people’s emotions about how they feel.

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.virginiahistory.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/civil-rights-movement-virginia

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.

• 

Foss’ schema allows for interpretation or evaluation of visual imagery from a rhetorical perspective. A focus within the schema is determining the functions communicated by the image. Foss’ three steps are broken down by identifying the functions that are presented in the image, assessing how well the function is executed and dissecting how legit the function is and determining whether the function is ethical or not. 

The function in this image is fairly evident based on the context. Even if the words at the bottom of the pedals weren’t there, audience viewers could assume that this image has something to do with alcoholically impaired driving since when a person is under the influence, it is common to have double vision or just distorted vision. Those who drive know that there are only ever two pedals (or three if you drive standard even though a clutch isn’t exactly a pedal) so when we see this image, we immediately know something isn’t right. However, for clarification purposes, the creator of this image put the caption “”Just one for the road” and also “Please drink responsibly”. “Just one for the road” is a common idea that a person has when they think they are able to drive after they’ve been drinking. The image disproves this idea as its function is saying do not drive when you have been drinking and the function is even more clearly stated at the bottom warning people to drink responsibly.

I think the function is cleverly performed. The image automatically draws in a person’s attention because we can see that this is not normal. Our brains tell us that something is off and so we continue looking at it for clarification to make sense of what we are seeing. Since this is a Volkswagen ad, the more time you spend looking at the image, the better ad this is. The aesthetic in this image is clean or sleek, just as many car companies like to portray. It’s a very simple image as there with just enough going on in the image to make sense of it. If the image didn’t include the little bit of the steering wheel or seat that can be seen, the whole image could be thrown off by confusion or could be too minimal. 

The legitimacy of the function in this picture is successful or fair. It clearly gets a point across. The function is also ethical since it is encouraging drivers not to drink and drive. Without the slight bit of text, its legitimacy could be doubtful, but the image as a whole speaks to an idea that Volkswagen is making a stand towards drunk driving, which is completely ethical.  

The 2018 race for Georgia governor was one marked by competition and controversy. Throughout the campaigning season, both candidates came out with powerful images in order to influence public opinion about themselves. This blog post will compare and contrast images from both sides using analyses that Goodnow describes as ideational, interpersonal, and textual (Goodnow, 408-409). 

Let’s start with the ideational approach to image analysis. Good now describes this approach as being, “divided into narrative and conceptual patterns” (Goodnow, 408). The narrative aspect of an image describes what the subjects are doing, while the conceptual aspect investigates things about the subject, such as class, structure, or meaning. In the first image, Brian Kemp is sitting in his truck with a shot gun in his hands. This image and the ad from which it was taken sparked a lot of controversy about gun laws and safety. From a narrative ideational standpoint, Kemp is just sitting, minding his own business with a weapon he is constitutionally allowed to own. However, put in context with the ad it appeared in, it comes across as though Kemp is threatening the boyfriend of one of his daughters. As the conservative candidate, Kemp’s ad struck a chord of humor, amusement, or possibly even agreement with his constituents. However, the opposing party who tends to hold very different beliefs about gun laws were far from convinced that Kemp would be a good choice for Georgia. This image was a big risk for Kemp’s campaign and while it succeeded in winning over some voters, others became less likely to vote in his favor. 

Le’s compare this to the Stacey Abrams image. Here the audience can see her shaking hands with another individual, perhaps a friend or neighbor with a smile on her face. She even uses both hands to shake in order to convey authenticity and genuine care for that person. This choice in ad makes her appear more “for the people” than Kemp. It is also interesting to note the diversity in her image. As an African American woman, she is already likely to win over a large portion of the minority vote. In this ad, however, we see her shaking hands with a caucasian male. This reinforces that she is a good choice for all in the state of Georgia, not just those most likely to vote for her. These details help her appear less threatening (literally) and less controversial than Kemp and therefore more likely to win over voters. 

Next, let’s focus on the interpersonal approach to analysis. Goodnow describes this as, “… the relations among the producer of an image, the image itself, and the viewer of the image” (Goodnow, 408). In Kemp’s image, it is difficult to determine who exactly should be the focus. Based on where Kemp’s eyes are pointed and the fact that the other man is actually facing the camera, the viewer may be inclined to think that it is the second man that should be focused on. If one had never seen the image before, one may not know that it is Kemp who is really the focus of the ad. In Abrams’ photo, we see that she is relating to the other man in the image in a a friendly, almost neighborly way, but she is also relating to the photographer. The way in which the other man’s back is turned puts the focus directly on Abrams, leaving no question as to where the attention should be placed; the gaze goes straight to her. The way the background activity is blurred out also helps eliminate distraction from the photo’s subject. A similarity between the images would be their similar social distances and perspectives. Both images are fairly head on and shot from roughly the same distance. 

Finally, let’s analyze the textual aspects of these images. This is mainly concerned with more technical aspects of art or image analysis such as color saturation, contextualization, illumination and brightness. Per usual, let’s begin by looking at Kemp’s image. While both candidates’ images are set outdoors, Kemp’s has a slightly darker effect. The natural light hits more in the background than it does to really illuminate the subjects of the image. They are almost shadowed as if to prevent over exposure. However, even though the lighting is not on excellent, the use of colors (greens, silvers, neutral browns, flannels), textures (wood themes), and props (the truck and shot gun) help to get the message across that Kemp is just a good ‘ole Georgia citizen like you and me, a tactic which hits home with his target audience of conservatives. Abrams’ photo, however, is less concerned with props. Her image is much lighter, both figuratively and literally. She is placed in an open area which allows the natural light fall on her and give the viewer a clear shot at her face and expression. In addition, the color choices in her image are much lighter and more pleasing to they eye than Kemp’s; the light blue shades communicate an air of peace and tranquility. Paired with her winning smile and genuine expression and the viewer of her image can rest easy knowing that Stacey will take care of them in office. 

