" .

d . . /

o.

\

/ ,lI

•

,

./

l

.'-:,~.

':' A' :.~,

- -------- -~t--

' .. - 1 ,......;.'_ ......... _ ....... -..... _--,..;._-_ .... "-----...-........-..-....-.-". ~- ..

. " .J~_~-

The L1~1ng of Y1sual Literacy

'by

Nina Greg9

• Submitted in partial

fulf111ment of the

requirements for' the

degrèe of

'4 Master of Arts

o '

Gradua~e program in COIIIDun1cations

McGi11 University

August 1979

) .

•

, "

.,

"

"

1

'Î

1 • < . ~ ". , .. ,r •

.. 11*0 .1 l

i)

o

. '

Abstra~t

.,'

, This ~hesis describes the theories' an~ practices a.ssociated with

visual literacy, a tenn presently obscured by imprecise and confl icting

usage. As used by proponents, of the visual literacy mov~ment, visual

literacy designates certain competencies in visual commuBication. The

term also refers tOJa generat notion of sensitivity and awareness in , . the viewing of visual p~enomena, particularly visual art. Through a

, . survey of primary 1 i terature on vi sua 1 li teracy, and secondary 1 i tera­

ture on related issues, the study discusses the foundatfon, objectives ,

and implications of the visual li~eracy movement. The context in which

the movement and its practices have evolved is i nqicated as the source

of its limitations. The limitations of the visual literacy movement

are chiefly the result of an emphasis on visual media as vi,sual signs . /

expressing verbal concepts. This literal and verbal emphasis can be

credited to the dominanc~ of verba~, expression in twentieth century

Western conmunication media. This type of critique of the visual lit-:racy

movement has not been previously undertaken. ~

The thesi s con tends that the context in whi ch a theory is,· con-

ceived must be regarded as a factor in the development of the theory

and its applications. In the development of the theory and practices

of the visual literacy movemen~, this self-reflexivity is absent. Con­

sequently, the visual lÙeracy movement fails in its objective to

develop a basis for universal communication.

ii

h-~ __ -;-""l ___ -~ .-~, .. '" ,... .... - -'"~ ~"... ~",;.j;

, ! -~

,

c

Abrêge

1 i

Cette thèse décrit les tMories et les' pratiques associées au '"

"visual; literacy," un terme qui cÎu aux usages imprécis et contradictoires - .. < r

demeure obscur. Lorsque les proposeurs du mouvement ·vi sua 1 li teracy"

'" emploient le tenne, ils designent certaines compêtences de la éomnuni-- ,

cation visuelle. Le tenne "visual literacy" se, rapporte aussi a une

notion genêrale de sensibilité dans l'observation des ph!n'Om!nes visuels.

et en particulier de l'art visuel. Par une inspection des sources prin­

cipales traitant de "visual literacy," et des sources s!conda1res traitant v ,

des sujets complémentaires, 1 ~êtude discute de la fondation, des obJèctifs.

et des imp1 ications du mouvement~ Le contexte dans lequel le mouvem~nt . (f

ej;, ses pratiques évoluaient est l'origine de ses limitations., Les

limitations du mpuvement "visual literacy" sont principalement le ré­

sultat d'une interpr!tation des,m!dia visuels coome des signes viSuels Il - /:1 . \

qui expriment des concepts verbaux: Ce,t accen,t 1 i .ttéra 1 et verbales t

1 a conséquence de 1 a prédomi nance de l' exprèssi on ver,ba 1 e dans 1 es mêcfi a

de cOIII11unlcation du vingtième siècle en l'Occident. Ce type de critique \ "

du mouvement "vi sua 1 1 iteracy" es t, ici, pour la prém1 ere fo i sabordé.

Cé~document prétend que le contexte dans léquel n'importe quelle

théorie est conçue dO,it être consider~ comne êMment dans Je développe-+ ..li. /

ment des théories et de leurs applications. ,Cette rêTlexivit~ de soi 'Ù'" ,

demeure inexistente dans le développement de là, tMorie et' deS pratiques "

du mouvement "visual 1 iteracy." En conséquence, ce mouvement ne remplit

pas la fonction pour laquelle il fOt' crée: c'est a dire, dêvelopper une

base de communication universelle.

111

o

. ,1

, .

