In this section, we’ll focus on how to analyze visual texts that present arguments. A visual argument can be an advertisement, a political cartoon, a photograph, a bumper sticker, a T-shirt, a hat, a Web page, or even a piece of fine art. Yet the tools to analyze argument—identifying the claims, analyzing the way evidence is used, thinking critically about the artist’s assumptions, examining how the piece is structured, considering appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos—are fairly similar for both visual and written arguments.

Although the tools that artists use to make their arguments are primarily visual strategies, such as the placement of figures and objects and the use of color, the process of analysis is the same as with any text: look carefully, take note of every detail, make connections about your observations, and draw conclusions. Again, as with any written text, it’s important to know what occasioned the visual image and, if possible, who the artist intended as his or her audience.

Following is a checklist to use with any visual text:

Let’s use this checklist to analyze a four-frame cartoon entitled Rat Race that appeared on the United Kingdom Web site polyp.org.uk.

If we think about this analysis in the terms of argument we have used throughout this chapter, each of the four frames might be thought of as a paragraph. In each one, the artist refutes a counterargument: happiness is just around the corner if you work harder, if you earn more money, if you buy more things, if you keep going. These slogans become assertions that the drawings refute as the rats become increasingly frantic within the confines of the maze and as day turns to night. The argument seems to be organized inductively because as each slogan (assertion) is refuted by the images of the rats, who are anything but happy as they face yet another “corner,” the viewer draws the conclusion that the rat race is thankless, useless, and never a route to happiness.

Photographs are another type of visual text that can make powerful arguments. How often do we look at the photograph on the front page of a newspaper or news site before we read the lead story? The photo in that case may greatly influence how we read the written text by shaping our attitude toward the piece or even by leading us to form conclusions before reading so much as a single word.

In fact, photographic images carry additional power because they seem “real,” authentic images of truth frozen in time. No political cartoon has ever claimed to be “reality.” But it is important to understand that while photographs may be more “real” than a drawing, they nevertheless are artificial. The photographer must decide how to light a scene, what to focus on, when to take the picture, what to put inside the frame and outside of it, and how to compose the shot in order to convey the desired meaning. Unfortunately, combining the power of the photographic image has at times resulted in the irresistible temptation to pose or construct an image to make a point. But even if the image is not doctored, a photograph is constructed to tell a story, evoke emotions, and make a strong argument.

Let’s examine an iconic photograph called The Steerage, taken in 1907 by photographer Alfred Stieglitz (see the next page). We might start with a definition of steerage, which is the cheapest accommodation on a passenger ship—originally the compartments containing the steering apparatus. Stieglitz did not take the photograph for a particular publication because by this point he was already a highly regarded artist who championed the relatively new medium of photography as an art form. The context is the early twentieth century, when immigration to the United States was at a high point. The photograph depicts the wealthier classes aboard ship on the deck above the poorer classes, who are housed in the steerage. Notice how your eye is immediately drawn to the empty gangway that separates the two groups. This point of focus raises the issue of separation, even segregation.

This time, instead of going through the checklist step-by-step as we did with Rat Race, let’s just think about how the style of this photo might be seen as evidence used to make its claim. In what ways might that gangway be symbolic? Why would Stieglitz choose the moment when it is empty? What story is this photograph telling? Note the similarities and differences between the two groups depicted. Stieglitz juxtaposes them. Some differences, such as dress, are stark; yet what similarities do you see? How does Stieglitz want his audience—his viewers—to experience the people in this scene? Why do you suppose we see the group in the top more straight on, face-to-face, while the people in the lower level in many instances have their backs to us? Think about the time period, and ask yourself what cultural values the viewers—those who frequent art galleries and are familiar with artists of the day—bring to this image. Granted, the technology did not make color photos an option, but notice the many shades of light and dark, the shadows, the highlighted areas: What mood does this moment frozen in time suggest? How does the evocation of mood add to the pathos of the scene? What claim—or claims—is Stieglitz making through this visual image?