The rhetoric of verisimilitude

In the dissertation, I use verisimilitude to explain first, how the force of visual rhetoric operates in works of art; second, for understanding how visual rhetoric influences audiences framed as both rhetorical and aesthetic viewing practices; and finally, how art is mediated in cognitive and emotional ways. Works of art call our attention to the power of these types of intercommunication because ""as often as language teaches us to see,"" Michael Ann Holly wrote, ""art instructs us in telling."" Specifically, this framework highlights that audiences of visual rhetoric rely on two types of viewing practices: first, a rhetorical practice that focuses on argument, function, and symbol; and second an aesthetic practice that focuses on the sensory, emotional, and artistic features of an image. These practices help us understand how audiences historically may have experienced works of art that evoked an emotional response and a symbolic meaning. This framework is simultaneously novel and traditional. It is novel because contemporary visual rhetoric scholarship has focused mainly on the functional and symbolic aspects of visual images and my dissertation (re)introduces aesthetic aspects of visual images in seeking to create a more holistic perspective on visual rhetoric. It is traditional because we can locate an aesthetic or visual theory in Aristotle's Rhetoric, for example in the enigmatic metaphor, bringing-before-the-eyes. In two case studies in two chapters--Comparing Pity and Fear in Rhetoric and Poetics; and The Rhetoric of Vanitas Painting--I demonstrate that the effect of this metaphor is not explicitly cognitive; but instead, a perceptive and emotional capacity. Aristotle's theory allows the audience to participate in the persuasive process and encompasses its role as the target of emotional appeals. This dissertation offers an alternative approach to the study of visual rhetoric and reminds us that we should revive an ancient perspective on rhetoric. Ultimately, I argue that rhetoric circumscribes aesthetics, which is a challenge to the conventional assumption that rhetoric and aesthetics are different phenomena.

THE RHETORIC OF VERISIMILITUDE by Kathleen Bingham A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Communication The University of Utah May 2015 Copyright © Kathleen Bingham 2015 All Rights Reserved The Univers i t y o f U tah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Kathleen Bingham has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Danielle Endres , Chair April 28, 2014 Date Approved Tarla Rai Peterson , Co-Chair April 28, 2014 Date Approved Leonard C. Hawes , Member April 28, 2014 Date Approved Matthew Potolsky , Member April 28, 2014 Date Approved James Anderson , Member April 28, 2014 Date Approved and by Kent A. Ono , Chair of the Department of Communication and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT In the dissertation, I use verisimilitude to explain first, how the force of visual rhetoric operates in works of art; second, for understanding how visual rhetoric influences audiences framed as both rhetorical and aesthetic viewing practices; and finally, how art is mediated in cognitive and emotional ways. Works of art call our attention to the power of these types of intercommunication because "as often as language teaches us to see," Michael Ann Holly wrote, "art instructs us in telling." Specifically, this framework highlights that audiences of visual rhetoric rely on two types of viewing practices: first, a rhetorical practice that focuses on argument, function, and symbol and second an aesthetic practice that focuses on the sensory, emotional, and artistic features of an image. These practices help us understand how audiences historically may have experienced works of art that evoked an emotional response and a symbolic meaning. This framework is simultaneously novel and traditional. It is novel because contemporary visual rhetoric scholarship has focused mainly on the functional and symbolic aspects of visual images and my dissertation (re)introduces aesthetic aspects of visual images in seeking to create a more holistic perspective on visual rhetoric. It is traditional because we can locate an aesthetic or visual theory in Aristotle's Rhetoric, for example in the enigmatic metaphor, bringing-before-the-eyes. In two case studies in two chapters-Comparing Pity and Fear in Rhetoric and Poetics and The Rhetoric of Vanitas Painting-I demonstrate that the effect of this metaphor is not explicitly cognitive but instead a perceptive and emotional capacity. Aristotle's theory allows the audience to participate in the persuasive process and encompasses its role as the target of emotional appeals. This dissertation offers an alternative approach to the study of visual rhetoric and reminds us that we should revive an ancient perspective on rhetoric. Ultimately, I argue that rhetoric circumscribes aesthetics, which is a challenge to the conventional assumption that rhetoric and aesthetics are different phenomena. iv To Don For his steadfastness and compassion TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... viii Chapters 1 THE RHETORIC OF VERISIMILITUDE .............................................................1 Overview ..................................................................................................................1 Goals, Purpose, and Research Questions .................................................................5 Definitions................................................................................................................7 Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................24 Justification of the Framework ..............................................................................27 Literature Review...................................................................................................30 Method ...................................................................................................................37 Site Visits ...............................................................................................................42 Chapters .................................................................................................................42 Conclusion .............................................................................................................49 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................52 2 COMPARING PITY AND FEAR IN RHETORIC AND POETICS.....................63 Section Overview ...................................................................................................69 Comparing Pity and Fear in Rhetoric and Poetics .................................................70 The Actor and the Spectator ..................................................................................75 Pleasure ..................................................................................................................86 Techne ....................................................................................................................94 Epideictic ...............................................................................................................96 Unified Elements .................................................................................................102 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................104 Bibliography ........................................................................................................107 3 THE RHETORIC OF VANITAS ..........................................................................112 Terms ...................................................................................................................118 Historical Background .........................................................................................121 Case Study of Herman Steenwyck's Vanities ......................................................125 Ekphrasis and Content .........................................................................................135 Epideictic and Form .............................................................................................149 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................158 Bibliography ........................................................................................................166 4 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................173 Section 1: Theme .................................................................................................176 Section 2: Visual Strategies .................................................................................181 Section 3: Vocabulary ..........................................................................................185 Section 4: Seminal Texts .....................................................................................189 Section 5: Findings and Implications ...................................................................196 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS These printed pages represent far more than the end of many years of study and writing. This dissertation also represents the relationships with many generous and inspiring people since I began my graduate work at the University to Utah. I truly appreciate each contribution to my development as a scholar and teacher. To my committee chairs, Danielle Endres and Tarla Rai Peterson, who helped me navigate the dissertation process and whose edits on numerous revisions helped me to focus on the main points and to clarify confusing passages. They demonstrate in their work the notion that rigorous scholarship must be accessible to everyone; they inspired me to do my best. Most of all, they were gracious mentors. To my committee members James A. Anderson, Leonard Hawes, and Matthew Potolsky for their encouraging words, thoughtful criticism, and time and attention during busy semesters. To Connie Bullis: her suggestions, understanding and support made a difference. To my professors for showing me by example and through challenging coursework how to think critically and how the best teachers teach: James Anderson, Matthew Potolsky, Marouf Hasian, Mary Strine, Helene Shugart, Paul Haanstad, and Mark Bergstrom. To my colleagues for sharing their ideas and thoughts through stimulating and thoughtful discussion. To the Department of Communication staff for assisting me with the administrative tasks necessary for completing my doctoral program, particularly Jessica Tanner. I am grateful for my amazing copy editors, Gemma Gough, Laura Rawlings, and David Linford. To all, I appreciate your contribution to my work in ways that are difficult to express in words. ix CHAPTER 1 THE RHETORIC OF VERISIMILITUDE . . . we prefer seeing to everything else. The reason is that [sight], most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. Aristotle, Metaphysica, 980a . . . because a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing. Kenneth Burke Overview It was not when I was 18 or 21 that I fell in love with Dutch 17th century painting. Then, on my semester abroad in Paris, I preferred Monet's atmospheric shores. When was it that my eye grew fond of paths crossing rutted flatlands, blasted trees, and forsaken ruins by painters whose names I could barely pronounce? Dutch realism was at first (well) just a little bit dull. Slowly and with time, Dutch art began to reveal its symbolic metaphors, its rich, complex, and exquisite aesthetic detail. So, it is fair to question why 17th century landscape painter Aelbert Cuyp-who concentrated on naturalized realism-would paint glowing cows. Was it because they were simply there? Undoubtedly not. The cow is but one metaphor for the Dutch. Holland was the cow. Superior to any other cow, it was the source of prosperity and well-being for the nation as a whole. The pastoral beast contented on Cuyp's foreground 2 stands in for "freedom, security and the tranquility of living life in accord with nature."1 There is something of the sacramental rite in the way Cuyp chose to portray the cows and the glow hanging over the city. The motif appears as homage to scriptural motif, a reminder that the symbolic nature of Dutch art is not that far from the meditative and its Biblical antecedents. Art is fiction. We are not perturbed that Cuyp's cows, so neatly at home in their landscape, are not precisely the cows we may have seen, rather they are a verisimilitude or type of representation. The concept of verisimilitude guides this dissertation. It is the process in which fiction becomes plausible. As audience to fiction, we willingly suspend our disbelief to justify nonrealistic elements in art or literature and engage with the representation.2 The process enables communication between an audience and artwork or drama. We know that we are watching an actor or looking at marks on a canvas, but we willingly accept them as representational in order to experience what the poet or artist is attempting to convey. More than a copy of nature and reality, verisimilitude is a type of truth likeness or mimesis.3 Verisimilitude re-presents a plausible reality in visual form, relying on both resemblances and culturally representative metaphors. To be significant for a situated audience, works of art should demonstrate a degree of reality, or verisimilitude. In the dissertation, I use verisimilitude to explain how the force of visual rhetoric 1 Alan Chong, Wouter Kloek, Celeste Brusati, Still Life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550 −1720, (Amsterdam, Waanders Publishing. 2000); Arthur Wheelock Jr., Aelbert Cuyp, 2001, 16. 2 The idea was put forth in English by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/biographia.html. 3 Poetics is Aristotle's treatise on mimesis. He stated that human beings are mimetic beings: they create texts (art) that reflect and represent reality. Heath, Poetics. 