, "

o

\

w, ..... , " .. _--- .. ~-

. ACknowledgements

"" 1 would l1ke to than:k -Dr. ~ary C. Dàvison for tiniely~suggestfons . ~ (. ,

and rèferences. ·I"am g'rateful ta the dçnor of the Harold Helm Fellowship,

whose support permft~d the completion of the M.A. p,rogram. 1 am a,lso

grateful ta the friends who have broadened my own way of see1ng by

sharing the1rs with me.

,"::'

.,

Q

~I •

')' o

, .

. iv , '

\

.t, .. _ ... ;; .... 1It •

. i,

~ f ,

c

,~-

! • Il,''' • Jill

" 1.,

\ ~

( , 1

, , . ,"" The eye knows nothing. It 15 not the eye that recogn1zes (lïJefts

and thefr uses in the blotches of co,or and 1 ight ft rete1ves., t s , as ignorant, at ffrst; of .meanfngs arid acqu1red knowledge as the ear to the impact of a speech in a fore1gn tongue, whose' mus1'c alone has a certain power aF,ld may or may not c_nd attention. It 15 by starting

" from' this state of innocence that art ~becomes creative and,. through fts need to look on what it loves. d1scovers a whole world of fts own--the world of synmetry. contrast. graduation. ch1,aroscuro. modulation

\ and resemlance-.:o.a vibrant, self-suff1tient world in which desfre can \ create what·1t lacks .••

CI:'

, "\

\

. , .

v

..paul Valêry , . ~ Phys1c~1 Aspects of a Book"

\

t

..

\.

.. \

..

' .

/

Tab 1 e of Contents

Introdu'cti on " li ••• " " •••••••••••••••••• l1li ••••••••••••••••••••••••• p. 1

Chapter One: Surveyof L iterature ( .••••• ~ ............ ,. ..••.... p. 8

P~rt One: Part Two:

Chapter Two:

Chapter Three:

( ,

Secondary literature Pr1mary Li terature

....... " ...... " ............ . ••••• , ...................... Ii "

The' Context and Objects 'of Visual Literacy • Ii •••••

The Limitations of Visual Literacy •••••• Ii ••••• Ii

Notes ........................................ , ................. .

p. 9

p. '25

p. 46

p. 64

p. 80

Bi b 11 ography . Ii •• Ii ••• Ii ••• Ii ••• Ii ••••••••••••••••• Ii .................. 'p. 81

/ 1

"

•

[)

vi

"

\ .

j

(

(

} /"

Introduction

The hu~an sense of sight responds to stimulation, provides information,

and yields pleasure. Vision affe~ts our balance, informs our think1ng, and

can confirffi or deny be1iefs. For a speci~s which at one time re1ied-upon

its faculty of sight for survival, we are now surprising1y unaware of the

visua1 mode as a means of intentiona1 communication. A widespread abil1ty •

to use v1sual media for the purpose of communication wou1d contribute ta

the wider util ization of the means of visual cOl1ll1u,nication, and perhaps

a1so enhance communication overall. Proponents of the visual literacy

movement regard visual communication as a potentially universal mode,

one whose time has come. As John Oebes has pointed out in his article - -\ ,b

"Photography ànd the Intell~ct,1I visual display can be more ,\~recise than

visual communi~ation, especial1y in a cross"cultural, multi-iingual context~ . Literacy means the ability to read and write, and the i~st~uction and

dissemination of these skills have been objectives of a mass l~teraCY move­

ment since the Industrial Revolution. Reading and writing as Wr know them \

are operations performed upon and with verbal material, using an alphabet, \

words an~ sentences. How can we speak of a visual literacy? Ooes ft mean \ \

the ability to rread and write with 'visual materia1? And if ft does, how \ )

would one go about doing either?

This thesis describes and ana1yzes the visual literacy movement,'the

deve10pment of a theory and re1ated practices which'has taken place in the

field of education during the 1ast decade and a half. The visual literacy

movement i s concerned with es tab 1 i shi ng competency--lIl i teracy"':- i n com-

prehension of and communication with visual media. This concern 1s the

. :

, •

f' ~ , J

j

I~ 1 •

• 1 1

l,

l '

()

.. "?' . C>

'result of recent developments in visual media technol09Y ,and their

effect on the learning and thinking of elementary school 'children.

