Exercise 3.1 p. 57 (Questions p. 59)
--Identifying the Elements of Visual Arguments--
1. I consider all of the visuals on pages 57-59 to be visual arguments, since they all seem to focus on and discourage violence. The only visual I could see as being designed solely to present information is the first pie chart, which does not seem to key in on any specific point but just displays a set of data. However, below the image the source says "Protecting Children from Harmful Television," which suggests it Was designed with an argument in mind.
2, 3 4, & 5.
The first visual communicates, subtly and through a set of data, that almost All PG-rated movies have violence, sex, and/or language in them.
The text conveys most of the message in this visual, but the relatively small "piece of pie" representing "None" is also an aid in conveying this message.
The general purpose seems to be to educate the audience, and/or to point out that children's movies are too harmful.
I think this visual is most likely to appeal to parents of children who watch these "PG" movies.
The second visual communicates that the United States has a much higher homicide rate than other (selected and represented) countries.
The elements supporting this visual are the selection of countries represented, the organization of countries from smallest to largest, and the large amount of blank space in the chart drawing your eye to the huge gap between the United States and everyone else.
The general purpose seems to be to motivate Americans to work against our high national homicide rate.
I think this chart is likely to appeal to both American citizens and government/criminal justice officials.
The third visual conveys the prevalence of violence on TV and suggests a boycott of TV violence.
The live demonstration of the murder, the murder victim's white suit, and all the masked people holding signs with text that communicate the message all support the main idea.
The general purpose is to decrease viewing of violence on TV.
This visual seems likely to appeal to all audiences-kids, definitely parents, and maybe people involved in TV entertainment.
The last visual conveys that parents need to control how much TV violence their children are exposed to.
The picture of the family watching TV, the text arguing against media violence, and even the red and black graphic design and print help communicate this message.
The apparent purpose is to increase parents' awareness of and protection against the violence their kids experience through media.
I would say the main target audience is parents of young children.
Exercise 3.4 p. 61
I think the first visual (upper left) on p. 62 supports Jones' argument pretty well because his claims about frightened children taking on stronger identities against the evils they experience in their lives is clearly reflected in the comic. The little boy ("Tommy," as the text labels him), representing the shy, passive outer identities of kids, is hiding behind the strong superhero who is blasting away all the attacking monsters, which represents the strong, self-defending person Jones argues kids should be allowed to become.
The second visual I find very confusing, because I don't understand who all the random characters on the bottom are (one being a feathered showgirl who seems out of place), why their speech bubbles say "shut" instead of maybe "shoot," or why they are not holding guns... I think this very graphic image with no clear positive message and a scantily clad woman on the left is not bound to have any good effect on kids.
In the last image, I find the dismembered, almost naked women's bodies to be both inappropriate for children and possibly hindering to girls' psyches who are being represented as a stereotypical item of vulnerability in this image. Also, I have no idea why the monster/character is yelling SHUT UP to the broken body in his hand, and I dislike that the man in the lower left is saying "Jesus Christ." I think both dialogues would only encourage kids to use unnecessarily crude language, and do not feel this argument supports Jones' argument well.
No comments:
Post a Comment