3 involves both rhetorical and aesthetic viewing practices and how the term is a heuristic framework for understanding how visual rhetoric influences audiences. Specifically, my claim in this framework highlights that audiences of visual rhetoric who lived in a particular milieu relied on two types of viewing practices: 1) a rhetorical practice that focuses on argument, function, and symbol and 2) an aesthetic practice that focuses on the sensory, emotional, and artistic features of an image. These practices help us understand how situated audiences may have experienced works of art that evoked an emotional response and a symbolic meaning. Rather than a theory, the dissertation offers an approach to visual understanding. The lenses, concepts, and method include discussion, analysis, and evidence in case studies and demonstrate how we can frame as practices the way art might have been viewed and why this matters to visual rhetoric. This framework is simultaneously novel and traditional. It is novel because contemporary visual rhetoric scholarship has focused mainly on the functional and symbolic aspects of visual images, and my dissertation (re)introduces aesthetic aspects of visual images in seeking to create a more holistic perspective on visual rhetoric. It is traditional because we can locate an aesthetic or visual theory in Aristotle's Rhetoric. My dissertation offers an alternative approach to the study of visual rhetoric and reminds us that we should revive an ancient perspective on rhetoric. Ultimately, I argue that rhetoric circumscribes aesthetics, which is a challenge to the conventional assumption that rhetoric and aesthetics are different phenomena. In this study I am interested in using verisimilitude as a lens to show how works of art can be analyzed as viewing practices mediated in visual and verbal ways. Works of art call our 4 attention to the power of visual and verbal intercommunication because "as often as language teaches us to see, " Michael Ann Holly wrote, "art instructs us in telling. The exchange works actively in both directions."4 Sidney Zink's remarks focus our attention on how aesthetics mediates and completes rhetoric: I think there is a simple way out of the dilemma of the. . . [work of art's] immediate aesthetic value and the symbolic [rhetorical] nature of its medium. This is to recognize that linguistic meanings are, like colors . . . themselves particular qualities.5 Much as verbal depictions rhetorically confine what we are prompted to see, visual depictions contain our verbal responses. Rhetorical viewing shapes what we imagine we see. Conversely, visual texts foster, interrogate, and display visual and expressive elements when words fail. Zink suggests we regard rhetoric and aesthetics as types of visual understanding. Symbolic concepts and experiential perceptions focus our attention on two different but important dimensions. The above provides a brief overview of the theme of the dissertation. This dissertation is a rhetorical project. It extrapolates from certain classical theories and concepts as a way to understand aesthetic and rhetorical viewing practices and how these rhetorical viewing practices in the chapters merge form and content. The next section explains the dissertation's purpose, goals, and research questions. A second section establishes definitions of terms important to understanding the discussion, analysis, and case studies in the dissertation. The section is a rationale for the terms and how they will appear in the dissertation chapters. A third section presents the theoretical framework for viewing practices of works of art. The fourth section 4 Michael Ann Holly, Past Looking: Historical Imagination and the Rhetoric of Image, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), 11. 5 Sidney Zink, "The Poetic Organism, " The Journal of Philosophy, (XL11 1945), 119-120. 5 presents a literature review of seminal works. The fifth section explains a method for viewing works of art using the heuristic of verisimilitude. The sixth section previews the case studies for chapters. A conclusion synthesizes work in a brief observation and offers directions for future work. Goals, Purpose, and Research Questions The dissertation's goal is to extend the scope of visual rhetoric by utilizing insights from linguistics and art history and reviving classical rhetorical concepts to better account for the role of aesthetics in visual rhetoric. The investigation expands the scope of the subfield of visual rhetoric by examining ways audiences may have viewed works of art. The purpose of the dissertation is to examine two sides of visual rhetorical analysis: symbolic meaning and aesthetic experience. Viewing is itself a communicative artifact. So, if viewing art is a relationship between art and the viewer, then investigating the way a situated audience may have practiced viewing shows how viewing mediates works of art. Whether these particular audiences were aware of correspondences of objects-cultural, religious, and artistic techne-under examination depends on the criteria specific audiences discussed in the chapters used to test these discriminations. Rhetoric interprets art in symbolic ways; aesthetics evaluates artistic properties. The key that makes possible the transmission between an artifact and its situated audience lies in the concept of perception. Perception is first a manner a particular audience may see an image and second, how that audience may perceive an idea within an image. Intertwined in the milieus I discuss is the ancient understanding of rhetoric and 6 aesthetics (or art theory) as types of perceptive visualizations of images and ideas. The ancient idea of perception is the faculty of awareness, according to Aristotle: to the thinking soul, images serve as if [my italics] they were contents of perception. When perception operates in a rhetorical sense it enables a particular audience to discern symbolic meaning; when it operates in an aesthetic sense it relates only to having these discriminations. The perceptive lens creates questions of what (the aesthetic) and how (the symbolic) milieu's audience may have visualized in practice. In other words, what a situated audience may see is color, line, and brush strokes; how they may have seen is influenced by the period's cultural frame. The dissertation will further the examination of how art is an appropriate subject of rhetorical investigation; it will suggest how examining viewing as rhetorical and aesthetic practices in historical frames contributes to the subfield of visual rhetoric. No study has yet probed an approach to art in this manner. Research Questions 1. If, as Sonja Foss has indicated, rhetoric is defined as "the human use of symbols to communicate, "6 then a) Is the purpose of art to communicate as rhetoric and propose meaning? b) Must art be symbolic? 2. What difference does the historical or cultural framework make to our understanding of rhetorical and aesthetic viewing? 3. What difference does aesthetics make to the subfield of visual rhetoric? 6 Sonja K. Foss, "Theory of Visual Rhetoric." Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media, Ken Smith; Sandra Moriatry; Keith Barbatsis, (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2005), 4. 7 Definitions This section defines the terms important to this dissertation and how they support the purpose, goals, and questions I am proposing. Each term stands in relation to other terms; the terms are the guiding concepts that will undergird dissertation chapters. Aesthetics summons commonplace associations of feelings and sensibilities. In the dissertation, aesthetics is broadly more of an approach to the what of artistic content. The question of how things appear is generally a rhetorical question. When art engages with those who become audience to it, aesthetics enables consideration of the experience of those addressed. Aesthetics relates philosophically to the sensibility of having discriminations-and describing experientially-what we see through the capacity of perception. Aesthetics embraces reasoning the integrity of artistic properties. When art is judged aesthetically, artistry, form, color, and movement are important. Aesthetics was coined in the German form Æsthetik by Alexander Baumgarten in 1735. Derived from the Greek, it meant esthetic, sensitive, sentient; it is the "perceptible to the senses." Designated as a new branch of philosophic inquiry, Baumgarten defined the discipline broadly as "the science of perception."7 He understood that the arts constitute a distinctive and significant realm of "sensuous cognition, " in which emotion plays an important part. He specified how artistic judgment relies on discrimination at a sensory level and examines art's effect and affect. Overall, he was mainly concerned with the nature of perceptual knowledge conveyed through the arts. Immanuel Kant specifies separate realms for aesthetics and reason (Critique of Judgment 1790). Aesthetics carries no proposition; rather it is "objective purposive." 7 Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: Background Source Materials. Watkins, ed., Project Gutenberg, 2009). (Chapter 3 contains a partial translation of the ‘Metaphysics'), A20/B3422. 8 [B]y an aesthetical Idea I understand that representation of the Imagination which. . . cannot be completely compassed and made intelligible by language. . . . [It] is the counterpart (pendant) of a rational Idea. . . . The Imagination (as a productive faculty of cognition) is very powerful in creating another nature, as it were, out of the material that actual nature gives it . . . and by it we remold experience, always indeed in accordance with analogical laws. . . . Such representations of the Imagination we may call Ideas, partly because they at least strive after something which lies beyond the bounds of experience, and so seek to approximate to a presentation of concepts of Reason (intellectual Ideas), thus giving to the latter the appearance of objective reality.8 Kant speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things, similar to Zink's view. If one proclaims something to be beautiful, then one requires the same liking from others and judges not just for the self but for everyone (a variation on the Categorical Imperative). Aesthetics could be said to originate (but is not named) as a type of visual theory in Aristotle's discussion of metaphor in Rhetoric and Poetics "vivifying language [and image] . . . the imagistic bringing-before-the-eyes, "9 and bringing-fear-and-pity (emotion) before-the-eyes in Poetics and as phantasmal viewing discussed in De Anima. Chapter 1 of the dissertation examines the idea of bringing-pity-and-fear-before-the-eyes by comparing how pity and fear are rendered in Rhetoric and Poetics. The texts show specifically how orators and actors use gestures and movement (energeia) to rhetorically perform and communicate emotions. Aesthetics functions as dialectic to rhetoric. Aristotle's theory of visualization first appears in Poetics, considered the older of the two books, but Rhetoric examines his visual theory in detail. Ekphrasis is a literary and vivid description of a work of art. Anciently, the term referred to a description of any thing, person, or experience, as in Homer's extended 8 Kant, Critique of Judgment, Div. 1, part 22. 9 Aristotle, Rhet. III. 9 description of Achilles Shield in Iliad, Book 18, and in Horace's ut picture poesis10 in which one medium of art relates to another medium by defining and describing its essence and to illuminate form; it provides liveliness for audiences. Emotion is the effect and affect that art produces in audiences in aesthetic ways such as sadness, praise, and joy. The response is associated with visual metaphor as well in Rhetoric. Energeia is the human capacity to activate visual effects. Discussed in Rhetoric, energeia in metaphors signify, transfer, or associate a familiar thought; energeia achieves a desired effect by aiding audiences to see or visualize images. Aristotle actualizes metaphor in the term energeia to show how emotions come before-the-eyes in a visual sense. Aristotle does not discuss how energeia achieves its desired effect in metaphor, only to indicate that metaphorai's origin is in perception. Two examples are analogy, such as ". . . the stone is to Sisyphus, " (a symbolic thought in perceptive action) and "now and then the Greeks darting forward on their feet"11 (visualized action), and transference: exchanging or associating one concept or image for another as in the exemplary Homer-"he makes everything move and live, and energeia is motion."12 "[And] In all his work, he gains his fame by creating activity . . . then to the plain rolled the ruthless stone' and ‘the arrow flew, ' and [the arrow was] ‘eager to fly. . .'"13 The vivid descriptions activate visual and cognitive mechanisms. 10 That poetry and painting might be linked was not original to Horace, though he coined the phrase, ut pictura poesis. Horace would have known the work of Plutarch, who attributed the quotation "Poema pictura loquens, pictura poema silens" to Simonides of Keos in his book De Gloria Atheniesium. Plutarch employed the association to laud historians who wrote imagistic prose so that readers could see the moments they were reading. (The Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms), 288. 11 Aristotle, Rhet. III, 1114b, 28-9. 12 Aristotle, Rhet. III, 1412a. 13 Aristotle, Rhet. III, 1412a. 10 Richard Moran says, "It is no exaggeration to say that the primary virtue of metaphor for Aristotle is the ability [my italics] to set something vividly before the eyes of the audience."14 Richard Moran's point emphasizes visual capacity: bringing-before-the- eyes is a gloss in terms of energeia and epideictic, the visual activity that makes inanimate things appear alive. We see movement; "the explication of energeia in metaphor is progressively refined from the representation of movement to the representation of something alive. . . "15 John Kirby's point is similar: "energeia and bringing-before-the eyes appear synonymous since metaphor and energeia overlap." George Kennedy says that energeia is characteristic of Aristotle's emphasis on the visual: "it is sometimes but not always personification."16 Epideictic was historically a unified theory that intertwined aesthetic excellence and cultural meaning in the context of community values. In the first sense, the term relates composition and intention, artistic inventiveness and scientific order and designates excellence of technique in art and in performance. In the second sense, the term conveys civic and aesthetic virtue. Epideictic in the dissertation applies to both aesthetic judgment of material artifact and to symbolic rhetorical judgment of art. Each aspect conveys types of audience identity. Jeffery Walker suggests that the epideictic shapes and cultivates "basic codes of values and beliefs by which a society or culture lives . . . it [epideictic] shapes the ideologies and imaginaries . . . the deep commitments . . . constituting the very grounds 14 Newman, Aristotle and Style. (Lewiston, NY, Edwin Mellon Press, 2005), 232. 15 Ibid., 109-110. 16 Ibid. 11 of culture with which a society shapes itself."17 Lawrence Rosenfield's reading of Aristotle shows that the purpose of epideictic is simply and solely to display the luminosity of timeless excellence. It makes known and shows forth an idea or image or techniques of excellence in order to persuade us to gaze at the presumed moral aura glowing from within works of art. The interpretation emphasizes that effects of technique combine with moral affects to edify audiences. Critically, Rosenfield asserts that the fleeting nature of the appearance of excellence is in the present rather than a sustained reality. In the 15th century, audiences understood that the term's moral virtue was synonymous with displays of artistic merit. The practice and interpretation continued into the emerging Scientific Age in the 17th century. Identification is the process in which a situated audience connects on a moral, personal, or experiential level. The term draws on rhetorical conditions that create powerful moments of symbolic identification with works of art. Morality and religion are types of identification: they convey a communion between art and community values. For example, 17th century Dutch audiences identify moral and nationalistic values and meaning within art. Kenneth Burke's Grammar and A Rhetoric of Motives shows how visual metaphors give voice to the way contemporary audiences affiliate and identify with works of art-and the ambiguity that exists between those audiences and their cherished values, especially moral identities. Burke describes as rhetorical any encounter that prompts a "persuasion ‘to attitude, '" which would permit poetic engagement.18 Rather 17 Rhetorics of Display. Lawrence, J. Prelli, ed, "Introduction." (Columbia, SC: USC, University of Carolina Press, 2006). 3, 4; 154. 18 Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives, (Berkley, University of California Press, 1950), 144. 