Visual literacy also has a more general meaning, referring to a

way of seeing that is the result of instruction combined with sensitivity .

and awarepe~s. While the ultimate concern of this thesis is with visual

literacy in this larger sense, the focus of the disc~ssian is on the visual

,1iteracy movement. Hereafter when th~ tenn visual literacy is used it

2

should be understood as meaning the concept as defined by the visual literacy

movement: 1

Vi sua 1 l iteracy refers. tp Ç1 group of vi sion competenc i es' a human being can develop by seeing at the same time lie has and integrates other sensory experiences. The deve­lopment of these competencies is fundamental ta normal human learning. Wh en developed, they enable a visual1y literate person ta discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects and/or symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, he is able -to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication. 2

When the more general sense of visual literacy is intended, it \'1il1 be

indicated.

Discussion of visual literacy as a concept or as a movement requires

_ reference to percep~ion, images, cOlJll1unication, concepts and objects. To

avoid confusion in the usage of these terms, they are defined as fo11ows: "

Perception. Acc<fraing to Richard L. Gregory, "perception" means

"awareness or appreciatio~ of objects or situations, usua 11y by the senses ... 3

Visual perception is fundamenta1 to visual literacy, and for this reason , '

severa 1 theori es of percepti on are di scussed in th'e survey of li terature\

..

1 f

. ,

(

( 1

\

-' •

\ (Chapfêr One). A problem arises, though" wlth the use of the term per-I \

oce~~on in the mat~rial sur~eyed, because various wtiters give it var1·ous

meanings. Aside!rom the process of coming ta awareness, through sense-\ .

data, rrperception" is also used in the literature to mean the cogn1tivé , -

praduct of such a proèesSr, as 1n the sense" of "to have a different per-

ception of the event. Il "Perception" 1s al 50 used U;' refer ta sens1t1vity-­

~ perceptive indfvidu~l, for example. , In th1s thes1s the term perception 1 1 • ," \

3

wi 11 refer to the response of a human eye to 1 ight stimul i and the consequent

projection of an image on the retina. \~hen certain of the writers surveyed

unders tand "percepti on Il ta mean the a pprehensi on of an i dea or meani ng o •

rather than th~ apprehension of an image, it will be indicated. l.

Image. The image transmi tted by percépti on i s the product of per­

ception. Images have visual characteristics of color, shape, tone, form, .

texture~~pd composition. ,

Communication. This term is itself the subject of several theories. "

H~re "corrmunicationll will refer to the transmission of information. The " content of su ch transmissions will be understood as messages.

Concept. The 'word "concept,1I wh en juxtaposed with "image," indfcates

a verbal "'as opposed to a visual notion. For example, "thesis" is a verbal

concept; thi 5 page of a thes i s ; s the source of a vi sua l ft image. Il A concept

15 any object of awareness together with its significance or meaning. 4 - .

This division of verbal concept/visuii~image fs traditional ln psychology, . .

and can be extended i nto a division between conceptuali zat1on .. -the process ~

whereby one arrives at concepts--and visual percept1on--the process whereby

one apprehends images.

~'\ .... I.t -.. ' \ \

\\

,1 , ,

1

1

o

" o

"'P" .

o

-Object. ,Objects are important in the discussion of the èontext

in wh1ch the tenn visual literacy has developed and is applied. .The . \ ,

" canpe~ency fmplidt in visual lfteracy is the ability to recogniz'e certain

\ .., abjects in visual cOI1111unfcation, to lnterpret them âCèurately, and ta use

v;sual medi'a to express them. Thus, the "olf.lects tl of the visual literacy

movement are the conceptual inean;ngs it associates with vi sual imag'es.

erception and object as just defined pinpoint an issue central

to the discussioQ,of the visual literacy movelllént. As will be shawn,

theori es f v i sua 1 perception descri be seei ng as a IProcess which i s bath ,

~

The outcome of the bic 1 ogi ca 1 capaci ty ta see--the ~

lmage- 15 influenced by culture, con,~xt and experience. Visual lfteracy

,focuses on abjects (meanings) which are entirely detel'lTlined by culture . ~

.' and context. That these objects of v1sual 'l1teracy are concepts, and ~

not images, 1s a consequence of the visual literacy inovement deriving ~

,its theory from verbal language and verbal' conmunication. ,This reliance

·on verbal rather than visual sOurces for theoretical assump'tions 'causes

a distinct biaS' in the visual literacy movem~nt and 'severely limits its o

relevance and importance as a factor in vi sual cOOIlIunication.

