Painting Persuasive Phrases and the Role of Rhetoric in the Visual Arts

Before we get onto more important things, lets quickly address compositional devices. There are rhetorical devices, and there are literary devices which if, or when, used in a persuasive way become rhetorical devices. There are some 40 to 50 easy to document and describe literary devices, many of which are not confined to the literary realm, and one of which, for example, is the non-sequitur.

I recently put the following forward for social consumption and realized while it can serve as a standalone, it can also bear some explanation, so here’s the phrase and its subsequent explanation.

Art without non-sequitur is just rhetoric.

This is kind of like saying that a bowl of apples and oranges without the oranges is just a bowl of apples. Saying “just” doesn’t diminish the value of the apples, it simply states that we have no oranges – and so it goes with rhetorical phrasing in image – its just apples. Now its time for a bit of dissection. If I’ve chosen to use this specific word (our “non-sequitur” in question) as a rhetorical device, I’ve pretty much negated the whole issue of rhetoric in my peculiar need to be profound. It could read now, “Art without a rhetorical device is just rhetoric”. Of course that’s a narrative impossibility and just can’t be, unless its meant to be paradox, which is another literary device which can be used in a persuasive way (I’ll cover this in just a bit below), which in any way makes it a rhetorical device.

On the other hand, if, in a piece of art, the word/concept non-sequitur is being used as a literary device, then I’m okay, since rephrasing the sentence to read “Art without literary device is just rhetoric,” I might think I’m okay, but then again, since a rhetorical device is a literary device to begin with, I’m back in the loop and the writer’s wheel of karma continues to turn and burn. With all this, I’d just have to claim that I don’t use non-sequitur as either a rhetorical or literary device (which I do, actually, quite often, but to remain immune to this paradox, I’ll just have to claim what I’m claiming). Anyway, since truth constantly changes as do the seasons and the tides (turn, turn, turn), claiming that specific immunity, or impunity, is an evident choice in a world where literary devices can be (theoretically) applied to anything that’s compositional in nature. I must add that the whole thing makes perfect sense to me until I try to explain it to myself, or to others – I suppose it could be a Larson thing.

All playfulness aside – lets pound on a few brass tacks here. We’ve settled some possibly important issues and need to speak of something relevant. Primarily, what I’d like to do here is explain what rhetoric is in painting, and its uses. Bear in mind, while you’d think these kind of devices only work when the image in question bears some form of representation driven by narrative, as vague as that may be, there are considerations and exceptions that allow even the abstract image to use these tools (* see note after).

The term rhetoric can be so easily misunderstood these days. By its use with party-politic representatives and that peculiar world’s over-vocal pundits, average-Joes and Janes understand rhetoric to be a political term and tool only, having no bent to understanding literature, the art of composition and its constructive devices. Many have forgotten that the word rhetoric and what it embodies exists well outside of, and independent to, the pomp and ceremony of that lawmaker’s show called politics. There’s a large world out there where rhetoric is not a bad word, and the art world is one of them.

Rhetoric is simply a literary element or device that is designed to function as persuasion (that’s why the word is suited so well to politics and its primarily influencing nature – remember, just because someone uses various tools and expressions to persuade you or your thought doesn’t mean that it’s truth they’re selling you). So, persuasion it is, rhetoric, its as simple as that and its what I’m doing with you here, today – persuading you. Whether one is composing a speech, an essay, a symphony or a painting, nearly for the most part and at least in many cases, the same elements serve all creators, and so those terms used to refer to the written word’s literary devices can be used in other creative and compositional arenas, including painting. Those narratives, allegories, metaphors, etc. that you’re so familiar with when written in language can easily be used in painting, too. Rhetoric is just another tool in a creators arsenal, and it’s essentially the tool most evident, the one at the forefront, of art that is representative, especially art that uses some form of narrative to carry a message or story.

What is there to persuade in a painting? Well, to begin with, compositionally, the eye must be persuaded. It must be persuaded to move, and to stop, all at the design of the painting’s function, message or narrative. Beyond the way the eye is directed, or persuaded to move around the image on canvas is the way emotions and feelings are persuaded, even extracted, from the viewer. Rhetoric is used to direct you, your ideas, thoughts and vision, to what is going on with a painting. Since literary devices can serve as rhetorical devises, I’ll detail a few of both the literary-cum-rhetorical and purely rhetorical devices for you now.

Allegory – An allegory is a type of narrative that uses characters and plot to depict abstract ideas and themes. In an allegorical story, things represent more than they appear to on the surface. Many children’s fables are simple allegories about morality and so on, but allegories can also be cryptic, complex, and controversial.

Anthropomorphism – To anthropomorphize is to apply human traits or qualities to non-human things such as objects, animals, clouds, gods, etc. But unlike personification, in which this is done through figurative description, anthropomorphism is literal: a sun with a smiling face, for example, or talking dogs in a cartoon.

Identification is the process by which the reader or viewer associates with a character or work of fiction in film and literary studies. Identification is usually subconscious. Bruegel below calls the viewer into his painting via identification with characters from the back, a most efficient method to connect the world of the viewer to the character and the experience within the image. Without portraying a face, its easy for us to become the one we see, and to see what it is the character sees, though identification can occur in cases with faces, as well.