12 than rhetoric as persuasion, identification includes any experience that does the work of "symbolic inducement of social cooperation." Burke says in Grammar, . . . the simples case of persuasion is less a sort of argument than it is a kind of human relationship, you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture [my italics], tonality, people interact using symbols and are influenced by that interaction to understand themselves and their relation to each other differently. That different understanding prompts a change of identity, and this change may involve identification not just with mankind or the world in general, but with some kind of congregation that also implies some related norms of differentiation and segregation.19 Gregory Clark observes that "[Burke's] . . . key term of identification teaches the lesson that rhetorical power operates well beyond the boundaries of conventional public discourse"20 and includes a full range of symbols mined by audiences. In Chapter 3, entitled The Visual Rhetoric of Vanitas, I discuss interconnections between identities of 17th century Dutch Calvinists; how these audiences encounter symbols and align themselves with them in religion and in secular works of art. The aesthetic experiences are as rhetorical for audiences as listening to a sermon. Mimesis is sometimes interpreted as imitation; however, ancient perspectives show that the term means much more. The concept is central to the dissertation because of its rhetorical and aesthetic significance. Aristotle emphasizes the visual and material status of works of art because the meaning of mimesis is to embody or enact likeness from an art's material form. What we see or hear is art's significance; mimesis resides in the representation of the object itself. It is striking, for example, that Aristotle emphasizes in his discussion of perception and of metaphors that the visual action of placing objects (or emotion as 19 Ibid., 50. 20 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 5. 13 object) "before-the-mind's-eye, " "this is that" is a mimetic action that requires energeia or activity to enable the transference.21 Nelson Goodman diverts attention away from the mimetic nature of the arts: the "cognitive turn in aesthetics" in Languages of Art (1968) explains that when we see a visual representation in art we are viewing a symbol system. We discover in Rhetoric and Poetics, however, that the language of art is fundamentally mimetic, not symbolic. Stephen Halliwell's insight shows that in mimesis and in metaphor we do not so much consciously observe or make a connection; rather we see one thing-the material work of art-as another in the representational field of the represented world. Halliwell says, . . . if this is correct, we see that Aristotle's idea of mimesis allows for the necessity and centrality of the mimetic medium: representational works do not offer us deceptive pseudo realities [as Plato claimed]. . . but the fictive signification of possible [plausible] reality in artistic medium that allow such reality to be recognized and responded to coherently . . . because mimetic works need not [my italics] . . . represent independently attested particulars. . . aesthetic understanding cannot be limited to matching a copy with a known original, nor can it be reduced to the merely factual and immediate registering that a certain kind of thing has been represented.22 Whereas imitation attempts a copy of an original (Plato), mimesis re-enacts and re-presents in a nonliteral yet clear way. Chapter 2 specifically discusses how in art mimesis should be clearly separated from symbolic and semiotic interpretation because it is different in kind from language: it conveys understanding of the critical nature of the form or medium to other types of representational likenesses. The term helps explain the emotional impact and visual immediacy of a protagonist's moving performance in an 21 Aristotle, Rhet., III, 10; Poetics, VX, 11.1455a22−30. 22 Stephen Halliwell, Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems (New Jersey: Princeton UP, 2002), 190-191. 14 Attic play or the polished brushstrokes on a vanitas canvas. When Baumgarten and other 18th century aesthetic theorists spoke of art they meant preeminently, the mimetic arts. The term mistakenly came to be known as the "fine arts." The 18th century misreading might explain why visual rhetoric dismisses mimetic representation from its field of study. Perception premises the what and how of viewing practices. De Anima describes perception as "a synthesis and retention of sense-perceptions" and "applies [directs] thought to objects of sense-perception."23 In the dissertation, perception is a theory of reception and a general faculty. In the theory of reception, perception is the soul's capacity for awareness of sensory experience (some scholars prefer body to soul). When perception is aesthetic, seeing in the largest sense is whatever we are aware of in art, the act of noticing itself and associated experiences of emotion in visual awareness of sensory objects. As a faculty, perception is the capacity to enform and change the affected thing's becoming-like. Audiences rhetorically transform a visual image into a concept, a symbol, or an emotion. Perception then enables us to receive sensory properties of works of art: colors, textures, other visual aspects of artistic forms; and interpret symbolic meaning. If we say an object seems to contain the craftsman's soul, it is a way of imparting to some matter made to exemplify it. ". . . the perceptive faculty is in potentiality such as the object of perception already is in actuality."24 It is clear that Aristotle has both ideas in mind: reception designates a theory and a capacity. Perception then premises how aesthetic and rhetorical viewing practices evolve from ancient rhetorical understanding of the term. 23 Aristotle, de Anima ii 5, 418a3-6; ii 12, 424a17-21. 24 Aristotle, de Anima ii 5, 418a3-6. 15 Phantasia is sometimes interpreted simply as imagination. However, phantasia always entails perception and is cognitive and imaginative. It is an affectation that lies in our power whenever we choose to use it because it is always possible to call up mental pictures.25 Aristotle sometimes recognizes phantasia as a distinct capacity, on par with perception and mind and imagination, 26 but it is not exactly any one of these entities. Chapter 1 introduces a type of visual theory in Aristotle. In the discussion, Aristotle distinguishes phantasia from perception in De Anima iii: it is ". . . that in virtue of which an image occurs in us involved in thoughts, dreams, and memories." It is the faculty which produces, stores, and recalls the images used in a variety of cognitive and conceptual ways including guiding action.27 Because he tends to treat phantasia pictographically, Aristotle seems to regard the images imagined in cognitive conceptions as representations or likenesses of external objects. In this sense, phantasia is required for mimesis-the focus is directed toward the material form. Imaginative thought requires images so that "whenever one contemplates, one necessarily at the same time contemplates in images."28 Michael Frede captures the broad meaning of the terms: Phantasia does triple duty. It designates the capacity, the activity or process, and the product or the result. . . We have no single word in English that would do all three jobs. . . ‘appearance' in a wider sense should be regarded as the central meaning of phantasia to which all functions of the terms are related. It would then be (i) the capacity to experience an appearance, (ii) the on-going appearance itself, and (iii) what appears.29 In the dissertation, phantasia incorporates Frede's terminology and links mimesis to 25 Aristotle, Rhet., 427b, 16-22. 26 Aristotle, de Anima iii, 414b, 415a. 27 Aristotle, de Anima iii, 428aa1-2; 429a4-7, and in De Memoria 1, 450a22-25. 28 Aristotle, de Anima iii 8, 432a8-9, 431a16-17; De Memoria 1, 449b31-450a1. 29 Martha C. Nussbaum and Amélie Oksenberg Rorty, "The Cognitive Role of Phantasia in Aristotle, " Essays on Aristotle's De Anima, (Oxford: OUP, 2005), 279. 16 tragedian play and Dutch vanitas painting. Phantasia enables situated audiences to experience an appearance as emotion-and it enables creating meaning (aesthetic and rhetorical)-out of the experience of being with art. Semiotics is the study of cultural sign processes (semiosis), analogy, metaphor, signification and communication, signs, and symbols. It is the study of the structure and meaning of language. Some visual rhetors such as Marguerite Helmers assert that the image is itself a carrier of meaning.30 The chapters dispute this claim: symbolic meaning is instead a function of cultural interpretation of, not in art. Symbolic viewing of art is an example. To Charles Sanders Peirce, semiotics is not a theory of knowledge but phenomenological representation. Things exist in a reality outside of what we perceive or think about them. The triadic theory includes icon or image-the index that raises in the viewer a memory of a similar icon-and the symbol, or the mental representation in the mind's eye. Peirce calls the symbol metaphor. Peirce's distinctions are useful to visual rhetoricians because they establish a formal terminology that considers different types of imagistic sign systems. Roland Barthes' insight for visual rhetoric is that the assembling of the sign (object), the signifier (points to, indicates) and the signified (the referent, the object or idea being referred to) is a rhetorical act. Semiotics, or sign-use, is antirealist. This is because the core of semiotic theory in art history is by definition the factors involved in making and interpreting signs and the development of conceptual tools that help audiences grasp that process in the study of works of art. In one sense, semiotics articulates the frame of cultural and environmental 30 Defining Visual Rhetorics, Charles A. Hill, Marguerite Helmers (Nahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004), 64. 17 references important to interpreting works of art conceptually. Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson posit that historical context is constructed, is itself text, "and thus consists of signs that require interpretation"31 because context is an illusion. Rather than context, Culler proposes the term "‘framing' . . . how signs are constituted by various discursive practices."32 The sign or image points out but does not tell. Barbie Zelizer believes that representation (mimesis) subjugates itself to rhetoric through subjectivity, voice, and contingency. Zelizer says we project "altered ends" when cultures interpret representations: inserting their desires and identity.33 In one way, Zelizer is right: as I suggest, rhetoric circumscribes mimesis and symbolic meaning. However, Zelizer misses the point in asserting that mimesis (an artistic representation) is the way a thing appears in objective reality. Because art is fiction, art begins with how a particular audience senses an object of art as plausible fiction. When locating symbolic meaning becomes the primary purpose of art, the role of human emotion may be missed altogether. Artistic judgment both interprets symbolic meaning and evaluates aesthetic properties. And the experience of art is aesthetic. Semiotics is but one interpretation of art. Particular audiences specify the aim-extrapolate meaning from objects-arbitrary, culture-specific meanings when they assign meaning to symbols such as desires and identity. Like cultural framing, mimetic framing establishes the centrality of the material form of art, thereafter how it is constituted, how signs become discursive practices. 31 Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson, "Semiotics and Art History, " The Art Bulletin (Vol. 73, No. 2, June 1991), 174-298. 32 Ibid. 33 Robert Hariman, John Louis Lucaides. No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 7. 18 In the dissertation, mimesis is the more expansive term than semiotics because it circumscribes rhetorical idea and aesthetic experience. Rhetorical reading in the dissertation is the phenomenological realities of semiotics that Peirce proposes with the important caveat that Bal, Bryson, and Culler propose: that cultural context is not simply a priori or an epistemological-cultural given fact. Semiology is rhetorical interpretation of specific sign cultural systems: it extends from the object and is a type of visual text that gives way to interpretation. Verisimilitude, paradoxically intensely personal and highly social, the term represents processes of artistic creation in mimesis outlined in Poetics and as a visual type of discerning in the ancient epideictic. Evident in the expressive metaphor, bringing-before- the-eyes, verisimilitude captures the idea that an image it brought into consciousness (creation), the specific audience conceives of its form, independent of cultural meaning. Verisimilitude is vital to art in 15th and 16th century Renaissance humanism. In the dissertation the term is a type of mimesis or representation of plausible reality in visual form; it is fiction, just as works of art are fiction. The term permits art and explicit audiences to create truth-likenesses-visual resemblances and in culturally representative metaphors-authentically without worrying about the facts. The artist or playwright represents images imaginatively yet plausibly. The reader of art enters into a discourse with an artist and the visual text and agrees to suspend disbelief.34 Actual truth then becomes less important than the art that conveys images and produces ideas. Rather than seeing a work of art as another thing, that 34 Aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. Biographia Literaria, 1817, Chapter XIV, in Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. by H.J. Jackson, (Oxford, 1985), 314. 