The context of the vfsual literacy,movement further limits its ~

importance and the value of its practfces. The visual phenomena to

which a theory of visual conmunication refers detennine, in a' sense, . '-

the breadth of the theory and the si~ni~icance of· its~practice. Presumably L:"

visual, literacy functions in relation to visuaf phenomena:.' natural or

man-made. These phenomena exist under certain condit,ions:\ THïs means ,

that any notion of visual literacy:. or any program for its~ instru,ction o

o.

@ " , 0 ~. 0

4

,

\ ,

" -!

-y

-----------------------

.,.

or study, contains' the built-in limitation or Mas or the context in ~ .~~'

(il;". ' ',,-- which it is conceived. - One can be visual'ly literate only of those phe-

~. ,

, -nomen~ which one sees (as distinct from,visual phenomena which one May

conceive-of, but not actually see). The conditions which determine th1s

limitation range from socio-cultural values and attitudes, to economic

conditions of funding and patronage, ,to political conditions of ideology

and censorship, to logistical conditions such as availability of techno-,

logy and resources, and accessibility to artifacts. By extension, th1s

-means tha't visual liter~cy is mediated by the context and conditions' of • fi

its objects, either by 1 imi.ting ·the content of ~n instructional program

in visual literacy, or by the physical limitations of the environment in

~hich the literacy is developed.

The objectives ,of v.isual literacy demonstrate these time- and , ~

space-bound;'1imitati,ons. As educational objectives, using visual media f , .

for cOlllllunication"and understanding ideas expressed visually make sense ::. . ,

only in a society which relies on institutionalized education for the

development of these skills, and which assumeS they must be taught. Verbal

exp~ession is dominant in our culture, an~ t~e gener~l a~thority of the q ~.

word--printed or spoken-- has been noted by a number of cri tics. Visual'

media are rarely recogniJed as utilitariàn,'but'are typically expe~ted ( --

tO. be ente~taining. - New forms of visual media have been de~eloped over " ,~.~

the past ten years, and are suddenly.being usèd as alternativ~s to or

substitutes for verbal media. To make _the transiti~n from verbal communi­

cation to visual communication, or at least to facflitate the, use of both,

the visual literacy mo~ement proposes educational programs. Wfthout the

, . , .

5

I--------~_~~ _ '0

..

overwhelrning precedence of verbal expression in our society, and without

the recent plethora of. vjs~al media technology, the ,visua1 literacy move'-- '

~

ment wauld never have developed.

6

To lo~e sight of the,dependence of visual literacyon visual phenomena

1s ta fall victim ta the musings of David Guerin. G~erin suggests that we

are not i11iterate "readers" of the visual mode, but rather illiterate ,

"speakers" of it. 5 This Qbservation locates the objective and objects of

visual literacy in the area of vocabulary development and verbal ~uni­

cation, rather than a perceptual ability or c:mpetency in the use1df media.

As such, it has little ta do with a notion of 1iteracy at a11, for li~racy

(either visual or verbal) is concerned with reading and writing, not speaking. ,

However, Guerin's cOmments do point'out the strong ties between the visual

literacy movement and theories of verbàl communication . . The definition of terms and SChO~ of thought

On~ aesthetician has this ta say a~ definitions:

is a·tlelicate business.

\ Definition necessarily means defining one thing in terms of something e1se; therefare, in arder ta define any given thing. one must have in one1s head not only a clear fdea

IJ of the thing ta be defined, but an equa11y ~lear idea of 6 al1 the other things py reference to which one defines it.

The things by reference to 'wh"ich vis'ual literacy must be understood have'

been briefly indicated here and will receive greater a·ttention elsew~ere.

~ \

\ \

For the moment, it is sometimes simpler ta define in terms of what something

1s not rather than in terms of what something is. The preceding Introduction , ' . '

indicates that visual literacy is like verbal literacy in its met~od, concept '" .-

and objects, though the mode" of conrnunication differs. ' Yet visual literacy

1s not the same thing as verbal 1iteracy. The similarities will be explored

1

1

" 1

more fully, and the d1fferences will become clearer, in three chapters

~esigned as follows: Ji',.,

Chapter One: A survey of material divided into two categories,

primary literature from the visual 1iteracy movement, and second~ry l1tera­

ture on related issues. \. , )

Chapter Tw~: The contex~ and objects of visual literacy as ,suggested

by the survey. Consideration of how objectives arise and how objects are

determined is key to the issues raised in the final chapter.

