Scott. 1994. Images in Advertising The Need For A Theory of Visual Rhetoric

Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric Author(s): Linda M.
Scott Source: The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Sep., 1994), pp. 252-273 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489819 Accessed: 06/08/2009 08:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Consumer Research.
http://www.jstor.org
Images
Theory of
in
Advertising:
Visual Rhetoric
The
Need
for
LINDAM. SCOTT*
In this article, past consumer research dealing with advertising images is analyzed and critiqued for its underlying assumption: that pictures are reflections of reality. The case against this assumption is presented, and an alternative view, in which visuals are a convention-based symbolic system, is formulated. In this alternative view, pictures must be cognitively processed, rather than absorbed peripherallyor automatically. The author argues that current conceptualizations of advertising images are incommensurate with what ads are really like, and that many images currently dismissed as affect laden or information devoid are, in fact, complex figurative arguments. A new theoretical framework for the study of images is advanced in which advertising images are a sophisticated form of visual rhetoric. The process of consumer response implied by the new framework differs radically from past concepts in many ways, but also suggests new ways to approach questions currently open in the literatureon the nature and processing of imagery. A pluralisticprogram for studying advertising pictures as persuasion is outlined.
worldof advertisements peopledby fantastic is images.A multitudeof imaginary characters dance throughsituationsrangingfrom sensualto playful,from threateningto mundane. The messages are reversed, boldfaced,and italicized-set in typefaceswith names like Baby Teeth, Jiminy Cricket, and Park Avenue. Productskaleidoscopepast our eyes in heroized visual styles borrowedfrom the Dutch masters-or the Masters of the Universe. Picturespun, photographsfantasize, illustrationsilluminate.In rich colors and textures, a panoplyof visualmessagesentice, exhort,and explain. The literatureon advertisingimages fails to encompassthe rhetorical of richnessso characteristic this form. Whetherdrawingfrom scientific or interpretiveparadigms,scholarship tendedto treatadvertising has visuals in a mannerinconsistentwith their observabletraitsor their historical tradition. Instead, consumer research reflectsa bias in Westernthinking about pictures that is thousandsof years old: the assumptionthat pictures reflect objects in the real world. From the vantage of this ethnocentricstance, the franklyrhetoricalnature of advertisingimageryis eitherpurposivelyoverlooked or criticizedas a distortion of reality. The objective of this article is to reorient the study of advertisingimages by advocatingthe development
*LindaM. Scottis assistantprofessorof advertising the College at of Communications,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 119 GregoryHall, Urbana,IL 61801. The authorwishesto thankR. Holman, E. McQuarrie, O'Guinn,C. Otnes, J. Richards,and the T. three reviewersfor their helpful comments in the developmentof this article. 252
The
of a theoryof visual rhetoric.A key premisewill be that picturesare not merely analoguesto visual perception from the conventions but symbolicartifactsconstructed of a particularculture. The argumentwill turn to the visual arts, as well as to anthropologyand the psychology of pictorial perception, for information, history, and theory on the nature of images. To illustratethe need to rethinkthe role of imagery in advertising,I will be reexaminingthe assumptions guidingpast research.The goal of my literaturereview is to highlighta pervasiveway of thinkingabout images that is, in fact, at odds with developmental,cross-cultural,and historicalevidence.The proposedframework is more consistent with the processes underlyingpictorial perception, more closely parallelswhat real ads are actuallylike, and, thus, promisesmore explanatory power for the study of consumer response.
RHETORICAL THEORY AND THE VISUAL SYMBOL

Rhetoricis an interpretivetheorythat framesa message as an interested party's attempt to influence an audience. The sender's intention is understood to be manifest in the argument, the evidence, the order of argumentation,and the style of delivery. The formal elements are selected accordingto the sender'sexpectationsabout how the audiencewill approachthe genre, the speaker,and the topic (Burke 1969; Corbett 1965). The sender,therefore,craftsthe messagein anticipation of the audience's probable response, using shared knowledgeof variousvocabulariesand conventions, as well as common experiences.Receiversof the message
1994 ? 1994by JOURNALOF CONSUMER Inc. RESEARCH, * Vol. 21 * September All rightsreserved. 0093-5301/95/2102-0003$2.00
IMAGES IN ADVERTISING
253 1 FIGURE AD COTY

: ! ** . '.'.'--:-fi.............*.8j 'I :',!': t 2 :. '' .... ,: . ....................................: '.. ..........................X.'.......................... ^ -::3.:':,.8: ............ ", .9 ;: ' . '' ':.:
use this same body of cultural knowledge to read the message, infer the sender'sintention, evaluate the argument, and formulatea response.Culturalknowledge thus provides the basis for normative interaction and persuasion(see McQuarrieand Mick 1992; Mick and Buhl 1992; Scott 1990, 1994; and Stern 1990). If we are to construeadvertisingimages as a form of rhetoric,then visualsmust have certaincapabilitiesand characteristics. First, visual elements must be capable of representingconcepts, abstractions,actions, metaphors, and modifiers,such that they can be used in the inventionof a complex argument.There furthermust be an ability to guide the order of argumentationvia the arrangement the visualelements.Visualelements of must also carrymeaningful variation in their manner of delivery,such that the selection of style can suggest an intended evaluation. The rhetorical intention behind a visual message would be communicated by the implicit selection of one view over another, a certain style of illustration versus another style, this layout but not that layout. Responseto such selective communicationwould necessarily draw on a shared visual vocabulary and a learnedsystemof pictorialconventions(see McCracken 1987). To explain this kind of complex visual communicationwould requirea symbol theory of pictures: one in which visuals signifyby convention ratherthan by resemblanceto nature. Therefore,I will argue here that visual elements are a symbolic system of the ordinaryvariety:" 'Symbol'is used here as a verygeneral and colorless term. It covers letters, words, texts, pictures, diagrams,maps, models, and more, but carries no implication of the oblique or the occult. The most literalportraitand the most prosaicpassageareas much symbols, and as 'highly symbolic' as the most fanciful and figurative"(Goodman 1976, p. xi). This new approach to visuals, therefore, would recast pictures as informationin symbolic form-as messagesthat must be processedcognitively by means of complex combinations of learned pictorial schemata and that do not necessarilybearan analogyto nature.As such, this proposal is radicallydifferentfrom past approachesto advertising images.
j 8 , . . . . ..
.. .. ... .... ..................... ...... , .. .... ............ : } :.! !::s :. si :! .......... ; .
i. .. ....... ...,'''':... ."...

.. ...... a....J>
.: ::::. !'.:. .::::::..:.::.:.::..::.:::::
........... ..: ' :
,~~.
.... ...... ... ...............I...:
*::
A C E.E.!: R KEEPS .. ....O. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ............... :.i::: ......... .,... .......... ........................... 0sTvminIq*minITS..... . ........ . .
. i:i:.::::.,.._i,....
..,.....
:..
'
' ..
..
.................
..
....
...
*,i............ .Z....._ .,.. .. .......... ,* .....". . .... ....
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..:. . ..... . ..
i; ......... .._'.'....... i'.ii .... ..;
't
...... .. '(::.::.:::.::..... ..
............. * .' i .,, '.; i'' '.: ...........

.....
5,E,,NUI, ', ..~~~~~~A
...@,,U
"
* .i,:!@t! =!.'...... , j .. :. -. ... '.:io . .. i. ... .: ..... . .,..i ...... :

iiiii ^ .... . . .C 't:," .. . ...
.......
. .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ K
.......... .':
.-:',.......... ..... . . .. .....,_
.. ... .......... ..
fu~~~~
i.:;' f: _.j
, .. . .. ......... .
4
......
~~.,
M
..
A
. .... . ..
.j:. ......
::: .. .... .:. .....::... , .' .
. ,'.t'.'' ................................................~~~.. . mj--.--I t ........ . . ...... i';..

,., j., . ,.,, ., .... ,. < l ....... ; ...................... .......... .....................
3. ......i 3:33:i:: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... nfj:iiiiii:3i........ ........ ......... . .. .... . ..... ............. ;. .... ..: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
sign. First,the
they show us the,, product
........... ....o...
and
...i
its........ key
....i
feats...
ro
... , i c
which carie sage,~~~~~~~~~,t.ti in, bulle pint is,

tosimply"copy"the product shn........is-to as i^it ..
faho the: _ by
the sens tha cosme-esac proise. Th d ussraisti
the il reconies phtogaps tha seem!j :.
THINKING ABOUT IMAGERY IN ADS