19 audience sees the visual representation in terms of the represented world as Halliwell has said. Verisimilitude is an important framework for understanding rhetorical and aesthetic viewing practices predicated on perception, phantasia, and epideictic. Verisimilitude is the overall theme of the dissertation. Viewing practices are aesthetic and symbolic or taken together, visual rhetoric. The practices reveal different methods and behaviors: looking at works rhetorically in semiotic interpretation is different from viewing in the aesthetics of mimetic viewing. I am trying to present the tension between the two ways audiences evaluated the effects of art aesthetically and interpreted the affects in cultural meaning in art in symbolic ways. The two approaches in their opposition represent basic types. On the one hand, aesthetics' fully material externalized description (ekphrasis) reveals creative expression. A situated audience becomes aware of image in the foreground of consciousness. The display is the unmistakable meaning of form itself. Aesthetic viewing momentarily releases the viewer from the existential burden of not knowing. Aesthetics in the dissertation is ontological, epistemological, and historical. Ontologically, aesthetic viewing is simply that a particular audience has awareness of an image. Epistemologically, aesthetic viewing identifies the artistic properties of art. Last, aesthetics has its origins in ancient rhetoric-the critical theory informs a mimetic meaning of rhetorical understanding in Rhetoric and Poetics. However, rhetorical viewing brings cultural meaning into high relief, the influence of the concealed or unexpressed background quality, the multiplicity of meanings, the need for interpretation, culturally specific claims, development of historical antecedents, and a preoccupation with the cultural problem. Audiences of a 20 milieu that practice rhetorical viewing interpret cultural values or codes within art as to explain art's symbolic meaning. Examples include the tradition of reading art as text in the ancient tradition of ekphrasis. In addition, rhetorical meanings reveal a good deal about the nature of visual rhetoric as a form of cultural communication and visual culture. As a viewing practice, rhetoric depends for its veracity on an explicit audience's ability to construct and display concepts, desire, and identity in works of art. If an assumption exists that art (and genre) competes for attention through effective and affective strategies, then that audience examines selected works of art for the implication and impact of each viewing strategy. The framework suggests that the interpretation and evaluation of art in the ancient meaning of rhetorical capacitates of art embrace, rather than move beyond, aesthetic, expressive response. Emotional pleasure is more than cultural desire; rather when a particular audience reads and identifies with the object of contemplation, works reconnect the viewer with the human response to sensuous satisfactions. Aesthetic judgment and rhetorical judgment occur all at once but seem to occur separately. Indeed, readers of art discern and dismantle each judgment as two separate viewing practices. Visual metaphor, notes Stephen Halliwell, is the pleasurable affect in understanding of metaphor is its mimetic imaginative display of linguistic and visual representations unified, . . . our response to a mimetic work must always rest on the cognitive recognition of representational significance; but that such a response is necessarily a compound reaction [my italics] to the represented reality and to the artistic rendering of it. The compound quality of aesthetic experience has the important implication that it is wrong to regard the two components as properly independent. . .35 35 Stephen Halliwell, The Aesthetics of Mimesis: ancient texts and moderns problems. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002), 65. 21 Halliwell's point ties to Aristotle's exemplary trope, the metaphor in Rhetoric that emphasizes the visual aspect of emotion, the subject of the first chapter. When viewers of all milieus see pity and fear come before-the-eyes, they enjoy the experience in emotion in proper proportion to the quality of artistic representation (epideictic teche). They do not first see pity and fear as a means of persuasion and then feel painful emotions. Rather the affect produced is pleasure artfully portrayed. In the case of metaphor's imaginative affect in tragedy, Aristotle is analyzing what Foss might refer to as a dimension of its creativity. Halliwell stresses the poet's search for ". . . vividness will be served by strong imagination."36 Aristotle's detail enables the rhetorical nature of metaphorical representation to fuse with aesthetic understanding of metaphor: the soul never thinks without image in the mind.37 The Aesthetics of Mimesis emphasizes a compounding effect: delight and learning from metaphor. The richest metaphors enable us to see or visualize one thing in terms of another.38 Cicero notes, "there is no mode of embellishment . . . that throws a greater luster upon language."39 Aristotle says, "metaphor must be transferred from things related, but not obviously so as it is a sound intuition in philosophy to see similarities between things. . ."40 In the dissertation, visual metaphor is evident in reading into works' cultural associations explained linguistically; the perspective enabled specific audiences to interpret and make meaning of art. A rhetorical viewing in Chapter 2 explains how 36 Ibid., 25-26. 37 Aristotle, Rhet. III; Poet. 21. 38 Aristotle, Rhet. III, 1404. 39 On Orators and Oratory, Journal of Black Studies (Vol. 18, No. 3, Mar., 1988), 341. 40 Aristotle, Rhet., 14122, 10-13. 22 audiences of the period produced small sermons of moral import by discerning works metaphorically. For example, the metaphor, vanity, vanity, all is vanity is culturally and religiously linked to images of particular objects of value-such as books or swords- curiously paired with skulls and candles in Dutch vanitas paintings in the 17th century. I.A. Richards explained his theory in Tenor-Vehicle Model of Metaphor.41 For example, the concept vanity is the tenor or the subject. The concept is the vehicle or image that conveys the subject-in Dutch art, painted swords, skulls, and candles. When visual metaphor ornaments an image, the vehicle and tenor intermingle visually and linguistically in the mind's eye, such as in the phrase, bringing-fear-and-pity-before-the-eyes in Poetics. Visual rhetoric's growth is the study of visual imagery in rhetorical studies. The study has resulted in an emerging recognition that visual images provide access to a range of human experience not always available through the study of discourse alone. The major shift in the field of rhetoric has focused an increasing amount of the discipline's attention on visual objects and the rhetorical process of interpreting art. Whether particular audiences decipher the variances between practices, each subtlety does demonstrate forms of communication and responses available to audiences. Recent studies in visual rhetoric have evolved from semiotic analysis to suggest that images contain and communicate symbolic meaning and function as ideological forces in society. Moreover, the symbolic is essentially a linguistic dimension. As currently practiced in the field of communication, visual rhetoric unhinges analysis of pleasure/expressiveness aspects in works in favor of a focus on art's 41 Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor. Robert Czerny, Kathleen McLaughlin, John Costello, trans. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 96, 258. 23 functionality and propositions. For example, Defining Visual Rhetorics explains the primary difference between the Sister Arts tradition (ut pictura poesis-a picture is like a poem from Horace) developed by Jean Hagstrom in 1958-and visual rhetoric. Helmers notes, visual rhetoricians are not working with correspondences between written works and visual images so much as they are asking how visual images are themselves carriers (not producers) of meaning.42 The dissertation challenges this notion. Visual rhetorical analysis of art does make certain claims and propositions on art. The claim I am proposing is that rhetoric-dating from visual practice in ancient mimetic form examined in Poetics and Rhetoric- embraces perception and emotional expression of art in aesthetic ways while still advancing symbolic interpretation. Works of art (art) are human-made creations such paintings, literature, and theater; art is considered in its expressive artistic effect and in its role as emotional affect on audiences. Art in the epideictic is contemplative and morally edifying. The term helps explain the aesthetic effect of art's luminosity: the timelessness of an image as it appears in the here and now (Rosenfield). Art's affect prompts the viewer to read into art's meaning. Foss explains artifact (art) as a cultural and creative human production. Art's effects and its affect situate audiences as mediators of cultural practices and as critics of art; response to art displays audience emotion and identity. The dissertation simply uses the word art when referring to works of art. 42 Hill and Helmers, Defining Visual Rhetoric, 65. 24 Theoretical Framework Aesthetics and rhetoric identify two distinct ways audiences of a particular age engage with visual discourse. They are not opposites but consider different assumptions and methods. In the dissertation, the dilemma of art's aesthetic value and the rhetorical dimension of its medium with its symbols and values recognizes that artistic properties and cultural meanings are, as Zink has observed, "themselves particular qualities" of art and require different types of analyses.43 The concepts of visualization from ancient texts expand the analysis of how rhetorical judgment and aesthetic judgment are two aspects of the rhetoric of appearances. Specifically, I will investigate the practices as types of rhetoric that display the rhetorical and aesthetic viewing practices of situated audiences. Verisimilitude is the heuristic for understanding how traditional rhetorical theory-especially mimesis- influence situated audiences. Viewing art can be seen as a contested set of practices that disputes the very definition of rhetoric itself. How practices become evident in each milieu is what becomes interesting in the chapters. Of critical importance to both viewing approaches is the foundational concept of perception from Aristotle, not just as a viewing practice, but rather an audience's capacity to view art aesthetically and rhetorically. The approach integrates the styles or types of viewing practices: 1) rhetoric focuses on the engagement of art and particular audiences though an investigation of symbolic practice, and 2) aesthetics focuses on the experience of viewing in sensory, emotional, and artistic features of the image. The viewing practices intertwine the ways situated audiences could have viewed and experienced art 43 see note 4. 25 by reviving the ancient meaning of rhetoric that considers both the impact of visual image and possible symbolic meanings. The theoretical framework is more an approach than a theory: it brings us closer to understanding how renewing our understanding of ancient text contributes to visual rhetoric in the 21st century. The framework includes evidence for the viewing practices that refer to examples from the Attic and the 17th century including proposed rhetorical and visual analysis for each. Aesthetic viewing focuses on identifying the what of art and its particular effects on audiences. In one sense, it describes compositional and artistic elements in a work, and in another sense, shows how aesthetic experience is an independent realm; both are achieved through mimesis. When a viewer sees and studies the material nature of an image-performance on the Attic stage and daubs of paint-the analysis requires reflective skills different from those needed to identify an image's symbolic nature. We can examine the process that condition works' being viewed in an aesthetic manner in three ways: 1) by investigating diverse properties of the piece that make up the peculiar pictorial style and wit of an artist, 2) by the qualities that make it enduring (epideictic), and 3) by the emotional and conceptual appeal of the composition and material. Rhetorical viewing compares how symbolic meaning could have been discerned from art. In traditions such as the practice of reading works of art as visual text and as cultural metaphor, rhetoric evolved beginning in the 20th century into its sister process, semiology. It too codifies art by framing symbolic meaning in historical time and place. The chapter show how works display and produce symbolic affect. Rhetorical viewing includes identifying cultural and religious values, identities, and philosophical propositions important to situated audiences. Context or the cultural frame is also vital to 26 understanding. I build on Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson's idea (discussed further on) that historical context or frame is illusion: the frame is itself a constructed text that requires interpretation of its lexicon and discursive practices. For example, names, labels, and narratives are concepts that direct attention to whatever is rhetorically and visually significant or desirable in a particular image. Thus, a skull conveys symbolic and metaphoric importance in the 17th century Dutch vanitas. Rhetorical looking designates a type of viewing as gaze and desire to see a thing as if it is another thing. James Elkins has said, "Looking is never innocent, nor is it final."44 Visual metaphor exhibits dual characteristics: it directs the eye to both aesthetic experience and to rhetorical representations of meaning interpreted as cultural/religious concepts. The investigation of viewing practices of art is located in two historical milieus in case studies. I suggest that the visual rhetoric of a work of art is more than analysis of discrete objects that invite propositions and questions of functionality. Rather, I infer that visual rhetoric consists both of cultural symbolic analysis and visual analysis of the material object, two distinct processes: one interpretative, the other evaluative but linked in rhetorical practice. Visual rhetoric evolves not only from the way particular audiences/critics interpret what is taken to be art's propositions; but is alternatively informed by how they discern the material nature and characteristics of art in perceptive ways without attaching symbolic meaning. The expanded definition highlights the importance of audiences having perceptual discrimination. What is more, the term now conforms to the broad discussion defined by Sonja Foss: "all the visual ways humans try to communicate."45 Visual rhetoric designates that art and the ways audiences viewed art 44 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 65. 45 Handbook of Visual Communication, Sonja Foss, "Theory of Visual Rhetoric, " 14-152. 27 is not limited to reason and identity, but also includes memory, expectation, imagination, and emotion. Ultimately, I will argue that rhetoric circumscribes aesthetics, which challenges the conventional assumption that rhetoric and aesthetics evolved from different phenomena. Justification of the Framework A historical view of material objects has generally engaged issues of spectatorship, pleasure, and desire. The aesthetic condition becomes full-blown in 18th century Enlightenment when the viewer takes hold of determining the criteria of what is beautiful. The commonplace interpretation of historical aesthetics betrays and limits an expansive view of aesthetics that includes visualization. Current scholarship in the subfield of visual rhetoric overlooks aesthetic origins which evolved from within the ancient traditions of rhetoric and is integral to it. What is at stake is the critical dialectic between the what of aesthetics and the how of rhetoric as symbolism in communication. My concern is that visual rhetoric can analyze art symbolically without speaking of the aesthetics of art as if visual analysis has nothing to do with the special matters of hearing, seeing, imagining, or understanding. Visual rhetoric's emphasis on reductive logic and historical contextualization reduces the mimetic impulse that has undergirded analysis of art from Plato and Aristotle. In current studies of visual rhetoric, art relies on the epistemological perspective alone. Rhetorical viewing has reduced art to a Platonic facsimile in the service of cultural myths and intellectual justification. The disputed status of aesthetic experience arises from the evolution of rhetoric to an exclusively linguistic art. Visual rhetoric often equates aesthetics of an earlier age with 21st century aesthetics. The discipline conflates changing styles-ones that come and go 28 along with changing social and technological conditions-with aesthetics. The understood goal of visual rhetoric in the field of communication is to interpret art as it operates as cultural production and symbolic proposition. The symbolic response to works, although critical, leaves out the range of mimetic perspectives that analyze both the impact of the effective properties of the image and the affective response of audiences situated in a historical frame. Current rhetorical analysis of art that fails to consider the impact of aesthetic judgment is of concern to John Dewey: "If viewing works of art is not also aesthetic in nature, it is a colorless and cold recognition of what has been done, used as a stimulus to the next step in a process that is essentially mechanical."46 To explore the problem under the rubric of rhetoric is altogether correct because at the heart of the rhetorical tradition lies the human capacity to create and reason in and through visual text and language. Argumentation is one side of critical interpretation of art but leaves out an important part of how humans visualize art from an aesthetic perspective. The introduction of a perceptual lens as the foundation for a viewing theory remedies what I perceive to be the problem: when visual rhetoric only considers symbolism it subsumes aesthetics. Therefore, the unique approaches and problems of rhetoric should discern cultural, symbolic, and aesthetic perception. Without delineating modes of viewing, visual rhetoric must rely exclusively on analysis of how visual images carry cultural meaning, and offer audiences propositions. For example, Anthony Blair claims that visual images are not capable of arguments; 46 John Dewey, "Aesthetic Experience as a Primary Phase and as an Artistic Development, " Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, (9, 1950), 56-58. 