In conclusion, there are many different aspects that of into the analysis of an image. While these are just Goodnow’s main points, there are a variety of strategies for analyzing images and uncovering the meaning conveyed by the different elements. Analyses like this help to prove and solidify the argument that visuals can serve as rhetoric in today’s digital age. 

A naturalistic enthymeme is the assumption that photos present reality and an enthymeme is when one premise remains unstated. According to Finnegan, a naturalistic enthymeme is when, “we assume photographs to be ‘true’ or ‘real’ until we are given reason to doubt them (Finnegan 135).

Below is an image from digitalphotomentor.com that was taken by Kevin Carter and titled the “Starving Child and Vulture”.  This photo caused a lot of controversy because of how heart wrenching the image is. In this image we see a starving little girl and a vulture lurking in the background, staring directly as her. The first premise in this photo is that this photo represents reality. The second is that this photo is of a starving girl with a creeping vulture in the background. In conclusion,this girl is in real danger of being attacked by this vulture. Now, this conclusion is the premise that has been omitted and been left to the audience’s assumption based off of his or her’s viewing of the photo. They believe this photo to be a reality, thus they have created an enthymeme.

Because of the publicity that this photo received and the belief in this naturalistic enthymeme, people were outraged at the photographer. They were frustrated because it appears that the photographer is watching as a little girl is in danger of her life, both from the vulture as well as from starvation (Digital Photo Mentor). The consequences of this photo is that without knowing the full context, the onlooker will automatically assume this to be true. Due to all the stress and hate from the public, Kevin Carter ended up taking his life in 1994, one year after the picture was released. These were the negative consequences from this photo, but some of the positives that resulted from this picture was the awareness to world hunger that it brought. Hearing about world hunger is one thing, but seeing it with one’s own eyes is a complete other aspect. Seeing the utter helplessness of this child and how her life is on the line caused people to jump to action. It also made people think of what is ethical when taking pictures and what is not. Having the photographer alter the picture in such a way to make it stand out more resulted in major consequences that may or may not have occurred if he had done things differently (Digital Photo Mentor). If the viewer knew the truth, they may not have been so quick to judge the photographer, or feel the immediacy and urge to help. What this photo does not show is the mother standing off to the side out of view of the camera shot. The photo also had a special lens to make the bird look closer than it really was. Knowing these two truths would not have caused the onlooker to be so emotional and heart wrenched. This image is quite similar to the skull controversy explained by Finnegan, Lewis and Farid. The skull controversy wanted to raise awareness to the drought in the land and manipulated the image just like Kevin Carter did here, in order to make the situation to appear more severe than it actually was. The skull controversy caused the viewer to take what they saw and believe it to be a reality. According to Finnegan, “Participants in the skull controversy, particularly those who attacked the skull pictures as ‘fakes’, grounded their arguments in the naturalistic enthymeme” (136). The photo of the child was similar to the skull controversy in the way that it caused people to assume things about the photo while not having the full picture. Both were, in a sense, deceived because of the thwarting of the image that took place. Lewis furthered this truth by saying that, “we should judge a photograph as a collection of purposed facts about the world that is accurate if claims are true and inaccurate if they’re not” (Lewis, 3). In other words, people should be skeptical of what images they see as it may not be completely true. Images can be easily tampered with to create various meanings and results. In conclusion, it is clear how images can have different meanings and consequences by the way they are presented to the public.

Work Cited:

https://www.digitalphotomentor.com/20-most-famous-photographs/

file:///home/chronos/u-3ac062d9a03d410019e04c597f2009fa664a3ea0/Downloads/Finnegan–The%20Naturalistic%20Enthymeme.pdf

file:///home/chronos/u-3ac062d9a03d410019e04c597f2009fa664a3ea0/Downloads/Lewis–Don%E2%80%99t%20Believe%20What%20You%20See%20in%20the%20Papers.pdf

I chose to evaluate an image based on Foss’ schema. Foss includes three steps in this schema.

The first step is to evaluate an image by its function. What function does the image serve to convey? For this image, the function is to portray the Jewish community, mostly within Germany, as plotters and conspirators. The function is made obvious through the anchorage with the text. The Jewish man, hidden behind the flags of the Allie nations, is characterized as being malevolent. The image’s goal is to delineate a certain form of animosity towards the Jewish community.

The next step in Foss’ schema is to analyze how well that function is communicated to the audience or viewer. This piece of Nazi propaganda has a distinct function, and it is one that is presented clearly to the viewer. The characterization of a Jewish man serves as a visual synecdoche for the Jewish community as a whole. The purpose of the image is to persuade the German people into believing a set of false stipulations about Jewish people as a whole (being that they are conspiring with Germany’s enemies).

The final step is to evaluate the legitimacy of the image. The legitimacy of this piece of visual rhetoric is small. The function is existent and communicated well. The legitimacy of the function being conveyed is a different story. The illegitimacy of the characterization of the Jewish community stands out strikingly. It is clearly incorrect inaccurate and wrong to pigeonhole an entire ethno-religious group as pernicious. The depiction of the Jew shrouded by Allie nation flags is not based on fact, but propaganda that aligns only with Nazi agenda. Therefore, the legitimacy of this image must be questioned.