Let's begin by looking at some illustrations of the need to rethinkthe way advertisingimages work. The Coty ad reproducedin Figure 1 is similar in many respectsto the mock advertisementsoften used in experimental workon consumerresponseto imagery.Three images show the product in an unidentifiablesetting, each isolatedin the field of the page-the perfectlayout for varyingsize and arrangement experimentalpurfor poses.All threeseemto be straightforward productshots illustratingwhat the product looks like, the colors in which it is available,and its key attribute,the refillable case. The picturesprovide visual support for the mes-
ns ofdstyle ourillusion. objeciver maneh itot distortio ..sev rfteaitc thaey BecauFise,tangiblegrelev Nas t r do rte pres clearlystrthe picureosae attributes.rersnotappenar: appropriate fentirely u tohequireitherpretatio and isekem "evast whreouldma not clssifyt thee imagesy inon wuespobbl research that dolno tesnetacosumerofteccaegoizes:iae see etheless,ybcause the piodctures isto besuchitrinans relt,semgtybe temptedion parentireree mntaihutdsotions of ticallyno absoredr toctheorize thatthreyare unproblema nmaeed cognitiv mitnd withgoutithe fort intuter consumer's
engagement or the invocation of learned processing
254
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE2 strategies.Thus, these images would work well for an experimentaldesign testing varioustheories from clasAD CLINIQUE sical conditioning to the elaborationlikelihood model to attitudetowardthe ad, in which pictorialmaterialis ~~~~ .. ~~~. ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ often used to stand for the cues that are processedpe- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ripherally with low cognitiveinvolvementor in which or picturesare the unconditionedstimulus. This ad, then, 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... is consistent with the ways we think about the work of ..... Pr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. imagesin consumerresearch.It presentsno advertising problemfor either theory or method. In contrast,the Clinique ad reproducedas Figure 2 presentsan apparentanomaly. There are no words exof cept for the tiny representations the manufacturer's trademarkand of the authorship,which run along the left side of the ad. Certainly,there is nothing here approximating headlineor body copy. The message,such a as it is, is being carried by the image alone. Yet the I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... promisebeing made would be utterlyunintelligiblefor a theoryin which advertising picturesillustratetangible product attributes or represent the consumption ex.. representationThey must ..... than of straightforward then~~~......... periencein a relevantway. No one storesopen lipsticks is. clal an...in engagein metaphoricalthought which~~~~~~~~...... in glasses of soda water, and the ability of makeup to the~~~~~~~~~~~ thinking; it is improbable that ..... stance of abstract withstandsuch icy submersionwould be an improbable be... absrbd.utmaicllyorpeiperll trope could~~~~~~~~~~~...... themesag.isqute.el Further once interpreted,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ benefitat best.It is not a common consumptionpractice .......... vant even thoughthe representation to garnishmineralwaterwith lipstick, cheek base, and liealisunelte.t.atulcosuptonbeavo wheninterpreted~~~~~~~~~ a slice of lime. Accordingto the traditionin consumer Now..... take......... a.oo.t.h.MxFatr.de.iemn two......representations in reproduced Figure 3. Here are research,we would have to say that this image is irrelihte.rdtoaltikn at that . fis.ofi seem...... evant, even nonsensical or inappropriate.At most, we of aboutimagesOn the left is a photograph the product~~~~~~~~~~ ........ mighttheorizethat this picturewould workvia affectalthoughexactlywhat affectis producedmight be hard in.use isadmntaino on.the.righ the...product... adt. Copr this.... Fgre1.owvr,adcosde.h to explain without repairingto complex cognitive pro...... closer~.. at differences Here the productis photographed cessing.Shallwe concludethen that Clinique,marketed .... range andthe image fills the page which subordinates~~~~~~~~~ Althoughthe imageis photographic~~~~~~~~~ ....... ..... the verbal material by one of the most successful manufacturersof cosa andis shot at head-on angle, we could not say that it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..... metics in America,has simply committed a huge gaffe ... the re~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..... simply copies product in a straightforwardly .n.wo.istck.t mane Noic.te.ocs alistic........ by runningthis ad? Not likely. the rest the left ward upper of center, which leavesof~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Instead,we need to adaptour ways of thinkingabout the ...tubes. offous.Te.rrngmet.f.he out....... .istck of usesthe conventions perspectivein a manner that~~~~~~~~~~ this imageryto accommodate easilyreadvisualmessage. tuesae.rane.i.iee.rw,.iual heroizes.the terms,it might If we wereto restatethis picturein-verbal say something like this: "Clinique'snew summer line of makeupis as refreshingas a tall glass of soda with a twist." Such a statement is an example of figurative speech-a simile to be exact. In rhetoric,an argument presentedin figurativeform is called a trope.The function of a tropeis to presenta propositionin a freshway, so that the audiencethinks about a familiarissue from an unexpectedperspective.Using a trope is thought to breakthroughhabituatedperception,skepticism,boredom, or resistance.We can see, perhaps,that using a strategyfor a genre such trope might be an appropriate as advertising, wherethe environmentis repetitiousand clutteredand the audience often uninterested. If we could think of this picture as a trope in.visual form, we would have an explanation for its use that is both elegant and pragmatic.However, we would still need to reimagine consumer response in order to accommodate the receptionof a visual trope. In orderto interpretthis trope, consumersmust recognizethe picture as an instance of figurativecommunication rather
IMAGES IN ADVERTISING FIGURE 3 MAXFACTOR
255
mimicking a colonnade, a church choir, or a parliamentaryseating arrangement. The photographon the right is also somewhatmannered:instead of shooting the model's entire face, the picturehas been croppedto show only the lips and chin at close range.This framingmakes the lips seem large and producesa field of contrasts,brightred againstlight beige. The cameraconcentrateson the highlytheatrical lips, leaving the chin out of focus. The lipstick application is more precise than is customaryin daily life, whichheightensthe contrastbetweenskin and lips. The tag line uses a graphicconvention: an arrowis drawn between the phrases"hi density color" and "high definition lips." Under a theory of visual rhetoric,we would expect the visual viewpoint, focus, graphics,and layout to be related in a specific way to the message itself, rather than to be independentvariables,as is often presumed in consumer research.In this particularad, we would expect the visual modificationsto work in service to a claim about dense color leading to increased impact. Given that the sharpnessof a photographis a function of its resolution, or the density of the image, the focus on two lipsticks may be intended to mirrorthe claims "high density" or "high definition."The placement of the focused area in the upper left of the spreadand of the tag line in the lower right suggestthat the makers
anticipated the conventional pattern of reading in Westernculture,whichis from upperleft to lowerright. This movementwould carrythe readerfromthe display of the tubes throughthe small copy block, to the highcontrast picture of the lips, and finally to the tag line. So, if we "read"the procession of images going from left to right, we might have a message similar to the tagline, somethinglike "high density color leads to (or resultsin) high definition lips." The designof this ad furthersuggeststhat the makers anticipated a normative response that included (1) a probableorderof processing (2) a sharedvocabulary and of stylistic mannerismsthat could be used in an evaluativeway. The processing impliedby this designwould be ordered,knowledgeable, inferential-and would and not be possible in a frameworkin which pictureswere absorbed peripherally or simply "conditioned" response. Instead, the response anticipatedby this ad is contingent on a kind of "reading"-the context-sensitive manipulation of learned symbols according to normative strategiesof processing. Now let's reconsiderour judgments about the Coty ad (see Fig. 1). While the images all meet our current notions of photographicrealism,their graphicposition is hardly naturalistic.Each picture was shot in an abstract setting, two were cropped into ovals and "suspended"in the field of the page. These are not pictures
256
of the productas seen in reality-these are pictures of the product as seen "nowhere."Further,the manner and arrangement the picturesimply a rhetoricalpurof pose and, thus, cannot be said to be straightforward or objective. In the large image, the tubes are balanced precariouslyagainst each other to present the case at an angle that heroizes the columnar design. In the smaller images, the refills are arrangedin a V-shaped formationwith the case at the point, which allows display of the colors while visually drawingattention to the refillablecase. The picture illustratingthe "ease of use" is positioned directly to the right of the words making that claim, an arrangementthat anticipates a readerwho will probablyworkfrom upperleft to lower right.Thus, even the ad that seemed perfectfor experimental manipulationevidencesboth rhetoricalintention and the anticipationof normativereading.Varying the size, position, or manner of the visual elements could,destroythe,relationshipsthat suggestboth a specific processingstrategyand the desired evaluation of the product. Let's think furtherabout the viewer these three ads collectively anticipate.This is a viewer who can think metaphoricallyand who will probably(but not necessarily)read from upperleft to lower right. This viewer can "see"5 some parts of a flat surfaceas "foreground" or "background" and can recognize whether a photographis in focus or not. Some partsof a pictorialpattern are more likely to be noticed by this viewer than other parts.This viewerwill "read"certaincameraangles as heroic,certaincolor contrastsas impactive.This viewer probablyhas experiencewith church choirs and soda water. Actual viewers, of course, will vary in the way they read these ads. But the designs of the ads themselves anticipate a viewer who knows certain pictorial conventions and who shares visual experiences with the makers. We shall see that readingthese pictures is an acquiredskill. First, however, a look at the literature will demonstratethe pervasivenessof our assumptions about advertisingimagesand how substantialtheir impact on the conduct of researchcan be.
THE LITERATURE
ExperimentalStudies
Severalpsychologicalmodels have been adapted to theorizethe way visualelementsin advertisements affect consumer response including classical conditioning (Rossiter and Percy 1978; Shimp, Stuart, and Engle 1991); the attitude toward the ad or affect-transfer model (A. Mitchell 1986; Mitchell and Olson 1981; model (Petty, Shimp 1981);the elaboration-likelihood Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983); brain lateralization (Hansen 1981;Janiszewski1990a, 1990b);visual/verbal loops (Rossiterand Percy 1980);and informationprocessing(MacInnisand Price 1987). These models have
been investigatedin overlappingways, which makes it difficultto stipulate distinct theoretical bounidaries in a review. The studies may, however, be grouped into two broad orientations. Classical Conditioning/Affective Response. In this approach,the image acts to produce an attachmentto the brand in a manner that is automatic, affective, or unconscious (or all of these at once). This treatmentof advertisingvisuals is particularlynoticeablein streams of researchthat specificallyposit a cognitive/affective, verbal/nonverbalpolarization and in which pictorial elements aretreatedas having simplypositivelyor negatively valenced effects. Although this researchsometimes theorizes a mediating influence of affect, or an impact on attitudes,the influence of the images themselves often "reduces, ultimately, to one of classical conditioning" (Rossiter and Percy 1980, p. 11). This of understanding visual communicationis quite reductive and mechanistic,requiringmere exposureadjacent to the product:"All that is necessaryis the contiguous associationof a brandor productstimuluswith a visual stimulus.The occurrenceof subjectivelypleasantvisual imagery beyond the initial iconic encoding response then becomes a sufficient condition for visual reinforcementto occur via classicalconditioning"(Rossiter and Percy 1978, p. 623). Notice three importantassumptionsunderlyingthis theory of response. First, the image is understood to havea simplepleasant/unpleasant positive/negative) (or value. No complex semantic content is considered. Second, the pictureis understoodto be "iconic"-that is, picturessimplypoint to objectsor experiencesin the empirical world. No stylization, metaphoricalpresentation, or fictionalization is incorporated.Third, the impact of the pictureis passivelyabsorbed; interpreno tive activity is invoked. In this formulation, then, the picture is a kind of sensory analogue that appearsto work in the absence of cultural mediation, cognitive activity, or judgment. The limitations of the classic conditioning/affective responseshould be more evident in light of our discussion of Figures 1-3. Such a theory cannot account for the differencebetween ads for the same product or for reasoned pictorial stylization or for visual metaphor. To the extent that stylization or fanciful figurescharacterize advertisingas a genre, this approachwill, by its own definitions, fall short of explaining consumer response. Further, by this theory, all human beings should respondto a picturein the same way-response should not varyby interpretationor judgment because such factorsare not part of the model. Notice that this stance also assumesthat visual perceptionis a passive, automaticactivity ratherthan a guidedapproachto negotiatingthe environment. Information Processing. In the information-processing paradigm, visuals have the potential for cognitive impact, eitherdirectly or by providing elabora-
257
tion. These scholars have struggled, however, with theorizingthe visual artifactas a form of information, which has led to a number of open questions about imagerygeneration(Maclnnisand Price 1987;Miniard et al. 1991), sensitivity to contextual influences (A. (Miniard Mitchell 1986),judgmentsof appropriateness and et al. 1991),the effectof discrepancies congruencies in visual form (Houston, Childers,and Heckler 1987), the effectsof croppingand cameraangle (Meyers-Levy and Peracchio1992;Peracchioand Meyers-Levy1994), and the interactionbetween image and text (Edell and Staelin 1983; Kisielius and Sternthal 1984; Lutz and Lutz 1977). However, this researchpromises to make a remarkable contribution,because, among other reasons, it replacesthe affectivetheoryof pictureswith one that recognizesthe potential for visuals to signify and, therefore, to persuade on many levels. The impetus seems constrained, however, by several assumptions aboutpicturesthat seem to have been carriedover from the affectiveresponseresearch. The most limiting assumption is the continued insistence on treatingthe visual as a kind of sensory analogue, ratherthan as a symbolic form like words or numbers.Imagesare understoodto referspecificallyto concrete phenomena and are explicitly distinguished from "symbolic" artifacts: "Specifically, imagery is presumedto have propertiesthat preservethe spatial
and size dimensions in actual stimuli. . . . Compared
with symbolic or language-like processing, imagery correspondence the to processingbearsa non-arbitrary (MacInnisand Price 1987, p. thing being represented" 475). Even here, picturescopy objects in a straightforwardfashion:thereis no room for the stylizedrendering or the fictive visual so common in advertisements.By not including stylization, this researchhas also overlooked a necessaryprecondition for visual processing: the need to retrievelearnedpictorialschematain order to interpretthe visual. Mitchell and Olson's 1981 attitude-toward-the-ad study has been foundational for the current trend in research.Looking closely at this study helps illustrate some of the limits of our presentthinking. In this nowclassic experiment, three "image" ads-pictures with no copy-and one "informational"ad a blank space write with a line of copy were tested. The researchers that "The verbal claim advertisementand one of the nonverbaladvertisementswere intentionally designed to communicatethat the brandhadthe specificattribute of softness" (p. 321). So, one image was a "picture of a fluffy kitten, assumed to be a positively evaluated stimulus and to connote 'softness.'" The two others, however,were "consideredto be essentiallyirrelevant to the product":a "pictureof a spectacularsunset over an ocean" (positive evaluation assumed) and a "presumably neutral picture of an abstractpainting" (pp. 321-322). Subjectswereexpectedto respondmost positively to the kitten ad, on the basis of beliefs formed about softness, to form positive feelings toward the
sunset, but without productattributebeliefs, and to be neutralor negativetowardthe painting, again without productbeliefs. intimatedsurpriseat the results.ReThe researchers spondents did like the kitten ad best-and did infer softness, as well as absorbency.But they also formed beliefs about the other products, making "inferences about other characteristicsof the four brands even though no relevantinformationwas provided"(p. 329; emphasisadded).The sunsetad was takento mean that the product came in attractive colors. The abstract painting had the same meaning but also suggestedthe product was cheaperand less sturdy. Sunsets are a symbol of colorfulness so broadly accepted in this culture as to be cliche. Abstractart can carry that same meaning. (Harder to explain is the "cheaper, less sturdy" view of the abstract painting, since it was not reproducedin the article.)The subjects seem to have responded in a predictableway, interpreting the visuals as product information, according to culturalconventions,just as if the ads had contained the words"colorful"or "inexpensive."The authorsasserted, however, that the consumers were working in an absence of information and theorized extraexperimental accounts for this effect, such as previously learnedproduct attributes(p. 329). They did not consider that all the visuals they had tested were information. In laterreviewsof this study,the meaningof the sunset and of the abstractpainting is often omitted (Edell and Staelin 1983; Hirschman and Solomon 1984) or reinterpretedas mere affect (A. Mitchell 1986; Percy 1983; Rossiter and Percy 1983). Smith (1991), for example, while studying the operation of visual information and inferences, repeats Mitchell and Olson's offered explanation that consumers made inferences about the "missing attributes" from the sunset and painting ads, because "the picturesprovided no information" (p. 14). In severalreviews,the abstractpainting's meaningis reducedto negativeaffect,even though the result showed a group of specific meanings. As a result, the fact that these two picturescommunicated attributesis still insufficientlytheorized. The impact can still be seen in Miniardet al. (1991), where the visual stimuli are classified either as providing product-relevantinformation or as "affect-ladenpicinformation"(p. 92). tures devoid of product-relevant picturesin the "irrelevant" Yet even the "peripheral," Miniardet al. studyproducedresponsesamong subjects that suggestnot only the formation of attributebeliefs but also operativejudgments of cultural "appropriatehowever,could not account for ness." The researchers, whatthe beliefsmight have been, becausetheirresearch being made design did not anticipateany "arguments" of by the picturesexcept for the warranting ingredients. For example,while Miniardet al. expectedthat pictures of orange slices would result in beliefs about the juice judgment content of the drink, the equally predictable
258
that a tropical beach scene meant the product had an exotic taste was unanticipated(pp. 104-105). From a rhetorician'sperspective,it appearsthe Miniard et al. subjects interpretedthe "irrelevant"pictures as figurative statementsin a manner similar to Mitchell and Olson's results:"as soft as a kitten," "as colorful as a sunset," "as exotic as a tropical beach." We can see, perhaps,that the treatment of some pictures as informational and others as "devoid of information" is problematicat best. A picture of iguanastested by Miniard et al. (1991) was deemed inappropriatefor a soft drink ad by their respondents.The response that a picture may be inappropriateis predicatedon a criticaljudgment made by the viewer, something that obviously goes beyond simple recall and the transferof valence or affect. The issue of inappropriateness necessarilyraisesthe specter of culturalstandardsat workby implying the existence of another realm of appropriatepictures for a given proposition.An implied set of appropriatepictures in turn suggeststhat.pastexperiencehas formeda socially constitutednotion of what "makessense" to show in a particularcontext. Miniardet al. ( 1991) suggestthat the style of a picture may make it inappropriate.They point out that Edell and Staelin's 1983 study used line drawingsthat might have been viewed as "crudeand primitive"and, therefore, inappropriate 104). In point of fact, whenever (p. the visuals are reproducedin this literature,we can see that the style is usually amateurishor dated. The limitations of generalizingfrom the stimuli found in these experimentsto the often lavish, fashionableimageryof advertisingare not addressed,however.This omission seems to be due to the belief that style has no impact of its own, thatthe objectpicturedoverrides manner the of picturing.Yet we can easily imagine, for example, thata pictureof a cat rendered Halloweenstylewould in not communicate softness and absorbencybut an entirely differentgroup of thoughts. A new concernof the researchon visual information processinghas been imageryproduction and manipulation. Advertisingvisuals have been thought to act either to retrievememories associatedwith the brand or as mnemonicdevices.The functionof imageswas, thus, tied to memory ratherthan to imagination. However, the orientation towardmemorycontinuesto haveeffect, since imageryproduction is conceptualizedas the retrieval and manipulation of real objects and experiences. The imaginative visual itself is not considered, nor has the link between notions of "image," "imagery," "imaginary,"and "imagination"been explored (MacInnis 1992). Outlandish creatures,futuristic environments, and impossiblesituations are easily observablein advertising. The preponderanceof such artifactspresses hard on the explanatorypower of our currenttheories,since each appearanceimplies a viewerwho must construct, and not just reconstruct,images in the mind. Such ac-
tivities cannot be fairly characterizedas cognitively passive or explainedwithin the confines of a memoryIf basedunderstanding pictureprocessing. we allowed of picturesto signifymetaphors,to reachout into fantasy, then many of the questions now being raisedabout the and significanceof certain picturesappropriateness and theiroperationin both memoryand imaginationmight be more fruitfullystudied and explained.
Large-ScaleDescriptive Studies of Advertisements

