Visual Rhetoric – From Elocutio To Inventio Jens E. Kjeldsen University of Bergen 1. The Semiotic Ornatus Perspective on Visual Rhetoric In his article “The rhetoric of the image” Roland Barthes assumes that if classical rhetoric were to be rethought in structural terms it would “perhaps be possible to establish a general rhetoric of the signifiers of connotation, valid for articulated sound, image, ges- ture” (1977: 50): “This rhetoric could only be established on the basis of a quite considerable inventory, but it is possible now to fore- see that one will find in it some of the figures formerly identified by the Ancients and the Classics; the tomato, for example, signifies Italianicity by the metonymy and in an other advertisement the sequence of three scenes (Coffee in beans, coffee in powder, coffee sipped in the cup) releases a certain logical relationship in the same way as an asynde- ton” (: 49f). This ‘figurative’ approach to visual rhetoric is pursued more fully in the text “Rhétorique et image publicitaire”. Here Jacques Durand defines rhetoric as the art of fake speaking (“l’art de la parole feinte”) (1970: 70), and describes its task as transforming or con- verting the proper expression (“le language propre”) into a figura- tive or rhetorical expression (“language figuré”). What is said by using a rhetorical figure or trope could also have been said in a dif- ferent, or normal, manner. Durand sought to “find a visual transpo- sition of the rhetorical figures in the advertising image” (1987: 295) by examining more than one thousand magazine advertisements. This was done by considering “a rhetorical figure as a transforma- tion from a ‘simple proposition, to a ‘figurative proposition’” (: 295). In these cases Barthes and Durand are exponents for what I will call a semiotic ornatus perspective on visual communication and argumentation, i.e. a search for meaning through a search for metaphors, metonymies, repetitions, inversions, and the like in vi- sual communication. My point here is not to dismiss or reject the great importance and semiotic value of a text such as “The Rhetoric of the Image”. Indeed, in this paper I use the concepts of anchorage and relay taken from Barthes’ influential article. However, as the major point of departure for both theoretical and analytical texts dealing with visual rhetoric, such a semiotic perspective is problematic in sev- eral ways. In this working paper I will briefly touch upon four ar- guments where this is the case. I will then try to sketch an alterna- tive approach to visual rhetoric by taking the point of departure in the rhetorical art of inventio, rather than in the art of elocutio. 2. Four Arguments for the Lack of Usefulness of the Semiotic Ornatus Perspective Argument 1: The ‘transformation theory’ is problematic. The ornatus perspective on visual rhetoric is based on what we could call the ‘transformation theory’, i.e. the presumption that ex- pressions (either verbal or visual) are transformations from a ‘natu- ral’ or ‘normal’ way of expressing the same thing. A point can be expressed in ordo naturalis, the natural or ordinary way. However, if we want to add more emotional power and better adherence, the same point can also be expressed in ordo artificialis, the artful or ar- tificial way. So, we have a distinction between the proper way of saying something (langage propre), and the rhetorical or figurative way of saying something (langage figuré). The theoretical problem with this theory of transformation from the natural to the figurative expression – which is a traditional rhetorical view - is, of course, that it is difficult, if at all possible, to distinguish between the two ways of expression, and to define what the so-called natural expression is. It is easy to presuppose a ‘natu- ral order’, but rather difficult to say what this natural order of a fig- urative expression might be. The transparent or ‘sober’ expression is itself a rhetorical choice and strategy. What then, is this kind of expression a transformation from? This presumption of a ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ expression is equally problematic when dealing with visual representations. A distinctive feature of an iconic representation is that it has a ‘natural presence’ in its own right. In other words, it is what it shows. When dealing with images one can choose between countless expressions created by techniques of editing, framing, duration, mise-en-scène, and so on. Often, it is rather difficult to judge one expression as more ‘natural’ than another. Of course, we tend to notice when the regular conventions of a particular genre of images are changed: If the commentator in a news programme is seen in extreme close-up or from a bird’s-eye perspective, or if the characters in a movie sud- denly face the camera and start talking directly to the audience. In rhetoric, however, the main purpose of figurative language is to stir the emotions unnoticed, without drawing attention to the language style itself. In fact, a general rule of rhetoric is that the language and the language form must be transparent – as an unnoticed win- dow through which we see the message. Argument 2: Ornatus is a very limited part of rhetoric, and the semiotic ornatus approach therefore contains a limited understand- ing of rhetorical persuasion. Ornatus is but one of four elements of elocutio, in addition to perspecuitas, puritas and aptum. Furthermore, elocutio is but one of the five stages of composition. To make tropes and figures the start- ing point of a discussion of visual rhetoric is therefore a violent limitation of the art of rhetoric, because it only entails a fourth of a fifth of the art. Consequently, we no longer talk about rhetoric but rather of stylistics. Tropes and figures are primarily means of expressing argu- ments – found in the stage of inventio – as evidently as possible. They are means for catching audience attention, making the audi- ence remember the arguments in the speech, and, most importantly, stirring the emotions of the audience. Of course tropes and figures can have a persuasive effect, and they can show or illustrate impor- tant arguments or lines of reasoning. But they do not constitute the argument or the reasoning itself. From an argumentative point of view, tropes and figures constitute the micro perspective whose main task is limited to creating rhetor- ical pathos. In this sense, ornatus performs a rhetorical and a per- suasive appeal. But the emotional appeals of ethos and pathos do not give a comprehensive and understanding view of rhetoric un- less they are connected to the most important rhetorical appeal, – logos. A unity of ethos, logos and pathos is thus a prerequisite in the search for a theory of visual rhetoric. 455