29 rather they offer audiences propositions.47 Margurite Helmers agrees and asserts, ". . . products [of the aesthetic tradition] bear little resemblances to what rhetoricians are now investigating"48 What is more, she claims that cultural meaning can be accessed and examined from within the image.49 I dispute the claim. I propose instead to show that visual rhetoric places too much focus on conceptual judgment and ignores how aesthetic perception contributes to visual rhetoric. Informing the dissertation are visual rhetors who have anticipated the move from text to image: W. J. T. Mitchell, Burke (1950), Martin Jay (1993), Christian Metz (2004), Rosenfield, (2004), Elkins (1997), Foss (1994), and Hill and Helmers (2004). Kenneth Burke locates the emotional realm of identity and desire in symbolic relationships. We see or imagine resemblances as-if and as-it-is that we desire.50 Earlier Burke articulated principles of aesthetics in nonverbal communication and symbols in Counter-Statement (The "poetic metaphor" closes the pages of Permanence and Change), which blurs the boundaries between poetics and rhetorical theory to include verbal and nonverbal "transformative symbols, " according to Burke. Counter Statement argues that the aesthetic (a perceptive act) is rhetorical in that it works to transform identity. The visual nature of identification advanced in the work of Christian Metz suggests that the act of asserting or imagining identity between two things that are dissimilar is based on similitude.51 Jay notes that the word "theater" has the same root as theory or theoria, "to look attentively, to behold, " to see with new eyes in epideictic expectation. "Looking is 47 Hill and Helmers, Defining Visual Rhetoric, 43. 48 Ibid., 65. 49 Ibid., 65. 50 Burke, Rhetoric of Motives, 22. 51 Barry, Ann Marie Seward. Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication. (Albany: State University Press, 1997), 121. 30 always framed by past experiences and learned ideas about how and what to see."52 What I take from the authors above is that the culturally imagined interpretation often supports cultural theory and may fail to synchronize with the actual material image. The tension is that image dislocates from text and the reverse: interpretation without evaluation becomes a type of misreading. From the perspective I am proposing we can appreciate how aesthetics and symbolic rhetoric are two sides of rhetoric and communicate different approaches, purposes, and goals. Symbolic communication depends on argument and proposition. Aesthetics requires visual judgment of art as a material subject. In the next section, I present a literature review of seminal texts. I will explicitly use concepts drawn primarily from Prelli in The Rhetorics of Display and from Aristotle in De Anima, Rhetoric, and Poetics to undergird my approach to viewing practices. The study of visual rhetoric furthered its momentum with the publication of two other important texts written in 2004: Defining Visual Rhetorics, complied by Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers (mentioned above), and Sonja K. Foss, who subsequently tackled the visual in "Theory of Visual Rhetoric"53 In the method section, I improvise from Foss. Literature Review The three seminal texts informing the dissertation are Rhetorics of Display written in 2006 by Lawrence J. Prelli and Rhetoric and Poetics written by Aristotle in approximately 367 to 347 BC. Rhetorics of Display develops the thesis that "rhetorics of 52 Hill and Helmers, Defining Visual Rhetoric, 65. 53 Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media, 141. 31 display have become the dominant communication practices of our time." Prelli's historical perspective justifies the point: ". . . questions about rhetoric and display are related and did not originate in our time but are of long-standing significance in the history of the communicative arts [as rhetoric] . . . in sketches, paintings, maps. . ." Prelli is observing that when art displays, it engages with those who become audience to it: "Works of art display rhetorically and rhetorics enact display."54 Prelli's emphasis on visualization and its centerpiece, epideictic (in addition to the critical terms ekphrasis and identity), show that the rhetoric of art is a type of human experience that includes reason and emotion and is not always available through the study of discourse alone. Next, I will focus on epideictic and how ekphrasis and identity link to the term in the dissertation. Prelli and contributor Lawrence Rosenfield explain that epideictic contributes to the historical aspect of the way image was perceived rhetorically and aesthetically. The term represents processes of artistic creation in representation or mimesis outlined in Poetics and as a visual type of discerning in the ancient epideictic. The rhetoric of the visual in the epideictic, ". . . from the Greek ‘show forth, ' [is to] ‘make known' . . . not as mere display, rather it means making manifest the ‘fleeting appearances' of excellence that otherwise would remain ‘unnoticed or invisible.'"55 In epideictic, an audience becomes a "witnesses to" the image56 in the present moment. The audience undergoes an emotional transformation when viewing the object of contemplation because aesthetics is (my italics) an epideictic encounter.57 Thus, epideictic describes how perception begins with the awareness of having perception. 54 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 3-7. 55 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 3-4. 56 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 3-4; 153. 57 Ibid., 25. 32 Rosenfield suggests that art reveals the interplay between material display and the selected meaning imposed on works. For example, moral virtue was attributed to art in the epideictic of artistic techne. Moral seeing, techne, and reasoning are "paradigms of virtue"58 and open up discovery of moral truths for audiences. The concept was especially relevant to the visual culture of the 15th and 16th centuries: artists displayed excellence in technes such as chiaroscuro and other artistry of shadings, texturing, and coloring that enhanced elements of visual composition and, at the same time, displayed moral virtues. The idea of moral painting as virtue and artist as preacher was at its height in the Dutch vanitas paintings of the 17th century discussed in Chapter 3. The visual image of fruit and flowers is itself virtuosity in the minutest detail of execution. Paintings were intended to lead a viewer to mirror the virtue displayed in techne. Ascribing virtue to image through the epideictic resembles Aristotle's description of verisimilitude in the phrases, "fleeting appearance, " and "processes of artistic creation, " detailed in Poetics. Chapter 3 shows how art transformed itself in the Scientific Age. The rhetoric of perspective that accompanied 13th century art began as an epideictic idea framed by Leon Battista Alberti in De Pictura in 1435. The artist introduced the first systematic presentation of fixed-point perspective by showing how precise artistic execution brought a profusion of details into proportionate, ordered, and visual perspective. Alberti's use of science in explaining perspective demonstrates how the scientific method was a principle to be displayed and modeled for Renaissance audiences. The stance or viewing practice of the detached observer-so critical to the emergence of modernist science-invites the audience to view art as a shrewd observer of how things that are seen now appear. Prelli 58 Ibid., 297. 33 captures the idea when he says art is ". . . enacting artistic creation as a visual performance for audiences."59 Alberti saw the art of painting as rhetorical display in that the elements of visual composition operated according to the precepts of rhetoric, and the art itself aimed at giving spectators a heighted sense of virtue comparable to the ideal orator. The practice of reading image as text through ekphrasis ties intimately to epideictic viewing. Prelli discusses the rhetorical power of ekphrasis in which visual image conveys a poetic message. Seeing image as a mimesis of virtue sheds light on the practices of audiences that understood reading visuals as text and text as image. Examples of the ekphrasis of reading images can be seen in illuminated manuscripts, books of emblems, and crafted word pictures. From visual depictions in the Shield of Achilles to the Renaissance notion of ut picture poesis, painting is mute poetry and poetry is a speaking picture (as is painting, so is poetry), ekphrasis visually displays one thing in terms of another. The practice continued into the 18th century. When Prelli and Rosenfield apply epideictic and ekphrasis to explain historically the important role visual image has played in displaying cultural values, audience identity is also at stake: In whatever manifestation displays also anticipate a responding audience whose expectations might be satisfied or frustrated, their values and interests affirmed, neglected, or challenged. The identity and behavior of particular situated audiences demonstrate that ". . . whatever is revealed through display [of art] simultaneously conceals alternative possibilities . . . this is display's rhetorical dimension.60 What art most often conceals is the undisclosed identity of an audience that imposed on 59 Ibid., 5. 60 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 2. 34 art prevailing cultural and religious agendas. For example, in the chapter, "Rhetorical Display of Civic Religion" in Prelli, Gregory Clark and S. Michael Halloran argue from Burke, "The unconscious element of persuasion which identification describes has its source in the poetic motive."61 The authors create an epideictic framework for identity that can be applied to art: "Epideictic rhetoric does not argue the ideas or ideals that bind people into community so much as it displays them to a witnessing public." Epideictic provides an audience "the opportunity of beholding a common reality, " of "joining with our community in giving thought to what we witness, " and thereby experiencing together the "luminosity" of the values and aspirations they share.62 In the dissertation, artistic images are interpreted as symbolic emblems of cultural and religious identities. In the third chapter discussing vanitas, I borrow Rosenfield and Clark's insights to demonstrate that the visual experience of a work of art is best understood using Aristotle's third category of the epideictic: the rhetorical work of generating and maintaining identity. Prelli, Rosenfield, Clark, and Halloran's discussion of epideictic that includes ekphrasis and identity remind us that epideictic has been a form of rhetoric that reenacts visual paradigms of virtue throughout history. The terms help explain particular audiences' passionate and reasoned ways of viewing art and thinking about art as values and virtue. The discussion has tried to show how audiences in the epochs I discuss search to locate mirror images of treasured values in the identity of representative signs and symbols. Prelli's attention to reinvigorating rhetoric's ancient attention to visualization and the role of the image subject supports the heuristic of verisimilitude in the 61 Ibid., 140. 62 Ibid., 141. 35 dissertation. The strength of Rhetorics of Display is that each chapter clearly establishes links to epideictic, visuality, and rhetoric as display. The work shows how each concept communicates what I broadly interpret as types of viewing practices. The reason the work is important to the dissertation is apparent in the title: the Rhetoric of Display. Rhetoric is about display-how things look or appear-a premise that insists on the full range of how displays operate rhetorically when they engage with those who become audience to them. Another important principle for the dissertation is the aspect of how things appear to particular situated audiences. Images surround us; they "compete for our attention, and make claims upon us."63 The idea of image as rhetoric is itself a disputed term in Prelli because of the full range of ways rhetoric displays both aesthetic and persuasive qualities especially in art as the dissertation maintains. Prelli supports the thesis of the dissertation: aesthetics is central to visual rhetoric and ultimately rhetoric circumscribes aesthetics, rather than being different phenomena. In the next section, I discuss Aristotle's idea of visualization, perception, and phantasia. It is worth noting that although Rosenfield stresses the fundamental visual quality of epideictic, he ignores the term's dependence on phantasia both in Rhetoric of Display and in an earlier discussion. His description argues that speaker and audience engage in "beholding reality impartially as witnesses of [my italics] Being."64 The description offers a contemplative, objective sense of epideictic but misses taking account of the term's capacity to reveal values and identity and how epideictic depends on 63 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 1-2. 64 Ibid., 5; 297. 36 phantasia as Aristotle soon shows. On the other hand, Clark and Halloran capture the way epideictic reveals audience identity in their discussion of the rhetorical display of civic religion in the presentation of images located in national parks. Aristotle explains in Rhetoric that the epideictic requires phantasia (loosely translated as imagination) to transform one thing in terms of another, or image to idea.65 Moreover, visual metaphor, ekphrasis (description), and epideictic (visualizing virtue through artistic techne) are interdependent tropes and concepts that require phantasia. The terms provide a visual vocabulary for consciously understanding sensory information as visual and imaginative data critical to metaphor.66 Aristotle's theory of visualization undergirds what I am discussing as an aesthetic viewing practice with roots in visual metaphor from Rhetoric. The rhetoric of vision is captured in the phrase: the mind (soul) never thinks without an image (de Anima). The ancient texts propose that cognition proceeds from image: that thought and concept depend on image. The notion suggests how rhetorical understanding can evolve from visualization and vivid imagery. When Aristotle discusses metaphor, he says that perception actualizes (energeia) metaphor. Newman has suggested that Aristotle's description demonstrates that metaphors activate cognitive mechanisms in spectators.67 The question left unanswered is-if our minds emerge first with an image-how does that image transition to thought? Newman simply indicates the trope does activate cognitive mechanisms, but she does not discern how phantasia determines the transition of image to thought. Rhetoric III 65 Aristotle, Rhet. III. 66 Aristotle, Rhet. III. 67 Sara Newman, Aristotle and Style. (Lewiston, NY, Edwin Mellon Press, 2005), 65. 