A second area of researchcan be characterized a by broadmethodologicalorientationratherthan by a unified theory. In these studies, large groups of advertisements are analyzed, usually after being broken down into componentsand slottedinto preselected categories. Most of these studiesare ostensiblyatheoretical,but an implicit visual theory tends to underpin both the researchdesign and the interpretationof results. Mechanical Elements Studies. One stream of research attempts to investigatevisual style through the incidence of graphicelements in large samples of adThesestudiesof graphics characteristically vertisements. break apart, code, and list visual forms, then correlate the presenceor absence of color, illustration,and photography,along with headline placement and typeface selection, to various measurements of aggregatedresponse (Assael, Kofron, and Burgi 1967; Diamond 1968; Finn 1988; Hendon 1973; Holbrook and Lehmann 1980; Reid, Rotfeld, and Barnes 1984; Rossiter 1981;Valiente 1973). Mechanicalelements are considered "nonmessage variables" in this research (Percy for 1983, p. 95), and their aggregation analysisappears to be based on an implicit theorythat graphicsproduce a uniform reflexwheneverencountered. One study, by Bellizzi and Hite (1987), does suggest that meaning is inferredfrom mechanicalelements by consumers: increasing the size of the type in an announcement for a sale positively affected consumers' perceptions of the magnitude of the discount. But we cannot generalize that large type implies heavy discounts any more than that picturesof cats alwaysmean softness.Suchmeaningsareinferred viewersworking by with a particularproposition. Largetype might mean productstrength, messageurgency,or a numberof other associations, depending on context. Procedures that these elements causethe guiding separateand aggregate reasoning of the production to become lost-and the responseto be dismemberedfrom the context that produced it. As we shall see, the meaning of visual style is a historical construct.Yet the changingground of printing technology,photographicconventions, and illustrative styleswithin which mechanicalelementsmust compete for attention and memory is not considered by these researchdesigns.Althoughthese kinds of studiesof me-
259
chanical elements have been conducted for many dehave not consideredthe probability cades, researchers that historical variations in either style or technology may be having an impact on their findings. Content Analysis. The method consistently used withpicturesin contentanalysis-the "simplecount"is based on the assumption, once again, that pictures merely point to objects and, thus, have no rhetorical impetus of their own. The implicit theory supporting the simple count is that the meaning of a pictorialtext can be derived simply by recording what is pictured, irrespectiveof how it is pictured or what might have been intendedby the picturing. For example, Kassarjian's (1969) content analysis of images of blacks in advertisingdoes not take into account the widespread practiceof racialstereotyping throughvisual caricature during the period covered by the study. Each appearance of a black person is counted and the aggregation is usedto measureimprovementin racialrepresentation over time. Stereotypingis only recognizedas manifest in the occupations pictured-again, what is pictured butpnothow it is pictured.Yet over a third of Kassarjian's sample was either drawings or cartoons. So, a subset of picturesin which lips are exaggerated,noses overlyflared,armsdrawnlong and apelike, could have been (and probablywas) included in the total set of picturesbeing used to measurean improvementin racial representations. Belk and Pollay (1985) investigatedthe chargethat "the advertising overrepresents good life."They counted historical representations luxury goods in ads and of comparedtheirincidenceto whatwas "real"at the time. The judgment here is that ads should faithfully copy realityand if they do not, it is a "distortion."There is no accommodation the fictivevisualor forthe various for rhetoricalfunctions of advertisingimages. The authors items" on the premisethat they counted "background are more "taken for granted"and, therefore, have a greater"potentialability to strengthenthe desirability of the material life depicted" (p. 888). This premise presumesthe viewer'sabilityto readpartsof an observably two-dimensional surface as "receding"(e.g., as background)accordingto cultural convention. It also presumes the habit of taking the background for granted-that is, not readingit with the same cognitive concentration anotherpartof the page.Belk and Polas lay have also posed a theory of visual effects:by virtue of the lack of focus, the effectof the background the on vieweris magnified. Thistheoryis not unlikethoseposed in underthe experimental paradigm, whichpicturesmay influenceus by slippingunnoticed past our facultiesof reason. These authorsbased the design of their study on (1) a theory of pictorialrepresentation,(2) an assumedvisual reading strategy,(3) an implicit theory of visual effects,and (4) an inferredglobalintentionto glamorize luxury. They were not "just counting." Nevertheless,
let's look at the strategyof counting itself: "The coding of the ads involved both visual illustrations and the themes conveyed by the combination of copy and illustration.Most of the visual codes were simple counts (e.g., the numberof adults, females),while most of the thematic codes were more judgmental (e.g., primary basis for appeal)" (p. 890). Please note that the visual elements are deemed accessible by simple counts and that the "basis for appeal" is conceptually separable from the picture. The mere picturingof a luxury item appears to have been a sufficient condition to count toward the global intention, without adjustment for what the visual style, metaphor, or arrangementmay have suggestedabout the item. The ability of visual connotations to subtly alter meaning-even to parody or criticize the item pictured-is powerfulbut is discernibleonly by those who know the meaning of a particularmannerismat a particulartime. Judgmentsof what is beautiful,stylish, or desirablecan be dislocatedin a matter of decades. For example, viewers-ofthe 1920s would be unlikely to see the people in the contemporaryads for The Gap as beautiful or their presentationas glamorous.Belk and Pollay's ''simple counts" are based on "sharedjudgments." In content analysis,discrepantinterpretations are supposed to be controlled by the use of multiple Such codersand othermeans of judginginterreliability. controls,however,cannot accountfor those interpretive that strategies the codersshare witheach other,by virtue of their historical moment and cultural background, but not with artistsor viewersin anothertime or place. In the mechanical element studies, the visual elements of color, line, size, and the like are not treated as part of the messagethey carry.Instead,their impact on the viewer is implicitly theorized as occurringautomatically and uniformly-independently of context or interpretation. Similarly, content analysis counts picturesof objectsas if the mannerof presentationand propositionalcontext wereirrelevent.In both schemes, visuals are essentially being conceptualized either as sensory stimuli or as perceptualanaloguesratherthan as signs.
InterpretiveStudies
Most of the interpretivework on the analysis of advertisingvisuals has been groundedin semiotic theory. of Some authors investigatethe formal characteristics ads as signs, often with an eye towarddevelopinga theory of response (Durand 1987; McQuarrie 1989; and McQuarrie Mick 1992;Mickand Politi 1989),while others use semiotic analysis of advertisingimages as a basis for social criticism(Leiss, Kline, and Jhally 1990; Williamson 1978). In semiotic theory, especially in structuralist approaches,it is often said that pictures signifyby virtue of their resemblance to an object (see Barthes 1977; Eco 1976;.Peirce 1931-1958). Consumer researchers
260
strivingto adaptsemiotictheoryto advertising analysis, however, have expressed dissatisfactionwith conceptualizingimagesas icons that denote reality.McQuarrie (1989), for example,makesuse of the traditionalnotion of the iconic sign, yet he also poses the alternativepossibility that images have a "non-literaland tacit character"(p. 112). Mick and Politi (1989) go even further, taking issue with the idea that the visual sign offers a clear-cut,nature-based denotation. They contend that "the concept of denotation in advertisingillustrations is misguided"and suggestthat "an alternativemeaning model of advertisingconsumption is needed to more fully appreciatethe complexities and nuances of consumers'interpretationsof advertisingimages" (p. 85). When semiotic analysis is expanded into cultural criticism(as in Leiss et al. 1990;Williamson 1978), the theoretical principle that pictures reflect reality often becomesthe demandthat picturesshouldreflectreality. Critics frequentlychastise advertisingimages for distortingor misrepresenting things as they are. Such criticism pointedly overlooks the fact that pictures, like words, are often being used in ads to pose arguments, raise questions, create fictions, present metaphors, or even mount a critique-and are not intended (or read) as faithful copies of reality in the first place. In those instances, the very purpose of the genre, which is not to representbut to persuade,is pushed aside. or Consumerresearch, whetherinterpretive scientific, struggleswith the widely held belief that there is-or should be-a naturalconnection between picturesand reality. As a consequence, researchersoften overlook or misinterpret rhetorical the activityof visualelements. In orderto accommodatepicturingas a form that can versusmisrepresentation, signifybeyondrepresentation we need a theory that resituates the pictorial sign in culture.Let'sbeginby examiningthe basisfor our belief in the "natural"sign.
of tently treatedas representations reality(W. Mitchell 1986). Today, the prevalenceof theories in which picor turesrepresentreality(such as structuralism) should representreality (such as Marxism) is directly attributableto the focus in our own art historyon developing conventions of mimesis. That is to say, becauseour art has concerneditself with devisingways to representobserved reality, we formulate theories in which that is what picturesdo.
THE CASE AGAINST COPY THEORY
The CulturalBasis for Seeing

