Since I used this image in part one of our analysis/application last week, I thought it would be wise to use the same image to see if my interpretation changed based on a new method. Based on the Foss reading for this week, this image constitutes visual rhetoric because:
- The image is symbolic because it represents not just of the wording or image used, but also preserving the bay in general and in relation also represents the Cheseapeake Bay Foundation
- There are conscious choices here: the typeface and color, the fish “out of water,” the background design and word choice
- Intended audience: As we discussed last week, this image can be easily interpreted at face value by almost anyone (expect for a language barrier issue)
I chose to look at Foss this week for this particular artifact because her method encompassed all the elements I noticed last week (the design choices, etc.). By using this method, I could further develop the designers intent to choose an easily recognized image (though not one that necessarily occurs in nature) that would provoke a disgusted response from the audience. The only other thing that I think would be important is the designer’s background and past experiences, which Foss touches on briefly but I would love to hear more about this element.