For my visual argument I chose an anti-smoking advertisement. This particular ad is part of a campaign that targets parents who smoke and the effects it has on their children and their self. According to Bitzer, the exigence in this ad is to make parents who smoke aware of the harm they are putting their children in. This answers the question “Why is this discourse needed?” Grant-Davie, however, goes into more detail about the exigence of an argument. First he asks what is the discourse about. The discourse in this ad is about the danger of smoking around children. Next, he asks why is the discourse needed, in this situation the discourse is needed to make parents aware that smoking around their children is dangerous and can lead to illnesses that can actually cut their life short. Finally, Grant-Davie asks what the discourse is trying to accomplish in the process of examining exigence. In this anti-smoking advertisement the discourse is ultimately trying to lessen the amount of smokers, especially those with children.
In this ad there are multiple rhetors. Rhetors are people real or imagines, responsible for the discourse and its authorial voice. In this ad campaign the rhetors may be the corporation that sponsored the making of the ad and similar ads, the advertising agency hired by that corporation that designed theadvertidement, the little girl modeling in the ad, a non-profit organization focused on smoking awareness, or many other things. All of these people act as a rhetorical team that is trying to reach their goal of reducing the amount of cigarette smokers in America.
Audience can be an array of different people. First and foremost the audience is parents who smoke. However, there are many other people that can achieve the rhetorical objectives. For example, if a friend or family member of a current smoker sees this ad they may pressure someone they know who smokes to quit.
I feel like you are right on with the ad targeting parents who smoke, but I also believe that this ad can target those who are smokers that are wanting to have families and the potential harm that the could place their future families in. Second hand smoking is a major cause of death and disease in this country, so this ad could potentially target those people who already believe that smoking is not healthy and backs up their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteReally great picture and content. What are the constraints of this ad? Who may disagree? What is the picture saying? Incorporate the nonverbal messages into the text. Things like what the look on the child's face says, the black background, the "gloom." This is a really good photo to work with for the paper.
ReplyDeleteI would go more into talking about the millions of people who die from second hand smoke and how much that could have been avoided by not smoking around your children. Also, go into the fact that people smoke so close to doors and random people on the street are also effecting these children. I really like what you did with the Rhetors section. You could talk about a constraint would be that some people don't believe that second hand smoke truly hurts people. Also, some people believe that they have the right to raise their kids in what ever environment they want. Just something to think about! I love the ad campaign!
ReplyDeleteThe image definitely plays on the emotion of the viewer, in which it uses pathos. The image uses logos by logically convinces the viewer smoking is bad. I understand the audience may be an array of people. But in my opinion, it strikes not only the attention of parents who smoke around their children. But the children who parents smoke around.
ReplyDelete