The idea that picturesare simply windowson reality rests on the furtherassumption that visual perception occurs without the mediation of thought, that sensory data is simply "emptied"directlyinto the mind (Gombrich 1960, p. 28). A longstandingtraditionin Western separates perceptionfromthought,then files scholarship images in the first category but words in the second (Arnheim 1980, pp. 171-174). As a result, visual peras ception has often been characterized passiveand automatic, as a naturalcapabilitybased in biology rather than in culture. Now, however, many scientists and theorists say that seeing is an active behaviorand that seeminglynaturalvisual processesare actuallylearned. Far from operatingindependentlyof cognition, vision is purposiveand directed-some arguethat thought itas self is more properlycharacterized visualthan verbal (Arnheim 1980; Kosslyn 1987; Marr 1982). Medical studies of blind adults given sight through correctivesurgeryshow that we have to be taught the ".rulesof seeing," a process that takes years (Segall et al. 1966). The rules of seeing we must learn are not universalprinciplesbut are formed by the naturaland social environmentsthat teach us both what to look at and how to look (Cole and Scribner 1974). Cross-culturaland historicalstudieshave establisheddefinitively that the pictures we make actually influence the way we see (Gombrich 1960; Segall et al. 1966). Effortsto duplicatevisualperceptionin artificialintelligencehave shown that the nature of seeing rests first on the purposes of looking (Marr1982). Thus, even simple visual perception of the environment is a problematic concept-seeing is a learned behavior that involves cognitive activity.
THE COPY THEORY OF PICTURES

In arttheoryand criticism,the argument that pictures resemble reality is known as copy theory (Goodman 1976; W. Mitchell 1986). Artistic practice in Western culture has historically focused on the refinement of techniques for the purpose of mimesis, the representation of observedreality. This emphasis on mimesis differentiates Westernculturefrom other societies (Segall, Campbell, and Herskovits 1966). Mimetic techniques originated in the "illusionistic" paintings of classical Greece, continued through the development of the "rules of perspective"during the Renaissance, and dominated the concerns of artists until the twentieth century,when modernism challengedthe imperative to represent realistically (Gombrich 1960; W. Mitchell 1986). Developing in parallel with the techniques of Western pictorial realism were theories of picturesthat shareda common assumption:from Plato and Aristotleto Locke and Hume, images were consis-
Making and Looking at the Pictorial Artifact

In processing complex symbolic visual materialssuch as paintings, photographs,and advertisementscognitive participationis a necessity, and the reliance on learningcrucial. The reason is that picturesare unavoidably artifactual. Even when their purpose is to representreality, the essence of pictures is to render full-bodied visual perception onto a two-dimensional plane via some translationof medium, such as paint or pencil. Thus, a drawingof a horse is unlike a horse in
261
FIGURE4 BLUE GRASS AD
a very materialsense. We translateobjectsinto pictures

by the process of representation using previously made
"agreements"about how certain objects or concepts will be drawn.These agreementsare known as pi'ctorial
conventions or conventions of representation. Pictorial
. ......... . s x , _
..........................
conventionsare neithernaturalnor self-evidentbut are formed by the purposes of the representation,as well as the viewing habits of the culture (Gombrich 1960; Segall et al. 1966). Processing a picture rests on selecting and knowledgeablycombininglearnedpictorialconventionsthen applyingthem to the pictureat hand. Look at the 1935 Blue Grass ad (Fig. 4). To "see" a horse on a field in this modernistpatternof lines and shapesrequiresthe invocation of a huge catalogue of previously experienced pictures of horses-as well as a working familiaritywith moderniststylesof visual notation. The conventions of modernismthat we now readso easily were once unknownto popularaudiences.It is an important by-productof advertisingthat a range of art styles are made part of the common language of the populace. The art director'spenchant for borrowing"high art" styleshas taughtthose conventionsto peoplewho might never have visited an art museum (Marchand 1985). Artdirectorsalso borrowfrompopular,even unpopular forms, such as the "punk"style, with its roots in working-classBritishyouth culture. In each case, a new pictorialschemais addedto the potentialvisualrepertoire. As our pictorial vocabulary expands, previously learned schemata are processed more readily, which causesus to see stylesthat once seemedhighlymannered as natural.Although newly devised styles of representation are often seen as arbitrary, awkward, cryptic,and even frightening,the conventions are learned until, in time, they look self-evident(Gombrich 1960; see also Mick 1986). One way of demonstratingthis process is to examine the historicalresponseto new sets of visual conventions.The style of impressionismwas at firstjarring and unintelligibleto viewersof the late nineteenth century. Now, few of us have trouble seeing dancers, children, or gardensin the works of Degas, Renoir, or Monet. Contrariwise,it is well documented that judgments of what looks lifelike varies a great deal over time and acrosscultures(Hagen 1986).
* ...... I!_.......... i ...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

........^ :}
. . ... ....... -,D' ... ............................ _ | l * 4 ...

_
| |
.....
ig
.5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... fX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ............... . .... . .... ._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ | _! l v