Chapter Three: Pl,acement of the foregoing material in a context

of contemporary relevance. What does it mean to be visual1y literatè?

How does one become vi sua lly 1 i terate? What are the consequences of a

visually literate (or illiterate) public? In addressing these questions,

the notion of cOl1l11u'nity' is raised as an arena of existence, interaction

'and resP~Sibility. Our environment still demands an acuity of powers of

visual perception, awareness and discrimination as vital to our survival

as such skills were to the ancestors of our species. It only rema1ns

to _rediscover them .. .'

7

\

o

.' • _ __ ... __________ ----.... .... __ " ___ ~n_~ __ ....... ...._ .... • ... '"'''''~'''''''4 ... _<!r',., ~I~,...,.

.)

Chapter One

Survey of literature

The Introduction began with a reference to verbal literacy as a

touchstone for approaching the concept of vlsual literacy. There is a

temptation to persist in the parallel in discussing the forthcoming mater;al,

aligning the vocabulary of vision with the vocabulary of speech, the

grammar of vision with the grammar of speech, the syntax of vision wfth the

syntaK,of speech. The utility of such a parallel is limited, especially

• as the study of verbal communication boasts well developed theory in

linguistics which the studies of visual communication and visual literacy

do not parallel. Rath~r than borrow these terms from verbal literacy and ~ ~ • J

trans~er them to visual literacy where they may not belong, such usage will

appêar here only when necessary. This a~oidance does not'signal disregard

for the theories of verbal communication, but rather indicates respect for

the differences between verbal and visual communication.

In this chapter source material is divided into two categories,

primary and secondary. .Primary material includes literature devoted

strictly to the visual literacy movement--its concept, theory,and practice.,

Secondary material addresses issues of concern to theorists and critics of

visual literacy--perception, aesthetics, ,conmunication, history of science.

The secondary material is introduced first to show the theoretical foun­

dation of vjsual literacy as a general concept. , ,

..

,~-----.. ~ ~ .,. ',~.I' • \oN ", .. r ..... ,~_ .... '"'''''' ,.., ... , ... ,{ _ j

"'~

c

(

-----------~-r_----

Part One

Visual perception is fundamental to visual litera~y because it 1s ...

through visual.perception that,the images a visually literate person under-

sta,nds or i nterprets are produced. Thus, whatever we can detenni ne about

the nature of visual perception will have implications for a concept of

visual 'literac'y.

Three 'of the natural sciences inform the visual literacy movement 1

" 0 \

through the perspective they offer of the fundamental notion of perception. t

The laws of physics suggest theories concerning the phenomena we observe,

including those which constitute our visual experiences. While we may If

not often observe these laws directly, what we perceive can often be ex-

pléPined by them. Physiology, and more precisely neurophysiology, provide.

data on the functioning of the h~man eye and brain, and their ability to

react and respond to visual stimuli. Psychology proposes various--and often

conflicting--theories concerning the manner whereby observed phenomena become . '

the content of awareness, and the processes by which a human mind organizes

visual information and creàtes its own imaginative visual imagery.

As a consequence of all this related theorizing,' perception is the

subject of several theories. These range from a familiar and pervas1ve

argument concerning the truth or falsity of the perceived image to other

arguments about whether perception is learned or innate. As visual literacy

relies on visual perception, the function of experience, intuition, mean1ng

and knm',ledge in this process 1s highly s1gnificant. For example. if visual

perception is i'nnate, does that mean visual l1teracy 1s also innate? If

it is not, and visual literacy 1s learned, how is it learned?

d- i 1

". 1

----~.-- -.~-_ ... _, _____ ..:.... ______ ~, ,~,r'~"" ._+"., ..... "».iF":« ~_~ ____ ",_,_ ,.1 '"' J l~ ~ ',~.".r 1,.tl,~- ;;.~ .. ~ ~-·.~,~~.'~~.M~:JJi:~:;~~#~~r~%:~~'hIMit1O'~~~ r~-"~ k. '. '~

1 '1 :

o

~'

In his book An Introduction to Perception Irvin Rock posits the

v;ew that how we perceive is independent of or autonomous with respect- tQ

what we know: 7

,,' -' We perceive~on the basis of brain functioning. Furthermore _

it seems clear that we do not 1earn to' have these distinctive sensory qualities [sight, sound]. If vision is spatial and audition temporal, this ;s innately determined by the nature of the sen§e organs and the neura 1 pathw,ays from there ta the brain.