37 provides some insight. It begins with a description of vivid imagery, "the source of the metaphor should be taken from the beautiful in effect or in visualization or in some form of sense perception"68; thereafter the metaphor is within reach of the cognitive dimension. I will expand on this theory in the chapters of the dissertation. For example, we can show how Aristotle's enigmatic bringing-before-the-eyes is both actualized image and a descriptive process that occurs by way of phantasia and epideictic and how they ornament image in Aristotle's schema. Phantasia in visual metaphor captures the interweaving of actualization in the terms. For example, fleeting visual appearance and excellence of properties in art require phantasia in human experience that otherwise would remain unnoticed or invisible. In addition, Rhetoric and Poetics frame emotion as a rhetorical aspect of viewing, visualizing produces audience affects and "ornaments ways of being affected or moved [vis-à-vis metaphor]."69 When viewing practices are rightly understood as investigations and apprehension of how sense perception informs reason, we rediscover the critical nature of visual elements in the rhetorical tradition: the human capacity to create visions of order and to share them with others. Method I will explicitly use visual and philosophical concepts drawn from Aristotle, Prelli, and Foss to guide my analyses. The visual analysis of vanitas paintings will be based on site visits to museums. The primary framework for method is from Foss' seminal work, Visual Rhetoric. A point of view for viewing painting and interpretation 68 Aristotle, Rhet. III, 1450b13. 69 Aristotle, Rhet. III, 4.415b25. 38 comes from Slavoj Zizek's idea of retroactive memory that decides what will have been seen and how art will be analyzed and from Griselda Pollock's "reading against the grain."70 The points of view help position the viewing practices. We are always rewriting history, according to Zizek. We read the past as a symbol of "historical memory . . . retroactively giving the elements their symbolic weight by including them in new textures-it is this elaboration which decides retroactively what they ‘will have been.'"71 Zizek's idea can be explained in terms of the relationship between the symbolic and the imaginary; we can apply the principle to art. For example, we can view art in symbolic and cultural ways and in aesthetic imaginative ways. Symbolic interpretations represent ways of using language and culture to understand that which cannot be totally understood by description. We require imagination to perceive and discriminate characteristics of art. Thus, language and art have both symbolic and aesthetic aspects. Viewing audiences practice both. Pollock describes the process of "readings against the grain."72 The bias does not ignore or reconstruct historical facts; rather the readings explore ways of viewing art within the cultural dispositions, historical frame, and epideictic standards of the creation. The interest in viewing is not primarily, as Lynne Pearce posits, "in representational content."73 I propose instead, that works are types of engagements with a milieu's material and visual practices. In short, audiences must fill the gap with what they know at the time of viewing art. Reading the past offers the readers of art symbolic and aesthetic 70 Hill and Helmers, Defining Visual Rhetoric, 66. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 39 choices: 1) build a symbolic interpretation and/or narrative around the cultural knowledge at hand, and 2) explore the material and spatial aspects of the image. Both viewing types must show how symbolic and aesthetic practices work together. Although visual readers can discriminate differences, the process might take place seamlessly in the mind. Next, I show how the chapters evaluate viewing practices as visual data and then how Sonja Foss' theory of visual rhetoric serves as the framework for the method of viewing analyses. Foss' criterion for whether an image or artifact qualifies as visual rhetoric transforms the visual and linguistic elements of visual rhetoric to establish parameters for an approach to theory and criticism. "Theory of Visual Rhetoric" has asserted that what now qualifies an image as visual rhetoric centers in its symbolic nature. Visual rhetoric involves the human action of symbol-making in the process of image creation, yet it only indirectly connects to its referent. Foss says a perspective is rhetorical when the focus is on a rhetorical (propositional) response rather on an aesthetic one.74 She conceptualizes that visual rhetoric occurs when an agent generates visual symbols for the purpose of communicating with an audience. "It is the tangible evidence or product of the creative act, such as [a play], a painting, an advertisement . . . that constitutes the data of study for rhetorical scholars interested in visual symbols."75 Foss sets forth three markers that must be evident for a visual image to qualify as rhetoric: 1) the image must be symbolic, 2) it must involve human intervention in the process of image creation, and 3) it must be presented to an audience for the purpose of communicating with that audience. Foss' heuristic opens an analytic window for the 74 Handbook of Visual Communication, Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media, 141-151. 75 Ibid., 141. 40 method I will propose. I will extend the frame of analysis to ways art not only displayed cultural and symbolic values, but also to how art could have communicated with audiences in aesthetic ways. I elect to use Foss' interpretive markers of visual rhetorical analyses for investigating the approaches and assumptions I am proposing. The method begins with Foss' markers and proposes the variation (noted in italics): Visual rhetoric in works of art must be symbolic and aesthetic; it must involve human intervention in the process of creation; it must be presented to a historically situated audience for the purpose of communicating with that audience. Therefore, art communicates rhetorically with an audience. It produces symbolic references and/or identities and it creates a sensory aesthetic experience. The method departs from Foss and requires explanation. Acts of viewing are inherently symbolic-making processes that tie audiences to an identity. Art is interpreted symbolically when audiences perceive meaning in symbolic and propositional ways, such as when audiences create metaphor from art. Art is mediated by the language of historical convention and the rhetoric that attaches to it, such as moral beliefs and nationalistic identities. Interpretative readers ask how visual images in art are carriers of symbolic meaning. The method is accurate and appropriate when interpretation is at stake. Art historian Erwin Panofsky distinguishes between art's "obvious and disguised symbolism." He asserts that art is "symbol demanding decoding, "76 a theory not completely accurate. Whether audiences were aware of cultural correspondences depended on the criteria they used to test these discriminations. I am interested in the 76 Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939), 33. 41 question of the kinds of symbolic meaning, such as identities. Locating meaning within art is the method favored by visual rhetors whose subject is art (Helmers, Blair). I dispute the point and suggest instead that audiences attach meaning to art. Finally, Foss claims that the image must only indirectly refer to its referent. Taking account of the historical frame in which art is situated is critical because symbolic and aesthetic judgment depends on a milieu; thus historical frames are always rhetorical or plausible fictions and central to creation. When evaluation of artistic properties is important, viewing is an act of aesthetic creation or simply having discriminations. Moreover, audiences judge art artistically according to criteria such as composition, coloration, and perspective and test these discriminations-the what in art. Taken together, the capability, the properties, and the result constitute aesthetic meaning. Aesthetics will provide the missing counterpoint to Foss' exclusively symbolic cultural requirement. This examination-which borrows ancient rhetorical approaches to viewing and visualization-will demonstrate how particular audiences could have employed a two-sided perspective when they viewed art. The symbolic shows how audiences may interpret meaning and function. The aesthetic method emphasizes evaluation: the role of visualization informs the way situated audiences may have judged art and how artists could have created image. Indeed, we can examine viewing perspectives as practices drawn from particular milieus and artistic images-seeing and looking at works' visual techniques, orientations, plausible realities, emotions, symbolic ideas, and audience identities in the domain of rhetoric. The examination in the chapters of the dissertation, as mentioned earlier, emphasize that this is a rhetorical project that extrapolates from certain 42 classical theories/concepts as a way to understand how a type of rhetorical viewing practice merges form and content. Site Visits Adding to the theoretical method are site visits in which I experienced art in a virtual laboratory. From visits to art museums and the direct observations of painting and prints, I have attempted to observe paintings and plays in symbolic and aesthetic ways. The concepts from seminal texts and the observations constitute the construct for analysis. The idea of viewing images as text and text as image took hold as I explored, researched, and tested ideas in examinations of works of art. I am fortunate to have studied with curators of painting and print rooms in two museums: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and the Cleveland Museum of Art. I also viewed exhibits in museums that included the Dutch Baroque, a traveling exhibit at the Phoenix Museum of Art; the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (2002); the Louvre in Paris (2006); the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City; and the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. (2006, 2007). Chapters The dissertation includes three chapters and a conclusion. Two case studies are featured in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 1 presents the thesis and topic of the dissertation. The conclusion synthesizes the preceding chapters. It discusses themes and general conclusions from the case studies emphasizing Prelli's discussion of epideictic, identity, and emotion and Aristotle's visual approach to rhetoric in ekphrasis, epideictic, and phantasia and the sensory/emotional impact of metaphor. Chapters 2 and 3 build from two works of art-one theatrical, the other painting-in two historical periods to clarify 43 how the rhetoric of the visual in art encompass emotion, how it is simultaneously read in symbolic and aesthetic ways, and evolves historically from rhetoric. Chapter 1: The Rhetoric of Verisimilitude In the chapter, verisimilitude is a lens to show how works of art can be analyzed through viewing practices such as ekphrasis and epideictic and mediated in visual and cultural ways. Works of art call attention to the power of visual and verbal intercommunication because "as often as language teaches us to see, " Michael Ann Holly wrote, "art instructs us in telling. The exchange works actively in both directions."77 Sidney Zink's remarks focus our attention on how aesthetics mediates and completes rhetoric: I think there is a simple way out of the dilemma of the. . . [work of art's] immediate aesthetic value and the symbolic [rhetorical] nature of its medium. This is to recognize that linguistic meanings are, like colors. . . themselves particular qualities.78 Much as verbal depictions rhetorically confine what we are prompted to see, visual depictions contain our verbal responses. Aesthetic and rhetorical viewing shape what we imagine we see. Conversely, visual texts foster, interrogate, and display visual and expressive elements when words fail. Chapter 2: Comparing Pity and Fear in Rhetoric and Poetics Aristotle says ". . . the expression of the meaning in words should be in proper proportion and appropriate to the plot and characters"79 ". . . the end of the tragedy is to 77 Michael Ann Holly, Past Looking: Historical Imagination and the Rhetoric of Image, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), 11. 78 Zink, 119-120. 79 Aristotle, Poet. XI. 44 convincingly bring pity and fear before the eyes."80 The chapter discusses and analyzes how Aristotle's vivid metaphor, bringing-before-the-eyes in Rhetoric, enacts as poetic tragedy as bringing-pity-and-fear-before-the-eyes discussed in Poetics. Emotion is effected by actors; the affect is felt by audiences. Attic drama is a product and a process; it is mimetic or a representation performed and communicated on the dramatic stage. The chapter relies mainly on Aristotle's seminal texts and on text in Prelli's Rhetorics of Display for analysis. Aristotelian scholars such as Kennedy, Newman, Halliwell, O'Gorman, and others contribute to this analysis. Prelli has said, ". . . rhetorics of display have become the dominant communication practices of our time."81 Investigating the rhetorics of display from the Attic perspective of dramatic tragedy is relevant to the dissertation and to the subfield of visual rhetoric. The claim in the chapter is that when Attic actors depict pity and fear on the dramatic stage, they are engaging with strategic techniques of rhetorical display. Comparing how pity and fear is rendered in Rhetoric and Poetics shows specifically how actors use gestures and movement to rhetorically perform and communicate emotions. At the same time, it shows, paradoxically, how spectators take pleasure in dramatic tragedy. The first goal of the chapter is to compare in Poetics and Rhetoric Aristotle's instructions to poets and orators that enable them to best convey to the spectator the emotions of pity and fear. Poetics82 and Rhetoric explain specific artistic and inartistic methods good actors and orators should use to elicit pity and fear in the spectator.83 The 80 Aristotle, Poet. XI. 81 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 2. 82 Poetics is a type of case study to justify fiction; it is also a handbook for playwrights. It was written as a way to study of all the arts-literature, drama, dance, visual art and music. Poetics defines a systematic study of the techniques involved in the construction of fiction for theatre. 83 See note 1. 