. ........._
~~~~ ~
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
, ... ,
ll
. ..
........
.3.....-
...
....
. ..i
...................... .
............~~
,8.,
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............I...................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
H i | s
a.i..aI_...
|l
N | ! ................. r
_ .x::::::
............: : .-....it\.Xw .......... .I .. ... I5 F_~~~~~~............. _ . ................. ..................................... | I *

.. ': 1 iRS ... :: : ........................... _ I | ! .... i
, i::::::::
..................\E
* ,
::g:
. ............ ]
:0
.; .
i3!.
_.
7_:7' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... .: } ':. ... ........... .fi........... X :...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......::: :............._ :J .. :rt.t. ... ..:.._ ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....
.......... .s s
a field of vision that, in fact, cannot be narrowed to
show whatwe humanssee (Gombrich1980).If we could

duplicate the conditions under which the rules of per-
spective-or cameras-actually operate, human subjects would be able to see nothing at all (Goodman 1976). Further, the illusion produced is always constrained by the flatness of the surface:when we see a
picture as realistic 'we must overlook the unrealistic
Camerasand Convention
Camerasare designedto recordan image according to the Westernrulesof perspective.Those lawstheorize a single vantagepoint over a scene, a point of view that is emphaticallysingular(in a manner that a two-eyed animal can never see) and stationary(in a mannerthat an animal who sees mostly through movement can never see). The field of vision thus manufacturedis wider than the human field of vision, which allows us to focus on a largerarea than we actually achieve in sight. The cameraobscuramechanismin photography providesa single viewpoint, a stationaryexposure,and
impact of putting three-dimensionalinformation into two-dimensional space (Hochberg 1983). Even when we confront a "realistic"image, therefore,we respond to it as a symbolic artifact.This is why, when we see a National Geographicphotographof a tiger, we do not run screamingfrom the room. We see it as "real,"but at the same time we know it is not. In sum, we must learnto understand camerasnot as machinesthatrecord the world as it is (or even as we see it) but as machines designedto representthe world in the mannerwe have
learned to show it
The many types of photographyfor variouspurposes of showingdemonstratethis situationfurther.Consider that an X-rayis a specialsort of photographthat, while it is also based on a certain causal process of exposure to life, must be understoodaccordingto the purposes
262
andrulesof representation. must know howto read One an X-ray. New ways of capturing distant images in space, while they are based on exposure to something out there, present pictures and spectra that one must know how to interpret.Even in the media, we understand photographsthrough our knowledge of various processesof photography.If we see a photographof a tree with a human face, we know that we are dealing with a superimposedphotograph-yet childrencan be puzzled by s"uch pictures, which indicates the role of learning in interpretation.Thus, "our mastery of the skill of interpretingor 'reading'-photographs depends essentiallyupon our schematicknowledgeof how such photographs are in fact normally produced" (Black [1972] 1984, p. 126).
Copy Theory and Ethnocentrism

When we base our studies on the assumption that ourpicturessimplycopy realityand are,thus, analogical to the world as we see it, we are allowing Westernculturalassumptions, become the standardby which huto man response is measured. This is the error anthropoldgistscall ethnocentrism.
The effectof [the invention of artificialperspective]was
nothing less than to convince an entire civilization that it possessed an infallible method of representation, a system for the automatic and mechanical production of truths about the material and the mental worlds. The best index to the hegemony of artificial perspective is the way it denies its own artificiality and lays claims to being a "natural" representation of "the way things look," "the
way we see," or . . . "the way things really are." Aided
by the political and economic ascendance of Western Europe, artificial perspective conquered the world of representation under the banner of reason, science, and objectivity. No amount of counterdemonstration from artists that there are other ways of picturing what "we really see" has been able to shake the conviction that these pictures have a kind of identity with natural human vision and objective external space. And the invention of a machine (the camera) built to produce this sort of image has, ironically, only reinforced the conviction that this is the natural mode of representation. What is natural is, evidently, what we can build a machine to do for us. [W. Mitchell 1986, p. 37]
One of the most difficult obstacles to overcoming an ethnocentric view on any topic is that the learned way
of thinking about the phenomenon has come to seem naturaland obvious,while the implied alternativeview seems unnatural, ridiculous, or even repulsive. Most viewersin Westernculturehave greatdifficultyaccepting the notion that Westernpictorial realism is based on convention ratherthan being simply a window on the world as it is (Cole and Scribner1974; Segall et al. 1966). The validity of a copy theory of pictures,thereissue that involves a truly infore, is a hotly con-tested researchprogramincluding anthropolterdisciplinary ogy, psychology,art history,philosophy, and language theory (cf. Block 1981; Hagen 1980; Mitchell 1980).
Cross-cultural Studies in Pictorial Perception. Because the proliferation of mass-media has causedthe numberof cultureswithoutWesternpictorial experience to dwindle rapidly, the cross-culturalresearcheffortseems to raceagainstthe clock. From 1900 workconcernedwith to 1950, a body of anthropological differencesin pictorial perceptionbegan cross-cultural to accumulate.Much of this work was anecdotal,some from and of it contradictory, experimentsoften suffered crudestimuli and racistdesigns(Jonesand Hagen 1980; Segall et al. 1966). Nevertheless,as a whole, this body difof work tended to suggestsignificantcross-cultural ferences in pictorial perception and to suggest that Western pictorial realism was not universally interpretable. "More than one ethnographerhas reported of the experienceof showinga clearphotograph a house, a person, a familiarlandscapeto people living in a culture innocent of any knowledge of photography,and to have the pictureheld at all possible angles,or turned over to an inspection of its blank back, as the native of triedto interpretthis meaninglessarrangement varying shadesof grey on a piece of paper"(M. Herskovits, quoted by Goodman [1976, p. 15n]). In 1956, Marshall Segall, Donald Campbell, and and initiateda hugeanthropological MelvilleHerskovits psychologicalstudy intended to investigate the crossin culturaldifferences pictorialperceptionsuggestedby but earlierresearchers to do so in a thorough and rigorous way. The study, conducted from 1956 to 1961, used a sample of 1,878 respondentsfrom 15 different societies, including 13 non-Westerngroups chosen to fromamongcultureswith widely providerepresentation differingnative architecture,naturalenvironment,and habits of representation,as well as to provide subjects who had never been exposed to Westernmimesis. The results,publishedin 1966, did reveal significantdifferences in susceptibilityto optical illusions designed to test the influenceof culture-especially experiencewith Westernpictorialrealism-on pictureperception.The authorsarguedfurtherthat using picturesto represent realityis itself a culturalpeculiarityand is perhapseven more arbitrary than the conventionsthemselves(Segall et al. 1966, p. 94). Laterstudieshaveattemptedto counterthesefindings to a limited degree (Jones and Hagen 1980), but the inability or failure to control for past pictorial experience reduces their persuasiveness.Further,other conventional devices we often take for granted,such as the use of lines to representmotion or shadow,are still seen as indisputably culturally derived (Jones and Hagen 1980, pp. 215, 220). Evidence. People who Medical and Developmental gain sightthroughcorrectivesurgeryoften have "severe and continuing deficits in a variety of visual skills" as the result of having missed the normal developmental sequence(Olson,Yonas, and Cooper 1980,p. 159).One skill that does not come automaticallyis the ability to
263
read pictorial material (Segall et al. 1966). Studies of children's pictorial abilities are somewhat contradictory,but studiessuggestthat learningis involved (Olson et al. 1980, p. 189). In particular,"processeswhich are unique to pictures, such as ignoring binocular information and dealingwith incorrectstation points, may be more dependent on pictorial experience [than inherited traits or biological ability] for their development" (p. 189). In both developmental researchand the study of the neurologicallyimpaired, the need to treatpicturesas a "specialcase" distinct from environmental perceptionis increasinglyrecognized(Coffman 1980). Historical Evidence. Perhaps the most damaging critiquecomes directlyfromthe historyof Westernpictorial realism. In Art and Illusion:A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation,Ernst Gombrich combined perceptual psychology with the historical recordof Westernart to produce a powerfulargument against copy theory. Gombrich painstakinglydemonstratedthat even the most naturalisticforms of representationare based on conventions learnedby both artist and viewer. By the 1980s, copy theory had been seriously chalhistorical,and developmental lengedfromcomparative, standpoints.Althoughthe debategoes on, a few points of agreementcan be identified:(1) most, if not all, of the pictorialartifactswe deal with every day are highly conventional constructions; (2) visual perception is profoundlyinfluencedby learned habits of interpretation gleaned from past experience with pictorial materials;and (3) assumingthat a picture'spurpose is to representreality is a peculiarlyWesternchimera. The belief that Westernpictorial realism is automatically, universallyaccessibleis still subjectto seriousquestion, its intuitive persuasivenessnotwithstanding.
The ExplanatoryLimits of the Copy Theory

Whetherone accepts the empiricalevidence against it or not, the copy theory is still grossly lacking in explanatorypower. The first theoretical problem is that visual resemblanceis neither necessary nor sufficient for pictorial representation (Goodman 1976). One photographmay look very much like another, but we do not say that they representeach other. Yet focusing of on the resemblance a pictureto its referentarbitrarily overlooks its more fundamentalresemblanceto other pictorialmaterialand thus its inherentlysymbolic nature: "A Constablepainting of MarlboroughCastle is more like any other picture than it is like the Castle, yet it representsthe Castle and not another picturenot even the closest copy" (Goodman 1976, p. 5). Defining resemblance has proved problematic, since "similarityis such a capaciousrelationshipthat almost anythingcan be assimilatedinto it. Everythingin the world is similar to everythingelse in some respect, if we look hard enough" (W. Mitchell 1986, p. 57). Fi-
nally, visual signs may representan objectwithout any resemblance at all-as a signature may stand for its owner or a seal may representa monarch. "The plain fact is that a picture, to representan object, must be a symbol for it, stand for it, referto it; and that no degree of resemblance is sufficient to establish the requisite relationshipof reference.Nor is resemblancenecessary for reference;almost anything may stand for almost anythingelse" (Goodman 1976, p. 5). If picturescan denote objectsindependentlyof visual resemblance,then we have arrivedat the definition of a symbol: denotation by agreement or convention, a sign produced by culture, not nature. If pictures, like words, are symbols and do not rely on a concrete referent to signify, then they should be able to denote things other than objectsin empiricalreality.Since the copy theory only conceives of picturesin terms of their fidelityto perception,any fanciful or "unrealistic"picture presentsan anomaly. Culturalcritics have eluded this theoreticalissue by simply rejectingany unrealistic picture as a distortion or deception. The problemgoes deeper than that. If pictures are merely copies of real objects and the mind processes them as such, then, theoretically, fanciful and unrealistic pictures cannot exist. What does a picture of a god or a goblin referto in observablereality?Nothing. Yet such picturesoccur in many contexts worldwide and throughout history. In advertising,for example, we often encounter characters like the Pillsbury Doughboy, Joe Camel, and Tony the Tiger.Copytheoryis unableto accommodate these fictiveimagesbecausetheir referentsdo not exist. Copy theory also fails to explain the intentional selectivitybehindall pictures-and has been roundlydismissed as naive on that basis (Boas and Wrenn 1964; can Goodman 1976). No pictorialrepresentation show an object in all the ways it can be seen. The point of view shown in any picture (including any advertisement) representsa selection on the part of the photographer,painter,or art director,and is, thus, inherently biased-a rhetoricalact. The style in which an object is shown can vary in many ways, each with its own connotative meaning. Therefore,the selection of style Any is also inherentlyinterested-again, it is rhetorical. studythat asserts"objective"resemblancebetweenthe representationand its object ignores the myriad ways in which the same object can be picturedand, thus, the rhetoric of the picture at hand. Because of the choice of both view and style, mere copying never occurs:all picturingis rhetorical. and numberof visualartifacts pictorialIf a significant practicescannot be explainedby a referenceto objects in the real world, then we need to seek more encompassing theories. Several theorists suggest that visual artifactsare much more fully understoodas a symbol system-a kind of picture-writing-thanas a replication of sensory experience (Goodman 1976; W. Mitchell 1986).
264
THE ADVERTISING IMAGE AS RHETORICAL SYMBOL

Consider that many known forms of writing have been based on pictures ratherthan on the encoding of the sounds of spoken language(Goody 1968). The Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyph,and Chinese ideographall rest initially on a system whereby conof ventional representations objectsare used to signify. However, such a system quickly reaches a limit: it is analogous to a languagewith only concrete nouns in it. In orderto be able to signify concepts, actions, and modifiers, all pictographiesemploy a combination of contextualizationand stylizationof the pictures.In this way, the system moves from the concrete referenceto complex communication. I suggest that advertisingvisuals work in the same manner. Through variations in the selection of viewpoint, style, and context, as well as throughreferences to or interactionswith other texts and systems, these images become capable of highly sophisticatedrhetorical tasks. Consumersdrawon a learnedvocabularyof pictorial symbols and employ complex cognitive skills even in the simplestresponse.Thus, advertisingimages can be understood as a discursive form, like writing, capable of subtle nuances in communication or, like numbers,capableof facilitatingabstraction and analysis. Imagesdifferfrom other symbolic systemsin a numthe ber of ways.For example,separating units of meaning in a visual statementis even more problematicthan in language:"The image is syntacticallyand semantically dense in that no markmay be isolatedas a unique, distinctive character(like a letter of an alphabet),nor can it be assigneda unique referenceor 'compliant.'Its meaning depends rather on its relations with all the other marksin a dense, continuous field" (W. Mitchell 1986, p. 67; see Goodman 1976, pp. 59-69). Consider the 1943 Tabu ad in Figure 5. The image is executed in a style that unapologetically just apes impressionism, as the Blue Grassad is clearlyan amalgamof modernisms. Impressionism a way requires particular of looking at a painting, sometimes describedas "readingacross the brushstrokes" (Gombrich 1960, p. 202). Even in though the brushstrokes this ad, as in impressionist paintings, are relatively discrete, the image must be constitutedby puttingthem together.Unlike the letters of the alphabet,no one of those brushstrokes could be removed, placed in another image, and even be recognizable,let alone meaningfulin the same way. We might begin, then, by conceptualizingthe advertisement as a pictorial field, with marksthat, when assembled,suggestobjects,a connotativemanner,and an order of processing. The simultaneous occurrence of certainobjectswithin the fieldwould suggesta concept, create a fiction, or referto another text. For example, a black cat in the same field with a pumpkin would
