English 680V: Visual Rhetoric in a Technological Age (Purdue)

In George's work, three moments struck me as the conflation of visual rhetoric with specific ideological impulses. On the top of page 23, she seems to be suggesting that visual rhetoric has always been (will always be?) linked to cultural studies and "low" art. This is not to mention the her highly problematic definition of low art as advertizing. Between pages 27 and 28, she represetns visual rhetoric as more student-oriented, as the realm in which students are more literate than their instructors. On the bottom of page 29, suddenly visual rhetoric is equated with (Adbusters and Guerilla Girls) an aesthetic of speaking to power.

While I understand that this article is meant as a history, George's failure to position herself in regard to these trends is an implicit endorsement. Surely there are those who use visual rheotric in ways that re-inforce heirarchies. If the visual is already the realm of literacy for students, then what are we teaching if not the transfer of those skills to realms in which they are less confident? Surely there are also those who approach visual rhetoric as a topic on which to instruct, assuming a level of inexperience, as we would with a traditional text.

In short, I'm confused as to what George is doing. This artcile isn't neutral and i'd hate to see visual rhetoric so strongly associated with specific ideologies (which I generally share, by the by) so that those with more "traditional" or "conservative" (I don't know what those terms means in this case) outlooks on composition or culture/politics can still access this field. I think this conflation does a violence to both fields.