Dramatic irony – Dramatic irony is when others know more about the situation going on than at least one of the characters involved. This creates a difference between the ways the audience and the characters perceive unfolding events. For instance, if we know that one character is having an affair, when that character speaks to their spouse, we will pick up on the lies and double-meanings of their words, while the spouse may take them at face value.

Example: In Titanic, the audience knows from the beginning of the movie that the boat will sink. This creates ironic humor when characters remark on the safety of the ship.

Hyperbole – Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement that emphasizes the significance of the statement’s actual meaning. Surrealism provides much in display of functional exaggeration.

Example: “At that time Bogotá was a remote, lugubrious city where an insomniac rain had been falling since the beginning of the 16th century.” — Living to Tell the Tale by Gabriel García Márquez.

Juxtaposition – Juxtaposition places two or more dissimilar or unconnected elements side by side, and the profound contrast highlights their differences. Why is juxtaposition such an effective literary device? Well, because sometimes the best way for us to understand something is by understanding what it’s not. Juxtaposition is more of a visual tool of rhetoric than textual, and displays itself in both overt or subtle contradictory ways – at the same time it forces comparison, and so requires two elements to stand off each other. In spite of this, juxtaposition seems to work without creating discomfort.

Paradox – Paradox at its core simply means “beyond belief.” It’s a statement that asks people to think outside the box by providing obvious or seemingly illogical premises.  Its a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one’s expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion. Its a world that is both upside-down and right-side up at the same time. Paradox is always and strictly, overtly contradictory and challenges all sense as to what is right.

Example: In George Orwell’s 1984, the slogan of the totalitarian government is built on paradoxes: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.” While we might read these statements as obviously contradictory, in the context of Orwell’s novel, these blatantly corrupt sentiments have become an accepted truth.

Repetition – Repetition, repetition, repetition… where would we be without it? Though too much repetition is rarely a good thing, occasional repetition can be used quite effectively to drill home a point, or to create a certain atmosphere. For example, horror writers often use repetition to make the reader feel trapped and scared.

Example: In The Shining, Jack Torrance types over and over again on his pages,  “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” In this case, obsessive repetition demonstrates the character’s unraveling mind.

Metaphor – this is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them. Picture our solar system with the planets being replace by varying sized balls to represent the scale of the planets.

Andre Breton said the metaphor was introduced into painting by Marc Chagall. When considering the Flemish masters Bruegel and Bosch, we could challenge that statement, but Chagall was certainly a great proponent of metaphor’s use with his birds, goats, fish, urban profiles, flying-folk – everything pointed to something else.

Non sequitur – A non sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, or unexpected turn in plot or dialogue by including a relatively inappropriate change in manner. A non sequitur joke sincerely has no explanation, but it reflects the idiosyncrasies, mental frames and alternative world of the particular comic persona. Its a literary device that includes statements, sayings, and conclusions that do not follow the fundamental principles of logic and reason. In conversation, non sequitur is something that is said which seems quite absurd and out of order (non-sequential) to the point of confusion due to lack of proper meanings.

This has been just a brief list of the tools found in an artists toolbox, or bag’o’tricks, but I hope it has served my point, which turns out to be multi-fold in its implications. You’ve probably noticed how if some of these elements usages may be a bit cryptic, its also that the line is quite grey between some of them. Some don’t juxtapose as well as we might wish, and sometimes, one element in play can reflect multiple types of devices. Needless to say, if I’ve provided a service to you entertainment wise, or, have simply left you thinking, then I’ve done more than I could have hoped for and my reward is great.

As far as having said art without non-sequitur is just rhetoric – I suppose I could have said Art without non-sequitur is just gravy.

___________________________________________

* note after– Consider the endless variety of marks that can be made in the practice of abstract painting, be it small checks or large swaths of color and everything around and between – its these non-representational marks that make up what we call, when an image is finished, an abstract painting. By example, if in this painting we speak of, at least one mark, if not many or all, exists on that canvas as a persuasive tool – something there is calling out for attention. In this case, this persuasive tool is a literary element (i.e. a rhetorical device), and as such requires narrative to exist as such. A swath of yellow paint on a black background exists to say “look at me – look at me.” Now if that’s not rhetorical (a persuasive literary device), I don’t know what is.

With this, we must examine the following ideas –

• Narrative serves to represent something.
• A literary device implies narrative in composition.
• A rhetorical device is a literary device.
• If a painting expresses persuasive elements, those elements must be rhetorical devices.
• If an abstract work persuades with such elements, it is rhetorical, and therefore not truly, completely abstract.

So its because of these above maxims that I’ve been known to say that the truly abstract cannot exist in painting, and its only in proximity to the abstract, as near as we can go to that world of the formless, that we can allow ourselves to call an abstract painting abstract – its all a matter of degrees.

I’ve discussed this more in detail and in a different manner in my essay titled “Of Drawing and Painting and Other Relations.”