FIGURE5 TABU AD
th move pitoil
stteen
fro pontn
to objct
thefild syboicifntract
fi c an k.)ion ccrtht
lo
byi"symbol" hbere.tO whatemeantfo Loethme qucoralf
the one hand, I am proposingthat visuals are symbolic on the basisof the fact that they areconventionalrather than natural. But I am also proposing that they work in a highly complex manner that transcends merely pointing to objects. Further,this is a dynamic system of symbols,one that arisesout of social interactionand, thus, is capable of subtle differentiationand modification ratherthan of merelya one-to-one correspondence with an object (or a signified). In terms that Durgee (1985) introducedto consumer research,visuals are a social, rather than logical, code and an elaborated, ratherthan restricted,system. Therefore,we would not of expect exact, concretecorrespondences meaningbut ratherprovisional,contextuallysituatedmeaningsthat and are highly sensitiveto differentiation relationships.
ADVE:RTISINGN IMAGEFS IN%
265
FIGURE6 CUREL AD
VISUAL RHETORIC: DEMONSTRATION OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

Once we let go of the notion that advertisingimages must be understood as reflections (or distortions) of reality,we can workwith them as a symbol system employed for the purpose of persuasion.As I mentioned at the outset,a systemof visualrhetoricneedsto operate and at three levels:the invention, the arrangement, the deliveryof argument.Let's now look at some examples that demonstratethe work of visuals at these three levels, see whatthey suggestabout the natureof consumer response, and then use those ideas to pose questions about future research.
Invention
In advertising,the invention of an argumentencomwould call positioning,copy passesthe stepsadvertisers strategy,and concept. Invention includes the benefit promisedto the consumer,the supportfor the promise, the relationship(implicit or explicit) to competitive alternatives,and the organizingargumentor metaphor. Forexample,in the Curelad in Figure6, the positioning is probably"the richesthand lotion." The copy strategy promises the benefit of superior emollience, with the supportbeing the thickerconsistencyin comparisonto that of other hand lotions. The advertising concept would be what classical rhetoricianscall an argument from consequence.The consequencethat other lotions run, while Curel does not, is used to imply the cause: other lotions are less rich and effective. The picture demonstratesthe consequences, which "proves" the cause by implication. To understandthe message, consumers must interpretthe pictureas a symbolic summaryof a past event. They must infer that there was a plane with five dabs of lotion on it that was rotated until perpendicularto the ground, which caused the force of gravity to pull the lotions downward.Whetherthey believe or accept the argument,consumersmust be able to imagine this action by using tacit familiarity with such disparate conceptsas lotion, planes,rotation,and gravityin order to understandwhat is being said (see Pylyshyn 1981). In consequence,this simple picture implies a complex cognitive response. The responseto a trope also requiresa sophisticated mental process.In readingthe Clinique ad (see Fig. 2), consumers must combine experiencewith soda water and cosmetics-two very dissimilar things-deduce what they might have in common, select which commonality might be appropriateas the basis for an ad e.g., but not "tasteless"),and make the ("refreshing," the metaphor.Underpinning entireprocessis a rejection of the consumption experience that is literally represented:that the lipstickscome in a glass of soda water, that sodawateris good to drinkwith lipstickin it. Here,
then, we have an implied viewer who exercises selecand tivity, uses experiencewith the genreof advertising, engages in metaphorical thinking. Simply comprehendingthe picturerequirescomplex processing,which includesimaginationandjudgment,as well as memory. If this ad is working to produce an affective response in the consumer, it can do so only at the end of a sequence of sophisticatedcognitive steps. When fictions are employed in the invention of an argument, interaction with other texts sometimes occurs. For example, in Figure 7 we see a woman who has opened a jeweled box staringin awe at the vapors, jewels, and fairiesescapingfrom it. Many readersfrom Westernculturewould quickly interpretthis pictureas box.1Yet retrieving an allusionto the myth of Pandora's
storyof Eve box 'The storyof Pandora's is similarto Christianity's beginsin a time when therewas no evil and the apple.The narrative in the world and all humans lived happily. A beautiful and gifted woman named Pandorais createdby the Greekgods and is sent to earthbearinga locked golden box she has been told never to open. For a time, Pandoradoes not open the box, but eventuallyher curiositygets the best of her. As she raisesthe lid, a swarmof creatures fly out of it, each of them an allegoryfor some disease,sin, or crime.
266
FIGURE7 DJER-KISS AD

FIGURE8 HONDA AD
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
............. 4..4. .. ... .... .....
.. .
b~~~~
. Jj~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ toyQur75~~~~~~~~~~~~~?au(.... ~~~~~~ 3.f. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .... .... -, ~A zX 6A . ...... ~~~~~~ A?~~~~~~~~~~~~W
A ...... . .
'A" M A,:.: . ..... .
... .
..... .
Ifl tw h U
AN
t YLP
"Pandora's from the storehouseof box" cultural. ..inforisisufcen.o.teredrtomk th mean-.... mation~~~~~~M,41~ ing. Once recallthe storyof~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. we Pandora that opening box brought~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IJ the det.... an. we.remember lles no h ..... world. Our prior experience with ads, as the~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... well as takes into account a notion of what is reasonable to voluptuous and sinfir style~. in... th rndrig wol lead us rejecta hypothesisth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Wat expect from the form at hand (Culler 1975, p. 140). We to je-Ks Nwastrin to communicate ability to confer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. its illnes. Insead.w our of Pandora's box to fit the in-
dora'soa'"box"ofrloveline ss." oseo uluaifr of the teaextoi effeced throughan Thmnepeation isisfiin the processuofs seyletivereconciiatsion.Tais readrn,wude
interpretation adjust tentions we expect from advertising. Such an activity is clearly inconsistent with the notion that the viewer simply absorbs the image, or is conditioned by it in the classical sense. Instead, the viewer is actively reconciling shared extratextual material with a frame that suggests what is appropriate for an advertising claim.
Arrangement
Next, let's consider the arrangement of a visual argument. Classical rhetoricians recognized that the order in which propositions are made can be as important to persuasion as the arguments invented. Contemporary rhetorical theorists have emphasized the temporal unfolding of the reading experience in understanding reader response (Fish 1980; see also Eco 1978). Similarly, in advertising, the choice and placement of visual elements helps to modulate the viewer's experience of the text in time. In the Honda ad reproduced in Figure
Pandoracannot shut the lid in time to keep the cieatures from escaping, but when she looks at the bottom of the empty box, there remainsa bright,shiningobjectcalled Hope. This storyis offeredto explainthe existenceof death,evil, and illnessin the world-but also of hope.
267
FIGURE 9 MARTEXAD
8, the size and pitch of the typeface changes from the top line to the bottom line. The experienceof reading the text suggests, by analogy, a movement from a cramped environment to a spacious one. Notice how the change in the typeface alters the meaning of the word "this"from the firstline to the eighth. In the first line, "this" means "cramped,squashedtogether" because the type is set tightly. In the eighth line, "this" means "space"because the typeface is now largerand set fartherapart.We know to readthe second "this"as "space"only becauseof the comparisonto the previous "this" in a tight setting-without the comparison,the second "this" would be meaningless. Neither "this" would make sense if the entire text were set uniformly. Thus, the meaning of the text is modulated by the change in visual elements as they are likely to be experiencedin time. In the Max Factor ad (see Fig. 3), we saw how the arrangementof all the visual elements worked knowledgeablywith the normative practicesof reading ads. Both the picturesand the wordswereplacedwith a feeling for the visual context, flowing across the field in a mannerthat anticipatedthe movement of readingas it would probablyoccur in time. In this way, the orderof argumentationwas guided by the layout of the ad.
__
. .. . . .
Delivery
The mannerin which an objector propositionis presented inherently implies an evaluation to the viewer and is a determiningfactorin the reader'seventual assessment (Bakhtin 1989). In speech, delivery includes the intonation, the selection of words, the manner of gesturing,and the accent. These elements of delivery mightbe usedto suggesta friendlyspeaker,a ponderous topic, a festive occasion, and so on. So, the manner of deliverytells the audiencehow the speakerwishesthem to evaluatethe topic (as "ponderous"), occasion (as the "festive"), and the speaker's own character (as "friendly").In advertising,visual delivery will usually suggest evaluation in two ways: (1) the point of view shownand (2) the mannerof rendering. Certaincamera anglespresentthe productas "heroic"; certaintypefaces appear"romantic." For an illustrationof the use of style to evoke associationsand suggestproductevaluation,look at Figures 9 and 10. Theseadsboth use picturesof bedsheets.From a straight-oncameraangle, the Martexad presentsthe sheets in a common consumption situation: they are on a bed. Yet the setting and the manner of rendering glamorizethe productin a way that is not encompassed simply by saying what is shown (a bed in a room with some sheetson it). The bed is of an unusualstyle,carved elaboratelyof a richwood. The pillows and coverletare arrangedin an artfulaffectationof disarray.Notice especially,however,the overallsoftnessof the photograph and the singular effect produced by the lighting. See how the light picks up the edges of the bed in sharp
points of white. Observehow the bed glows as if in early morning daylight,and the rest of the room is left,in an austere darkness.All of these elements, in total, constitutea photographic adaptationof the domesticscenes of the seventeenth-century D'utchrealists,especiallyJan Vermeer. This all'usionto a widely recognized, traditional art style plays out the headline: "TheArt of Martex." The Wamsutta ad, in contrast, is cropped so closely that it only shows the sheets. Yet the product has been stretchedand lit in a way that createsthe optical illusion of a mobile. This is clearlythe intent, given the headline, "This is not an avant-gardemobile. It's a sheet." Both of these ads make referencesto art not only in theirheadlinesbut also in theirvisualstyle.Eachpicture does not just representsheets but representssheets as art. No picture is merely a representation,but a representationas or a representationas if. a lipstick represented as refreshingversus a lipstick representedas as heroic,a camel represented ifit werea man, an office representedas "real"(Goodman 1976). Let's think about what might be accomplished by showing sheets representedas art. In Westernculture, so-called high art often carriesthe social connotation "highclass,"as well as superioraesthetics(Berger1977).
268 FIGURE 10 WAMSUTTAAD

... .. .. . . . ........... ........... ........ . .. ........ ........ ..... ........... ..... .. ............... . .....
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER
RESEARCH
......
.....
...
.........
.. .......... .......
......
.. ....
. .
. . . . ............ .. . . . ... ........ .
....
........ .
. ..
..........
. .... .. ...... ...
............ . .. .... ........ ............. .. . .. ........... .. .... .... .. . ..... ..... ..... ...
.......... ... . .
. ...........
.....
.. .....
...... ...... T;ili . . ..... :f ....... ........ .... .. ... ... .....
.. . . . ....... . .. .. ..
lt!s a gieet. . ......... .

.. ............. . ... .. ..... .. . . ........... ...... .......... ........... .. ... . . ... .............. ... .......... . ........... ..
... . . .....
........
..
. . . ... .......
It seems plausiblethat these advertisers attempting are to elevatethe statusof theirproductsby makingstylistic allusions to high art forms. The differencebetween the two styles used is also meaningful:Martex points to a traditionalart form, Wamsuttato a newer one. These styles situate the sheets in two broad categories of housewares: "finedesign/traditional" "fine design/ and contemporary."Thus, recognized styles of representation were used here to communicate product information. Notice also that the photographin the Wamsuttaad does not rely on its naturalmode of representation but assertsits own artifice.By creatingthe illusion that the sheet is a mobile, this photographdoes not presentthe object as it is, but emphatically as what it is not. A photographdoes not necessarilysignify by simulating objectiverepresentation.Photographyhas its own stylistic conventions: a soft-focus color photographis to be interpreted than a grainyblack-and-white differently one. The nature of style resists fragmentationinto units. Style is like the intonation of an utterance,something that pervadesand is continuous with the wordsspoken and, thus, is not something that can be isolated easily or even pointedto with precision(Bakhtin1989,p. 404). Each of the Martexand Wamsuttaads is renderedin a singular,identifiablestyle that communicateshow the
advertisers wish the readerto view the product.In each case,thereareseveralformalcues:the single,apparently natural light source in the Martex ad that is so reminiscent of Vermeer, the shadows in the Wamsuttaad that create the illusion that the geometric figures are floating.Yet there is no one thing that you can isolate as "the thing" that constitutes the style. An open window does not a Vermeermake. While not all ads use high artto representtheir product, most ads do use some heroized or fanciful style; hence, the ad agency colloquialisms "hero shot" or "beautyshot" to describethe picture of the product.It is of critical importance to begin accommodatingthe influence of visual style on consumer response.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The researchprogramfor visual rhetoricshould investigatehow visual symbols are processedin thought, as well as explore how images are produced,used, and in interpreted consumerculture.Therefore,developing and testing a theory of visual rhetoricwould have applications across paradigms.In addition to suggesting new paths of research,a rhetoricalapproachcan help in formulatinganswersto existing questions.