45 techniques are viewed and compared as rhetorical strategies for portraying emotion. The best actors enact or perform pity and fear mimetically. Through an actor's display of appropriate gestures, emotion is transferred from the actor to the spectator. For example, Aristotle says actors should not speak too effusively nor understate the point. Portrayals must be convincing. To say this rhetorically, the emotions of pity and fear are mediated through the actor and received mimetically by the spectator. By investigating the interweaving of pity and fear in the interaction between actors and Attic audiences in dramatic tragedy, I draw attention to sensory expressions and emotions of pity and fear. Tragedy is drama, not narrative; tragedy shows rather than tells. "Its action should be single and complete, presenting a reversal of fortune, involving persons renowned and of superior attainments . . . [through] incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to interpret its catharsis of such emotions."84 (By catharsis, Aristotle means a purging or sweeping away of the pity and fear aroused by the tragic action). The basic difference Aristotle draws between tragedy and other genres, such as comedy and the epic, underscores the second goal of the chapter: to examine the "peculiar pleasure" described by Aristotle. The tragic pleasure of pity and fear the audience experiences from watching a dramatic tragedy is described in Poetics XIV ". . . for we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is proper to it."85 The second section investigates through mimesis and the epideictic how the display of pity and fear creates in the spectator a peculiar pleasure. The epideictic 84 Aristotle, Poet. IX, XI. 85 "But to produce this effect by the mere spectacle (opsis) is a less artistic method . . . are strangers to the purpose of Tragedy; for we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is proper to it. And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity and fear through imitation, it is evident that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents, Poet. XIV. 46 helps explain how the spectator undergoes an emotional transformation when viewing the object of aesthetic contemplation such as an actor's moving performance. Epideictic begins with the awareness of having aesthetic perception. Lawrence Rosenfield explains that the epideictic contributes to the way audiences perceived rhetorically and aesthetically. The term represents processes of artistic creation in representation or mimesis outlined in Poetics and as a visual type of discerning in the ancient epideictic. Poetics defines a systematic study of the techniques involved in the construction of fiction as art. Viewing Attic tragedian plays using an epideictic frame considers emotion as "display, or showing forth of things, leading an audience [insight and desire] . . . to the formations of opinion."86 Tragedian plays sought to offer audiences epideictic opportunities to gaze upon "that which is best in human experience."87 Bringing-before-the-eyes shows the particular effective and affective aspects of metaphor operating in tragedian plays discussed in Poetics. The concept of verisimilitude explains performance in the representational field in terms of the represented world: the mimetic medium makes possible fiction's significance in plausible realities. The rhetorical persuasive dimension that produces emotional affect evolves from action: things engaged in an activity signify cultural representations of producing pity and fear familiar to Attic audiences. Together, carefully practiced gestures displayed by the skillful actor interweave vision and knowledge in and from the spectator's experience. The two ways of viewing suggest how from image, ideas (eidos) of pity and fear transmit into emotions (pathos) of pity and fear. According to Halliwell, Poetics is more ancient than Rhetoric. Poetics anticipates 86 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 3. 87 Ibid. 47 aesthetics or ideas about visualization; however, Aristotle examines visual effect and affect in detail in the discussion of metaphor and vivid imagery in Rhetoric III. Poetics provides a case study to justify fiction; it is also a handbook for playwrights. It was written as a way to study of all the arts-literature, drama, dance, visual art, and music. In Poetics, Aristotle staked the success of dramatic representation on what he calls the play's probability (eikos) or in the dissertation, verisimilitude's plausibility. The idea links not only to fiction, but also to the rhetorical notion of a probable proposition. Chapter 3: The Rhetoric of Vanitas Painting Memento Mori, "remember that you will die, " describes the theme of art works created in the 17th century in the Netherlands. With the human skull as a centerpiece, the rhetorical function of theses images served to remind audiences of their mortality. The vanitas still-life paintings explore the idea of content through metaphor-designing painting to be read continues the tradition of ekphrasis and pictura poesis. Allegory is not a concept used in the chapter because although it is a resource of 17th century and contemporary audiences the chapter is making rhetorical claims, not historical claims about viewing practices. The elements that comprised good writing extended to worthy painting executed with precise detail. The rhetoric of the image was to move the viewer in a way that would be morally edifying. The understanding is a particular iteration of visual and aesthetic epideictic. The meaning of Panofsky's phrase "disguised symbolism" prompted art historians to research the meanings of image in vanitas. The phrase has been interpreted as part of the history of metaphor as a rhetorical device denoting a system of visual symbols. In the 48 chapter, I will contest this view: vanitas were read, not as allegory or as symbols to be decoded, but as a puzzle of layers of associations and resemblances of one thing to another without meaning-as a complex metaphor-more like a 20th century abstract painting. The viewer has a more demanding role than merely to observe a prescribed narrative. Rather the viewer is required to read and interpret still-life painting in the tradition of emblem books and diptychs. In the Golden Age, objects and their arrangement can be said to be more an iconic sign than a symbol. The indigenous aesthetic of the Dutch vanitas long considered realism, is more abstract: skulls and books without a setting. This aesthetic requires the viewer to take an active part to complete the image. The viewer creates a personal experience, rather than being offered a set narrative. The experience is metaphysical, not narrative. Vanitas painting continues the tradition of diptychs: a form of worship in the Reformed Church that called for private religious experience. One painter who specialized in this genre was Harmem Steenwyck. His delicately painted objects-water pitcher, a recorder, books, oil lamp, etc-arranged neatly on the edge of a table entice the viewer with humble realism. As the viewer is brought into the tranquility, there is little to suggest that the viewing ends serenely. Nothing is natural or realistic about the arrangement. The composition is triangular within images set in diagonal fashion. In epideictic fashion, an aura of metaphysical glow lights everyday objects suited for an individual and at the same time displays them as idealized objects of the universal virtuous mind. Kristine Koozin describes vanitas as "objects [that] exist in God's hieroglyphic sphere."88 88 Kristine Koozin, The Vanitas Still Lifes of Harmen Steenwyck, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990, 88. 49 The artist's duty is to point to objects, to clarify between real and hyperrealism, between real and the unreal, the physical/material and the metaphysical. Through reading art as complex metaphor the paradox of rhetorical and aesthetic conflicts are synthesized and finally given over to the viewer to resolve on a personal level. The metaphorical realism associated with painstaking execution of detail-in real and unreal rendering- offers the viewer a stake in making meaning aesthetically and spiritually. Gerard de Lairesse, the first theorist of still lifes laments vanitas; indeed all still lifes, lack meaning. Painters are guilty of not adding "thoughts to their pictures."89 From Lairesse's reading we can imagine how vanitas were a paradox, pictures presented as liturgy of objects on the same plane. Paintings required the viewer to read the image as they would a frieze in a pediment-without meaning-but at the same time, as complex metaphoric signs endowed with the meaning of a personal viewer.90 Conclusion The concept of verisimilitude guides the dissertation. It puts on display the selective ways historically situated audiences viewed art through cultural lenses and through aesthetic perceptions. It aims to show the way they suspended disbelief of facts in imagination in order to apply values and beliefs to create culturally representative metaphors. The chapters' metaphorical subjects emphasize how the symbolic and imaginative perceptions are conveyed to situated audiences. As I have tried to show, effect in art turns on rhetorical strategies, cultural resemblances, and likeness to truth 89 Art in Theory1648-1815: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Charles Harrison; Paul Wood, Jason Gaiger, eds. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000), 298. 90 Hanneke Grootenboer, The Rhetoric of Perspective: Realism and Illusionism in Seventeenth century Dutch still-life painting, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), v. 50 demonstrated in symbolic metaphor. Affective response in audiences relies on the virtuosity and luminosity of epideictic display of art's material form, emotional display, and the experience of beholding an image. The highlighting and muting of both effect and affect in the chapters show how different approaches to viewing art in different milieus create rhetorical implications for audiences of particular milieus. The method I improvise from Foss highlights the rhetorical mode of operation I employ in the dissertation: Visual rhetoric in works of art must be symbolic and aesthetic; it must involve human intervention in the process of creation; it must be presented to a historically situated audience for the purpose of communicating with that audience. Therefore, art communicates rhetorically with an audience in producing symbolic identities and in creating sensory aesthetic experience. A common thread ties the two approaches together: to be significant for an audience, works of art should demonstrate a degree of plausibility, or verisimilitude. My dissertation calls on readers to judge the criticism and analysis of the practices of viewers of art as they could have been seen. While the framework and approach attempts to justify and analyze how the force of visual rhetoric involves both symbolic and aesthetic viewing practices under the rubric of rhetoric, the purpose is to offer visual rhetoric a more expansive framework to aid and advance discussion of the rhetoric of art. The rhetorical perspective of image through the lens of ancient practices hopefully brings us closer to understanding the intertwining of ways situated audiences historically experienced works as a rhetoric that considers both the impact of visual image and symbolic meaning. Although the epideictic perspective evidences most in the 51 timelessness of luminosity in aesthetic viewing of excellent techne, timeliness is never absent from the epideictic. The question of an audience's readiness to view the luminous gleam of techne depends on what Rosenfield calls "[the situated-ness of audiences] beholding wonder."91 The question of the verisimilitude of rhetoric in art -the perspective of audiences, artists, and art-that display symbols and invite aesthetic experience is a provocative exploration. This is because we see only what we can see from where we stand, and there is more to be seen than any one of us can appreciate alone. 91 Prelli, Rhetorics of Display, 154. 52 Bibliography Alcorn, Marshall W. Jr. "Rhetoric, Projection, and the Authority of the Signifier." College English 49, no. 2 (1987). Aldrich, Virgil C. "Visual Metaphor." Journal of Aesthetic Education 2, no. 1 (1968). Alpers, Svetlana. The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. ---. "Picturing Dutch Culture." In Looking at Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art: Realism Reconsidered. Edited by Wayne Franits. New York: Syracuse University, 1997. Alpers, Svetlana, Emily Apter, Susan Buck-Morss, Tom Conley, Jonathan Crary, Thomas Crow, Michael Ann Holly, et al. "Visual Culture Questionnaire." October 77 (Summer 1996): 2-570. Amossy, Ruth. "Introduction to the Study of Doxa." Poetics Today 23, no. 3 (Fall 2002). Aquinas, Thomas. "Summa Theologie." In Basic Writing of St. Thomas Aquinas. Edited by Anton Pegis. New York: Random House, 1944. Argan, Guilio Carlo, and Rebecca West. Critical Inquiry 2, no. 2 (Winter 1975). Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. 2 vols. Translated by Ingram Bywater. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. ---. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civil Discourse. Translated by George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford Press, 1991. ---. The Poetics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Armstrong, Daniel, and Cornelis Hendrik van Schooneveld, eds. "The Influence of Roman Jakobson on the Development of Semiotics." In Roman Jakobson: Echoes of His Scholarship. Lisse, The Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press, 1977. Arrington, Phillip K. "Tropes of the Composing Process." College English 48, no. 4 (April 1986). Ayotte, Kevin, John Poulakos, and Steve Whitson. "Mistaking Nietzsche: Rhetoric and the Epistemic Pest." Quarterly Journal of Speech 88, no. 1 (2002): 121-27. Bal, Mieke. Reading Rembrandt: Beyond the Word-Image Opposition. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006. ---. "Semiotics and Art History." The Art Bulletin 73, no. 2 (June 1991). 53 Bann, Stephen. "The Map as Index of the Real: Land Art and the Authentication of Travel." Imago Mundi 46 (1994): 9-18. ---. "Metaphor." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1955. Barry, Ann Marie Seward. Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication. Albany: State University Press, 1997. Barthes, Roland. "The Rhetoric of the Image." In Image Music Text. Translated by Stephen Heath. New York. Hill and Wang, 1977. Baylis, Charles A., rev. "The Practice of Philosophy by Susanne K. Langer." The Journal of Philosophy 28, no. 12 (June 1931): 326-29. Becker, Andrew Sprague. "Virgil's Epic Designs: ‘Ekphrasis in the Aeneid.'" American Journal of Philology 121, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 324-28. Birdsell, David S. "Kenneth Burke at the Nexus of Argument and Trope." Argumentation and Advocacy 29, no. 4 (Spring 1993): 105-31. ---. "Toward A Theory of Visual Argument." Argumentation and Advocacy 33, no. 1 (Summer 1996). Black, Max. "Metaphor, Models and Metaphors." In The Rule of Metaphor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962. ---. Models and Metaphor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1954. ---. "More About Metaphor." In Metaphor and Thought. Edited by Anthony Ortony. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1962. Blair, Carol. Contemporary U.S. Memorial Sites as Exemplars of Rhetoric's Materiality: Rhetorical Bodies: Toward a Material Rhetoric. Edited by Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1999. Booth, Wayne C. "Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation." Critical Inquiry 5, no. 1 (special issue, Autumn 1978). ---. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Bossart, William H. "Heidegger's Theory of Art." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 227, no. 1 (Autumn 1968). Brand, Peg Zeglin. "Beauty Matters." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57, no. 1 (Winter 1999). 