The visual argument I created is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek anti-advertisement for a fictional property company (inspired by real-life events of dealing with an incompetent leasing company). I strove to stay in line with Blair’s discussion on visual arguments in “The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments.” I had difficulty determining how and if text should accompany the image. Blair defines visual arguments occurring “without the mediation of words or language in the literal sense” (p. 347), and states that “visual communication stands on its own feet” (p. 347). However, Blair also states that context matters, and many of the examples he provided of visual arguments were contextualized, surrounded by, and sometimes inclusive of text. The guide includes a lot of “how to” pins related to typical problems one might encounter while renting from “FPC”. I chose images that would make the reader uncomfortable—close up images of pests, distressed facial expressions, cluttered photos, disorganized spaces. As this was a “guide” I wanted my visuals to link to actual articles on advice, not just Google image results.
Overall the argument, as per Blair’s definition, was the “claim” that this company is bad and the “reason” is because it does not provide proper maintenance.
Laurie was able to read the argument I intended, except she interpreted it as extending to all property companies rather than just one. Summer read the DIY aspect of the argument, although she took a more positive view of people taking initiative of sprucing up their own spaces, rather than DIY out of necessity.
I agree with Blair that visual arguments, as he defines arguments, are possible but rare. Images are widely open to interpretation—as in this example, Laurie saw the DIY images as negative, and Summer saw it as positive. There are people who love DIY and enjoy the potential of “fixer-uppers,” so a crack in the wall may just look like fun potential rather than a headache.