269
Cognitive Processing
The most important contribution of this approach may be the redefiningof advertisingvisuals as part of a symbolic system. The central insight in information processing has been that human thought consists of manipulatingsymbols, but relianceon the analogybetween computerprocessingand human thoughthas led to a limited conceptualizationof symbolic materialin which discreteunities-like alphanumeric charactersarereadand manipulated(Kosslynand Hatfield 1984). As a result, visual symbols have received less study: "thebias within cognitivepsychologyhas been towards the use of verbal material and linguistic performance and away from pictorial and non-language stimuli" (Crozierand Chapman 1984, p. 13). In our own literature,imagesare still treatedas sensoryanaloguesand defined as nonsymbolic material. The processing of pictorial materialis explicitly distinguishedfrom discursiveprocessing,such as is involved in readingwords (Maclnnis and Price 1987). The visual symbolic form differsfrom alphabetsor numbers in basic ways, but pictures are nevertheless capableof declaration,comparison,and other kinds of symbolic statements. Because visuals are convention based, all pictures must be interpreted according to learnedpatterns-just like readingwordsor recognizing numbers-and thus must be processed cognitively ratherthan merely absorbed.Using picturesas peripheral stimuli becomes questionable under this theory. Therefore, must learninsteadto think of any picture we as a bit of information and rework our metaphors of symbolicprocessingto accommodateunits of meaning that are not discrete digits but patterned fields. Once all pictures are reclassifiedas a form of information, the confusingand error-producing notion of the information-devoidimage can be discarded.Imagesthat do not referto realisticobjectsor illustratetangiblebenefits will simply become differentkinds of symbolic statements:metaphors,diagrams,fictions,analogies,and so will on. Researchers no longer have to dismiss the fanciful images so typical of advertisingas "content free" or "affectladen,"but can deal insteadwith what is said by such pictures. Recognizingthat picturesare symbols not only helps account for the range of pictures in ads, but also illuminatesthe waysin which picturesengagein discursive activity.With a few exceptions(Edelland Staelin 1983; Hecklerand Childers 1992; Lutz and Lutz 1977; Kisielius and Sternthal 1984; Unnava and Burnkrant 1991), the literaturehas tended to rigidly separatethe visual and verbal, both in the stimuli tested and in modelsof the ad at work.This way of thinkingis clearly out of line with the typical characteristics ads, which of often feature image-text interactions (McQuarrieand Mick 1992). By dealing with images as symbolic statements, the interaction of what is said by one symbol system (visuals) with what is said by another (words)
could be studied with more clarity and precision. For example, Heckler and Childers (1992) have-proposed that unexpected interactions between image and text can have an effect on memorability.Couplingideas in unexpectedways is the essence of a rhetoricalfigure.In tropesareoften producedby the interaction advertising, betweenimage and text. Differenttropes,however,tend to be formed by differentkinds of interactions:identi(irony),adjacencies contradictions fications(metaphor), theoryof visuals (metonymy),and so forth.A rhetorical could be used to suggestboth taxonomies and processing dynamicsthat could be crucialto pursuingresearch on this issue (see, e.g., Durand 1987). Researchcan open up the realm of the imagination. Our memory-basedtheory of pictorial processing excludes the creative,imaginativeactivity that must frequently be involved in consumer response, since advertising is so often fanciful. Continuing to omit the imaginativevisual from our programof study will ulof timately distort our understanding the thinkingthat leads to consumer response. If we think of the interpretationof picturesas a process occurring in time (albeit quite quickly), we can identify a number of interesting research questions. -learned pictorial schemata First, the act of retrieving for both style and object and then combining them to form a meaningfulwhole could be studiedas an activity of processingvisual information.The sequence of processing as a function of visual layout-could be investigated for the impact of the order of the message on consumer response. Consider, for example, what difference it makes to have the dab of Curel occur in the "first"position of that ad (by convention, on the left), with the competing lotions following. Would it matter if the orderwere reversed?Past researchtends to treat device or as a simple corlayout as an attention-getting relate to memorability. Recent researchsuggeststhat cameraanglesand croppingaffectthe level of processing and and evaluation(Meyers-Levy Peracchio 1992;Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1994). This researchshould be extendedto encompassthe impact of layout on the order of processing.
Affective Response
The role of pictures in eliciting affective response would have to be reconceptualizedunder this theory. have consistentlyused visuals to stand for Researchers stimuli that are processedautomatically,without cognition or awareness, and that function to affect the emotions directly.Pictureshave often been used as unconditioned stimuli in classical conditioning experiments and are said to work by "mere exposure."Yet advertisingimages are-in every case-complex culto turalartifacts.It is as inappropriate use a photograph as an unconditioned stimulus as it would be to use a poem. Likepoems, however,picturescan suggesta wide range of affective responses. Research on affective re-
270
sponse must continue but in a manner more fittingfor the level of sophisticationat which advertisingimages signify-and are read. Consider some questions currentlyopen in the literature.Edell and Burke (1987) have pointed out that more than one emotion may featurein the responseto a single ad. They have furthersuggestedthat the evaluation of an ad may be relatively independent of whetherthe ad elicited positive emotions. Think about the Honda ad again. Even while readingone sentence, we saw the potential to experience a negative affect (crampedspace),then a positive one (openness).At the end, readersmay experience amusement (a different positive affect). The evaluation of the ad may be less relatedto comparing"cramped"versus "open" space (who could disagreethat open is betterthan cramped?) than to a mild admiration for the clever manner in which the propositionwas presented.The evaluation, then, would be a matter of criticaljudgment based on past experienceand sharedstandardsfor "clever"ads versus"silly"ones, as well as on the feelingssubjectively experienced. One way of exploringthe sequence of emotions and their consequence for evaluation might be to ask respondentsto recount in their own words the emotions they felt duringthe course of a television commercial. This procedurewould help us learn to representemotion as a stream of feelings occurringin time, each in its turn impinging on the next. By taking note of the ways consumerstalk about their feelings,we might develop descriptiveterms for the emotions evoked by ads that are more naturalistic,more in keeping with the context of viewingan ad, and more differentiated than the "positive/negative" summaryresponsesthat are often used now. The affectiveresponse to pictures may often be the result of a complex chain of deduction, comparison, selection, and combination-all of which suggestboth cognitiveactivityand the subtletiesof textual materials at work. We might ask consumers to translate visual tropes like the Clinique ad (Fig. 2) into verbal statements-and then drawtheir attention back to the ad, asking them to indicate what cues they are using to make the translation. A study of this sort might also explore the degreeto which the interpretationsof the images converged and compare groups of similar interpretationsto reportedemotional responses.
and fairieswithin the pictorialfield is necessaryto give us Pandora'sbox. If we wereto separate,code, and sort these visual objects into "woman," "jeweled boxes," and "fairies,"as in a content analysis, we would have destroyedthe allusion. Similarly,while we can identify in a "one-two-three"fashion how the arrangementof the elementsin the Max Factorad (Fig. 3) may produce a certainreadingexperience,that experienceonly happens by virtue of those elements being placed together in a particularpattern of relationshipsto each other. So, one researchchallenge might be to devise a methodology for large-scaleanalysis of visuals that is more accommodatingto the way pictureswork as symbols. We might begin by constructingsets of visual schemata for processing an ad as a pictorial field. Each schema would be a rectangularspace, with the typical elements-tag line, picture, copy block, logo, headline-placed within the field in various positions and sizes. These hypotheticalschemata,however,would be so basedon a surveyof advertisements, that they would reflectthe actual operation of the genre as a guide for processing(see Scott 1994). Once such a set of advercould tisingschematahad been constructed,researchers follow up with studies of the ways these layouts are conventionally read. The schemata would have to be updatedperiodically,of course, to account for changes in the pictorialconventions that may have affectedthe learningconsumersemploy in readingnew ads. Methods of studyingvisual deliverythat did not attempt to reducethe styleto its "components"or require viewersto "name"the style would also be needed. One possibility might be to design tasks based on sorting images in various styles or tasks in which styles were matchedto appropriate contexts or products.The context sensitivityof imagescouldbe tested:the sameimage contextscouldbe tested propositional placedin different for changedinterpretations. Cross-historical analyses of mechanical elements could be designedto provideus with a sense of how the incidence of color or photographychanges over time to contextualized and of how historically responses these elements may be. Such studies would help lay the for groundwork findingthe realbasis for visualnovelty, which inheres in the differencebetween the ad at hand and the currenthorizon of visual expectations, rather than in an intrinsic quality of particularfeatures like color photographyor red ink (Shklovsky 1989).
Methods
Visual rhetoric poses a number of methodological challenges.There is a tendency in consumer research, from the mechanicalelements studies to content analysis,to breakup advertising picturesin orderto "better" understandthem.:But advertisingimages depend on context and stylization to communicate beyond mere "pointing." In the Djer-Kiss ad (Fig. 7), the simultaneous spatial occurrenceof the woman, an open box,
InterpretiveResearch
Because images are conventional, they must be exto plainedby references culture,not to nature.The most importantcontributionthat this proposalwould make to the interpretationof advertisingimages would be to debunk the natural sign. Images should not be interpretedas if pictorial significationas such is obvious or in immaterial.As researchers our own discipline have suggested,and as I have now argued,the concept of the
271
naturalsign is particularlyproblematicfor advertising images, which are seldom simple, straightforward, or superficial analogues (see Durand 1987; McQuarrie 1989;Mick and Politi 1989).This notion of the rhetoric of imagery fits best, perhaps, with the rhetorical and interpretive frameworks already proposed by McQuarrie Mick(1992) and Scott(1990). By providing and both a means of further explicating image-text interactionsand a rhetoricalapproachto anothernonverbal form, this proposalbegins to unite other work toward an encompassingrhetoricaltheory for advertisements. Many current studies of advertising images suffer from misconceptionsabout the conditionsunderwhich advertisementsare actually invented, tending to underestimatethe impact of personal agendas, assumptions, and philosophies on the final text. Current research implicitly imagines a maker who administers visual stimuli as if pushingleversratherthan a situated being engagedin a dialoguewith culturalkindred.We could correctforthis by assembling studiesof intentions and artisticpracticesthat would provide the basis for more realisticresearch efforts assumptions.Interpretive might seek to explain the use of particularimages in ads as an articulationof previouslylearnedimages,culturaltrends,and the practicalsituationbeing addressed by the advertiser.These projectscould be done historicallywith the use of archivalevidenceand oralhistories or of ethnographiesof art production in advertising agencies(Mick 1988). The judgments of appropriatenessthat currently puzzle experimentalresearchare probably related to expectationscreatedby genre, as well as to past experiencewith certainproductsand images.In interpretive we the research, mightinvestigate culturalprocessesand assumptionsthat underpinnotions of appropriateness in advertisingimagery.Many categoriesseem to have clusters of images that appearoften, which must constitute the implied set of appropriateimages I mentionedin the literature review.Forexample,in fragrance advertising,we frequentlysee images ofjewels, flowers, birds, fans, and veils. In fact, all of these images have been associatedwith fragrancefor thousands of years, and each has a ratherspecificetymology(Morris1984). It seems likely that similarconstellationsexist for other products (Durgee and Stuart 1987). These could be identified, traced, explained-and eventually used to help predict what might be deemed appropriateby a consumerin an experimentalsetting. By recognizingthe culture-basednature of pictorial communication, we could open up another avenue of research: studiesof visual cross-cultural subcultural) (or interpretationand practice. This idea might be particularly important as Western conventions continue to spreadaroundthe worldin an increasinglycommercial context. The propensity of Western pictorial style to assert its own realism has profound implications for culturalcriticismin the context of marketglobalization. We might consider criticallythe ideological impact of
commercial texts' "representingas natural" certain consumption patternsto developing cultures. underwhich I haveproposedherea broadframework a rhetoricaltheory of advertisingimages could be developed. Imagisticrhetoricis a complex idea, which is likely to feel at firstas if we've grabbedTony the Tiger by the tail, and a pluralityof methods will be needed to tame that fictive tiger. Exploringthe functioning of imagery as commercial rhetoric promises a rich path for consumer research,however, and may contribute to the knowledge of imagery, history, and persuasion of in otherfields.Thus,the beneficiaries our workmight be not only marketers,but also consumers,artists,policymakers, and the historians of the future. It is admittedly an undertakingof heroic proportionsbut one expansiveenoughto encompassone of the richestsymbolic institutions of our time. [ReceivedNovember1992. Revised December1993. Kent B. Monroeservedas editorfor this article.]
REFERENCES
Arnheim, Rudolph (1980), "A Plea for Visual Thinking," in The Language of Images, ed. W. J. T. Mitchell, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 171-180. Assael, Henry, John Kofron, and Walter Burgi (1967), "Advertising Performance as a Function of Print Ad Characteristics," Journal of Advertising Research, 7 (June), 20-26. Bakhtin, M. M. (1989), "Discourse in Life and Discourse in
Literary Criticism, ed. Robert Art," in Contemporary