54 Braxandall, Michael. Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985. Browne, Stephen H. "Aesthetics and the Heteronomy of Rhetorical Judgment." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 18, no. 2 (Spring 1988): 141-52. Brown, Richard Harvey. "Toward Sociology of Aesthetic Forms: A Commentary." New Literary History 17, no. 2 (Winter 1986). Bryson, Norman. Looking at the Overlooked: Four Essays on Still Life Painting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Burke, Kenneth. Counter Statement. Palo Alto, CA: Country Life Press, 1931. ---. "Dramatic Form-And: ‘Tracking Down Implications.'" The Tulane Drama Review 10, no. 4 (Summer 1966). ---. "Essays on Symbolism in General." In Language as Symbolic Action. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1966. ---. A Grammar of Motives. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1950. ---. Rhetoric of Motives. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1969. Burke, Peter. "Dutch Popular Culture in the Seventeenth Century: A Reconnaissance." Lecture delivered at the Centre for the History of Society. Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 1978. Cazeaux, Clive. Metaphor and Continental Philosophy: From Kant to Derrida. New York: Routledge, 2007. Chong, Alan, Wouter Kloek, and Celeste Brusati. Still Life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720. English-language version edited by Barbara J. Bradley. Published in cooperation with Rijksmuseum and Cleveland Museum of Art. Zwolle, Netherlands: Waanders, 1999. Cohen, L. Jonathan, and John Searle. "The Semantics of Metaphor." Metaphor and Thought. Edited by Anthony Ortony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. D'Alleva, Anne. Methods and Theories of Art History. London: Laurence Kind Publishing Ltd, 2005. Damisch, Hubert. The Origin of Perspective. Translated by John Goodman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994. Davies, Stephen. "Truth Values and Metaphors." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 42, no. 3 (Spring 1984): 291-302. 55 Deleuze, Gilles. Proust and Signs: The Complete Text. Translated by Richard Howard. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. DeLuca, Kevin Michael. Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2006. Dewey, John. "Aesthetic Experience as a Primary Phase and as an Artistic Development." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 9 (1950): 56-58. Doyle, John P. "Between Transcendental and Transcendental: The Missing Link." The Review of Metaphysics 50 (1997). Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1977. Enholm, Donald. "The Most Significant Passage for Rhetorical Theory in the Work of I.A. Richards." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 18 (1988). Fienstein, Hermine. "Meaning and Visual Metaphor." Studies in Art Education 23, no. 2 (1982): 45-55. Forsey, Jane. "The Disenfranchisement of Philosophical Aesthetics." Journal of the History of Ideas 64, no. 4 (2003). Foss, Sonja K. "A Rhetorical Scheme for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery." Communication Studies 45 (1993): 213-24. ---. "Theory of Visual Rhetoric." In Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Edited by Ken Smith, Sandra Moriaty, Gretchen Barbatsis, and Keith Kennedy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2005. Foucault, Michael. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language. New York: Pantheon, 1972. Frede, Dorthea. "The Cognitive Role of Phantasia in Aristotle." In Essays on Aristotle. Edited by Martha Nussbaum and Amelie Rorty Oksenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Gabin, Rosalind. "The Most Significant Passage for Rhetorical Theory in the Work of I.A. Richards." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 18 (1988). Gills, Raymond W. "When is Metaphor? The Idea of Understanding in Theories of Metaphor." Poetics Today 13, no. 4. (Winter 1992). Glusberg, Jorge. "Criticism and Aesthetics." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 44, no. 4 (Summer 1986): 371-82. Greene, Ronald Walter. "Another Materialist Rhetoric." Critical Studies in Mass Communication 15 (1998): 21-41. 56 Gombrich, Ernst Hans. Art and Illusion. New York: Random House, Inc., 1960. ---. "Icones Symbolicae: The Visual Image in Neo-Platonic Thought." Journal of the Warbrug and Courtauld Institutes 11 (1948): 163-92. ---. Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance. London: Phaidon, 1972. Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1976. Gramer, George R. "Truth and Harmony as Rhetorical Goals." The English Journal 59, no. 6 (1970). Grabar, Oleg. "The Mediation of Ornament." Revised by Rudolf Arnheim. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53, no. 2 (Spring 1995). Grootenboer, Hanneke. The Rhetoric of Perspective: Realism and Illusionism in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Still-Life Painting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Halliwell, Stephen. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. Hampton, Rosemary E. "The Rhetorical and Metaphorical Nature of Graphics and Visual Schemata." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 20, no. 4 (Autumn 1990). Hariman, Robert, and John Louis Lucaites. No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Harrison, Charles, Paul Wood, and Jason Gaiger, eds. Art in Theory 1648-1815: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000. Harries, Karsten. "Metaphor and Transcendence." Critical Inquiry 5, no. 1 (Autumn 1978). Hassett, Michael. "Sophisticated Burke: Kenneth Burke as a Neosophistic Rhetorician." Rhetoric Review 13, no. 2 (Spring 1995). Hawkes, Terance. Metaphor. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1972. Heath, Malcolm. Poetics. London: Penguin, 1996. Heidegger, Martin. Poetry, Language, Thought. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1971. Hellman, Geoffrey. "Symbol Systems and Artistic Styles." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35, no. 2 (Spring 1977): 279-92. 57 Hester, Marcus. B. "Metaphor and Aspect Seeing." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 25, no. 2 (Winter 1966). Hill, Charles A., and Marguerite Helmers, eds. Defining Visual Rhetorics. Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. Holly, Michael Ann. Past Looking: Historical Imagination and the Rhetoric of Image. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996. Homer, William Innes. "Visual Culture: A New Paradigm." American Art 12 (Spring 1998): 6-9. Jakobson, Roman. "Linguistics and Communication Theory." In On the Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects. Edited by Roman Jakobson, 245-52. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1961. ---. "On Realism and Art." In Readings in Russian Poetics. Edited by Ladislay Mateika and Krystyna Pomorska. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1921. ---. "Selected Writings II." In Word and Language. Paris: Mouton, 1979. Kaplan, Stuart Jay. "Referential Meaning in the Arts." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 12, no. 4 (June 1954): 457-74. ---. "Visual Metaphors in Print Advertising for Fashion Products." In Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Edited by Ken Smith, Sandra Moriaty, Gretchen Barbatsis, and Keith Kenney. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2005. ---. "Visual Metaphors in the Representation of Communication Technology." Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 (1990): 37-47. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Judgment. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1987. Kavaler, Ethan Matt. "Renaissance Gothic in the Netherlands: The Uses of Ornament." The Art Bulletin 82, no. 2 (June 2000): 226-51. Kearney, Richard. On Paul Ricoeur: The Owl of Minerva. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004. Kennedy, George. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1980. Koozin, Kristine. The Vanitas Still Lifes of Harmen Steenwyck (1612-1656). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. 58 Krieger, Murray. Ekphrasis: The Illusion of the National Sign. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Kuhn, Thomas, S. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970. Lacan, Jacques. Ecrits: A Selection. Translated by Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002. Lacour, Claudia Brodsky. "‘Is That Helen?' Contemporary Pictorialism, Lessing, and Kant." Comparative Literature 45, no. 3 (Summer 1993): 230-57. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. ---. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Lamb, Brenda. "Coming to Terms: Rhetoric." The English Journal 87, no. 1 (Jan. 1998). Langer, Suzanne K. "On Artistic Sensibility." Daedalus 89, no. 1 (Winter 1960): 242-44. ---. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Leroux, Neil R. "Perceiving Rhetorical Style: Toward a Framework for Criticism." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 22, no. 4. (Autumn 1992): 29-44. Lind, Richard "Art as Aesthetic Statement." Journal of Aesthetic Education 27, no. 3 (Autumn 1993). Lucaites, John Louis, Celeste Michelle Conduit, and Sally Caudill, eds. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. New York: Guilford Press, 1999. Lucaites, John Louis, and Robert Hariman. No Caption Needed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Maquet, Jacques. "Perennial Modernity: Forms as Aesthetic and Symbolic." Journal of Aesthetic Education 24, no. 4 (Winter 1990): 47-58. Martin, Jay. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1993. Martz, Louis. The Poetry of Mediation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962. Mattson, Craig E. "Telling Beauty and Tacit Truth: Polyanysi, Persuasion and Visual Imagery." The Journal of Communication and Religion 27 (March 2004): 87- 116. 59 McComiskey, Bruce. "Social-Process Rhetorical Inquiry: Cultural Studies Methodologies for Critical Writing About Advertisements." Journal of Advanced Composition 17 (1997): 381-400. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. The Visible and the Invisible. Edited by John Wild. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968. Mitchell, William John Thomas. Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. ---. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. ---. "What Is an Image?" New Literary History 15, no. 3 (Spring 1984): 503-37. Munro, Thomas. "Suggestion and Symbolism in the Arts." Journal of Aesthetic Education 15, no. 2 (1956). Nehamas, Alexander. "The Return of the Beautiful: Morality, Pleasure, and the Value of Uncertainty." The Journal of Aesthetic and Art Criticism 58, no. 4 (Autumn 2000): 393-403. Newman, Sara. Aristotle and Style. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press, 2005. Olson, Lester C., Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope. Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2008. Ortony, Andrew, ed. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Osborne, Harold. Aesthetics and Art Theory: An Historical Introduction. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1970. Ostrow, Saul. "The Eternal Problem of Beauty's Return." Art Journal 62, no. 3 (Autumn 2003): 113-15. Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish Painting. 2 vols. 1953. Reprint, New York: Harper & Row, 1971. ---. Studies in Iconography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939. Perelman, Chaim, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1969. Plato. "Republic." In Plato: The Collected Works. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, 595-608. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. 60 Poulakos, John. "From the Depths of Rhetoric: The Emergence of Aesthetics as a Discipline." Philosophy and Rhetoric 40, no. 4 (2007). Prelli, Lawrence J., ed. "Introduction." In Rhetorics of Display. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2006. Preminger, Alex, ed. The Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. Ranciere, Jacquers: The Future of the Image. Edited by Gregory Eliott. London: Verso Editions La Fabrique, 2009. Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Rosebury, Brian. "The Historical Contingency of Aesthetic Experience." British Journal of Aesthetics 40, no. 1 (2000). Sandor, Andras. "Metaphor and Belief." Journal of Anthological Research 42, no. 2 (Summer 1986): 101-22. Scarry, Elaine. On Beauty: And Being Just. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Schama, Simon. Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New York: Vintage Books, 1987. Schiappa, Edward. Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1991. Schiff, Richard. "Art and Life: A Metaphoric Relationship." Critical Inquiry 5, no. 1 (Autumn 1978): 107-22. Schiller, Freidrich. Essays: Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Schotter, John. "Creating Real Presences: Displays in Liminal Worlds." In Rhetorics of Display. Edited by Lawrence J. Prelli. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2006. Schwartz, Gretchen. "Metaphor and Cognition: Beneath the ‘Basics.'" The English Journal 77, no. 8 (1988): 32-33. Searle, John. "Metaphor." In Metaphor and Thought. Edited by Anthony Ortony. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Silver, Anita. "Aesthetics for Art's Sake, Not for Philosophy's." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51, no. 2 (Spring 1993). 61 Smith, Ken, Sandra Moiatry, Keith Kennedy, and Gretchen Barbatsis, eds. Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2005. Stafford, Barbara Maria. Good Looking: Essays on the Virtue of Images. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. ---. Visual Analogy: Consciousness as the Art of Connecting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. St. Clair, Robert N. "The Contexts of Language." In The Social and Psychological Contexts of Language. Edited by R. St. Clair, and H. Giles. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980. Thomas, Jean-Jacques. "Metaphor: The Image and the Formula." Poetics Today 8, no. 3/4 (1987). Toulmin, Stephen E. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1958. Twig, Reginald. "Aestheticizing the Home: Textual Strategies of Taste, Self-Identity, and Bourgeois Hegemony in America's Gilded Age." Text and Performance Quarterly 12 (1992): 1-20. van Eck, Caroline A., James McAllister, and Renée van de Vall. "The Question of Style in Philosophy and the Arts." Revised by James D. Carney. The Philosophical Quarterly 47, no. 187 (Apr. 1997): 244-46. Vivian, Barbara, "G. Gertrude Buck on Metaphor: Twentieth-Century Concepts in a Late Nineteenth-Century Dissertation (1899)." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 24, no. 3/4 (1989). Watkins, Eric, ed. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: Background Source Materials. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Watson, G. "Phantasia in Aristotle, De Anima 3.3." Classical Quarterly 32 (1982): 100- 13. Wright, William Aldis, ed. Authorized Version of the English Bible 1611. 6 vols. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Yoos, George E. "A Phenomenological Look at Metaphor." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 32, no. 1 (Sept. 1971). Zangwill, Nick. "Metaphor and Realism in Aesthetics." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 57-62. 62 Zelizer, Barbie. Remembering to Forget: Holocaust Memory Through the Camera's Eye. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Zink, Sidney. "The Poetic Organism." The Journal of Philosophy 40, no. 11 (1945). CHAPTER 2 COMPARING PITY AND FEAR IN RHETORIC AND POETICS Le