Davis and Ronald Schleifer, New York: Longman, 391409. Barthes, Roland (1977), "Rhetoric of the Image," ImageMusic-Text, ed. Stephen Heath, New York: Hill and Wang, 32-51. Belk, Russell and Richard W. Pollay (1985), "Images of Ourselves: The Good Life in Twentieth Century Advertising,"
Journalof ConsumerResearch, 12 (March),887-897.

Bellizzi, Joseph A. and Robert E. Hite (1987), "Headline Size and Position Influence on Consumer's Perception," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64 (August), 296-298. Berger, John (1977), Ways of Seeing, London: Penguin. Black, Max ([1972] 1984), "How Do Pictures Represent?" in Art, Perception, and Reality, ed. Maurice Mandelbaum, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 95-130. Block, Ned, ed. (1981), Imagery, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boas, George and Harold Wrenn (1964), What Is a Picture? Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Burke, Kenneth (1969), A Rhetoric of Motives, Berkeley: University of California Press. Coffman, Hugh L. (1980), "Pictorial Perception: Hemispheric Specialization and Developmental Regression in the Neurologically Impaired," The Perception of Pictures, ed. Margaret Hagen, New York: Academic Press, 227259. Cole, Michael and Sylvia Scribner (1974), Culture and
A New York:Wiley. Introduction, Thought: Psychological

Corbett, Edward (1965), Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, London: Oxford.
272 Crozier, W. Ray and Anthony J. Chapman (1984), Cognitive
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH and Morris Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 426-443. Hochberg, Julian (1983), "Problems of Picture Perception," Visual Arts Research, 9 (Spring), 7-24. Holbrook, Morris B. and Donald R. Lehmann (1980), "Form versus Content in Predicting Starch Scores," Journal of Advertising Research, 20 (August), 53-62. Houston, Michael J., Terry L. Childers, and Susan E. Heckler (1987), "Picture-Word Consistency and the Elaborative Processing of Advertisments," Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (November), 356-369. Janiszewski, Chris (1990a), "The Influence of Nonattended Material on the Processing of Advertising Claims," Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 263-278. (1990b), "The Influence of Print Advertisement Organization on Affect toward a Brand Name," Journal of
Processesin the PerceptionofArt, New York: Elsevier.

Culler, Jonathan (1975), Structuralist Poetics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Diamond, Daniel S. (1968), "A Quantitative Approach to Magazine Advertisement Format Selection," Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (November), 376-387. Durand, Jacques (1987), "Rhetorical Figures in the Advertising Message," Marketing and Semiotics, ed. Jean Umiker-Sebeok, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Durgee, Jeffrey F. (1985), "How Consumer Subcultures Code Reality: A Look at Some Code Types," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, ed. Richard Lutz, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 332-337. and Robert Stuart (1987), "Advertising Symbols and Brand Images that Best Represent Key Product Meanings," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (Summer), 1524. Eco, Umberto (1976), A Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (1978), The Role of the Reader, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Edell, Julie A. and Marian Chapman Burke (1987), "The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 421-433. and Richard Staelin (1983), "The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45-61. Finn, Adam (1988), "Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An Information Processing Perspective," Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 168-177. Fish, Stanley (1980), "Literature in the Reader: Affective Sty-
ConsumerResearch, 17 (June), 53-65.

Jones, Rebecca K. and Margaret A. Hagen (1980), "A Perspective on Cross-cultural Picture Perception," The Perception ofPictures, New York: Academic Press, 193-226.
listics,"in Reader-Response Criticism: FromFormalism

to Post-structuralism, ed. Jane Tompkins, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 123-162. Gombrich, Ernst H. (1960), Art and Illusion: A Study in the
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1969), "The Negro and American Advertising, 1946-1965," Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (February), 29-39. Kisielius, Jolita and Brian Sternthal (1984), "Detecting and Explaining Vividness Effects in Attitudinal Judgments," Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 54-64. Kosslyn, Stephen M. (1987), "Seeing and Imagining in the Cerebral Hemispheres: A Computational Approach," Psychological Review, 94 (April), 148-175. and Gary Hatfield (1984), "Representation without Symbol Systems," Social Research, 51 (Winter), 10191045. Leiss, William, Stephen Kline, and Sut Jhally (1990), Social
Communication in Advertising, Scarborough:Nelson

Canada. Lutz, Kathryn A. and Richard J. Lutz (1977), "Effects of Interactive Imagery on Learning: Applications to Advertising," Journal ofApplied Psychology, 62 (August), 493498. MacInnis, Deborah J. (1992), "Imagery in Marketing Communications: Beyond Pictures and Visual Processing," discussant's comments and notes, annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Vancouver, Canada, October 7-10. and Linda L. Price (1987), "The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 473-491.
Psychologyof Pictorial Representation,Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press. (1980), "Standards of Truth: The Arrested Image and the Moving Eye," in The Language of Images, ed. W. Mitchell, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 181-218. Goodman, Nelson (1976), Languages of Art, Indianapolis: Hackett. Goody, Jack, ed. (1968), Literacy in Traditional Societies, New York: Cambridge University Press. Hagen, Margaret, ed. (1980), The Perception of Pictures, New York: Academic Press. (1986), Varieties of Realism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hansen, Flemming (1981), "Hemispheral Lateralization; Implications for Understanding Consumer Behavior,"
Marchand,Roland (1985), AdvertisingtheAmericanDream,

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Marr, David (1982), Vision, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. McCracken, Grant (1987), "Advertising: Meaning or Infor-
Journalof ConsumerResearch,8 (June), 23-36.

Heckler, Susan E. and Terry L. Childers (1992), "The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What Is Incongruency?" Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March), 475-492. Hendon, D. Wayne (1973), "How Mechanical Factors Affect
mation?"in Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Vol. 14,

ed. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 121-124. McQuarrie, Edward (1989), "Advertising Resonance: A Semiological Perspective," in Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 97-114. and David Mick (1992), "On Resonance: A Critical -~ Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 180-197. Meyers-Levy, Joan and Laura A. Peracchio (1992), "Getting an Angie in Advertising: The Effect of Camera Angle on
Ad Perception," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 13

(August), 39-45. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Michael R. Solomon (1984), "Utilitarian, Aesthetic, and Familiarity Responses to Verbal versus Visual Advertisements," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, ed. Elizabeth Hirschman
IMAGES IN ADVERTISING Product Evaluations," Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (November), 454-461. Mick, David Glen (1986), "Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols, and Significance." Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 196-213. (1988), "Schema-Theoretics and Semiotics: Toward More Holistic, Programmatic Research on Marketing Communication." Semiotica, 70 (1, 2), 1-26. and Claus Buhl (1992), "A Meaning-based Model of Advertising Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 317-338. and Laura G. Politi (1989), "Consumers' Interpretations of Advertising Imagery: A Visit to the Hell of
273 Pylyshyn, Zenon (1981), "The Imagery Debate: Analog Media versus Tacit Knowledge," in Imagery, ed. Ned Block, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 151-206. Reid, Leonard N., Herbert J. Rotfeld, and James H. Barnes (1984), "Attention to Magazine Ads as Function of Layout Design," Journalism Quarterly, 61 (Summer), 439441. Rossiter, John R. (1981), "Predicting Starch Scores," Journal of Advertising Research, 21 (October), 63-68. and Larry Percy (1978), "Visual Imaging Ability as a Mediator of Advertising Response," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. Keith Hunt, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 621-629. and Larry Percy (1980), "Attitude Change through Visual Imagery in Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 9 (2), 10-16. and Larry Percy (1983), "Visual Communication in Advertising," in Information Processing Research in Advertising, ed. Richard J. Harris, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 83-125. Scott, Linda M. (1990), "Understanding Jingles and Needledrop: A Rhetorical Approach to Music in Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 223-237. (1994), "The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, in press. Segall, Marshall, Donald T. Campbell, and Melville J. Herskovits (1966), The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception, New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Shimp, Terence A. (1981), "Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice," Journal ofAdvertising, 10 (2), 9-15. , Elnora W. Stuart, and Randall W. Engle (1991), "A Program of Classical Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in the Conditioned Stimulus and Context," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 1- 12. Shklovsky, Victor (1989), "Art as Technique," in Contemporary Literary Criticism, ed. Robert Davis and Ronald Schleifer, New York: Longman, 54-66. Smith, Ruth Ann (1991), "The Effects of Visual and Verbal Advertising Information on Consumers' Inferences," Journal ofAdvertising, 20 (December), 13-24. Stern, Barbara (1990), "Other-Speak: Classical Allegory and Contemporary Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 14-26. Unnava, H. Rao and Robert Burnkrant (1991), "An Imagery Processing View of the Role of Pictures in Print Advertisements," Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (May), 226-231. Valiente, Rafael (1973), "Mechanical Correlates of Ad Recognition," Journal of Advertising Research, 13 (June), 13-18. Williamson, Judith (1978), Decoding Advertisements, New York: Boyars.
Connotation,"in InterpretiveConsumerResearch, ed.

Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 85-96. Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, Kenneth R. Lord, Peter R. Dickson, and H. Rao Unnava (1991), "Picture-Based Persuasion Process and the Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 92107. Mitchell, Andrew A. (1986), "The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and Attitude toward the Ad," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), 12-24. and Jerry C. Olson (1981), "Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?" Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-332. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1980), The Language of Images, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1986), Iconology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morris, Edwin T. (1984), Fragrance, New York: Scribner. Olson, Richard, Ablert Yonas, and Robert Cooper (1980), "Development of Pictorial Perception," in The Perception of Pictures, ed. Margaret A. Hagen, New York: Academic Press, 155-190. Peirce, Charles S. (1982), Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A
Chronological Edition, Vol. 1, 1857-1866, ed. Max H.

Fisch, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982. Peracchio, Laura A. and Joan Meyers-Levy (1994), "How Ambiguous Cropped Objects in Ad Photos Can Affect Product Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June 1994), 190-204. Percy, Larry (1983), "A Review of the Effect of Specific Advertising Elements upon Overall Communication Re-
sponses,"in Current Issues and Researchin Advertising,

Vol. 6, ed. James H. Leigh and Claude Martin, Jr., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 77-118. Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-144.

Scott. 1994. Images in Advertising The Need For A Theory of Visual Rhetoric

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Scott. 1994. Images in Advertising The Need For A Theory of Visual Rhetoric

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric Author(s): Linda M.

RHETORICAL THEORY AND THE VISUAL SYMBOL

253 1 FIGURE AD COTY

.. .. ... .... ..................... ...... , .. .... ............ : } :.! !::s :. si :! .......... ; .

i. .. ....... ...,'''':... ."...

.... ...... ... ...............I...:

*,i............ .Z....._ .,.. .. .......... ,* .....". . .... ....

............. * .' i .,, '.; i'' '.: ...........

5,E,,NUI, ', ..~~~~~~A

* .i,:!@t! =!.'...... , j .. :. -. ... '.:io . .. i. ... .: ..... . .,..i ...... :

. ,'.t'.'' ................................................~~~.. . mj--.--I t ........ . . ...... i';..

which carie sage,~~~~~~~~~,t.ti in, bulle pint is,

the sens tha cosme-esac proise. Th d ussraisti

the il reconies phtogaps tha seem!j :.

THINKING ABOUT IMAGERY IN ADS

engagement or the invocation of learned processing

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

IMAGES IN ADVERTISING FIGURE 3 MAXFACTOR

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Large-ScaleDescriptive Studies of Advertisements

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

THE CASE AGAINST COPY THEORY

The CulturalBasis for Seeing

THE COPY THEORY OF PICTURES

Making and Looking at the Pictorial Artifact

a very materialsense. We translateobjectsinto pictures

* ...... I!_.......... i ...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

. . ... ....... -,D' ... ............................ _ | l * 4 ...

.5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... fX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ............... . .... . .... ._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ | _! l v

............: : .-....it\.Xw .......... .I .. ... I5 F_~~~~~~............. _ . ................. ..................................... | I *

a field of vision that, in fact, cannot be narrowed to

show whatwe humanssee (Gombrich1980).If we could

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Copy Theory and Ethnocentrism

The ExplanatoryLimits of the Copy Theory

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

THE ADVERTISING IMAGE AS RHETORICAL SYMBOL

byi"symbol" hbere.tO whatemeantfo Loethme qucoralf

ADVE:RTISINGN IMAGEFS IN%

VISUAL RHETORIC: DEMONSTRATION OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

............. 4..4. .. ... .... .....

268 FIGURE 10 WAMSUTTAAD

. . . . ............ .. . . . ... ........ .

. .... .. ...... ...

lt!s a gieet. . ......... .

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Literary Criticism, ed. Robert Art," in Contemporary

Journalof ConsumerResearch, 12 (March),887-897.

A New York:Wiley. Introduction, Thought: Psychological

272 Crozier, W. Ray and Anthony J. Chapman (1984), Cognitive

Processesin the PerceptionofArt, New York: Elsevier.

ConsumerResearch, 17 (June), 53-65.

listics,"in Reader-Response Criticism: FromFormalism

Communication in Advertising, Scarborough:Nelson

Psychologyof Pictorial Representation,Princeton, NJ:

Marchand,Roland (1985), AdvertisingtheAmericanDream,

Journalof ConsumerResearch,8 (June), 23-36.

mation?"in Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Vol. 14,

Ad Perception," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 13

,i............ .Z....._ .,.. .. .......... , .....". . .... ....

.5... fX . ............... . .... . .... ._~~~~ _ | _! l v