Thus ~he ab;lit~ ta perceive, Rock suggests, is an innate pro pert y of the ,

living human organism. 'What about what we perceive--is this aiso innate?

The native capacity for visual perception produces an image on the retina.

But what ~~ brains make of this image--recagnizing it, or identifying it,

or whatever--seems to be dependent on learning. i

Rock demonstrates these points through a s~ of questions. In the

10

case of seéing in three dimensions, he asks, "Where is the world perceived

as being?" If the answer is l'out there," as it surelfmust be, then a three­

dimerisional world is implicit. 9 Thus we do not learn to see in three

dimensions; we perteive three dimensions from the start. Space at;ld Sight,

a collection of physician's observations of the newly sighted, provides

confirmation of this conclusion,lO as do the visual cliff experiments with

young children and with animals reared in darkness. 11

Rock'~ next question is designed to_indicate the role of learning

in changing how we perceive. "How might 1earning change a two·dimensional

mode of perception? Woul~ it be' possible to learn chromatic color per­

ception if at first the world appearerl aChromâtic?,,12 Even though bath

questions are hypotheti~al because the situations they propose are absurd,

, j

) r '-''; ~, ',F

(

\

•

(

J •• _-_ .......... -l'I"'~ ... ~_.-_ ........ ----

Rock's point is important. While 1earning might affect how we label , .

or identify what we see~-e.g., a color as blue or not-blue--learning does

nct essentially alter how we per.c~i~e color, or the fact that we perceive

color at all. As Rock put is, "Learning does not' imply the creation of

new qualities of experience ... 13 .

Continuing along this line of thinlcing, James J~' Gibson offers an . o' \1

account of the visual world as an unlearned experf~nce. 4 His position

is that only the meanings of thing~ are learned; the ab1lity to perceive

i~ innate. Gibson lists four'assumptions necessary to his nypothesis , , \

"that what one learns' is to see the meanings of things,,15: --~~ " ,.

a. constituents of the visual world (colors, shapes, surfaces, edges, interspaces) are in themselves meaningless b. the meaning of anything is detachable from its concrete spatial qualities--one can separate things and events from their meanings by introspection c. all meaning is learned d

d. when meaning is added to things it d~5s not substant;al..ly modify the;r concrete ~patial qualities

Gibson's s!!pa!,ation of ":Jeaning from the "concrete spatial" object 1'{1 1

associates learning with meaning and nct with perception of the "concrete

spatial qualities." This i~. impo.rtant for visual literacy: an 1nstructional

program in visual literacy could teach only mean;ngs, not Çhe perception

of appearànces. This is where one criticism of the visual literacy

movement ;s relevant. The movement'emphasizes concepts rather than images.

In contrast to a general notion of v;sual literacy which focuses on "concrete

spatial qualities" of form, color, etc., the visual literacy movement 1s

concerned primarily with concepts, learned meanings which are independent

of the v;sual images to which they refer. Visual ,images are v1ewed by the

,

~.-_ -__ 'l"'. -__ -~--;ri--' ---,{---- --'::-- -: .

j

L

, . ,"

, "

/,

visual 1iteracy movernent sOlely as signs for verbal concepts.

Rudo'1'f Aritheim's work on perception q]so recognizes the distinc'tion , .

betweeh how one perceives and what one makes of the perçeived image:

We are the victims of a tradition according to which the senses furnish nothing better or worse than the raw material of experience. The physical world, although magnificently organized by the laws of nature, is supposed to present no such lawfulness ta the eyes. Thë~appearance of the world-­we are told--is shapeless, and shapeless ;s the image caught and transmitted by visual perception.17

, ,

It is obvious ~om the tone of the ab ove quotation that Arnheim is not ~~

in agreement with a traditional theory of the shapelessness of the per-

ceived image. His theory of perception, based in Gestalt psychology,

suggests tha~we learn to see a basic structure in those shapeless images:

What matters is what kind of learn1ng is involved •. 15 an l,ni ti al i ncapaci ty to see shape due to the l ack of similar experience with which.a present stimûlùs can be compared? Or is it the art 'of grasping the structure of a,Yisual pattern that takes time to perfect?18

Arnheim's notion of structure and the manner in which it 15 learned differs

from analogous concepts in other theorîes of visual perception (e.g.,

schemata for Gombrichi see ~.14). However, his general hypothesis of the

function.of learning in visual perception--to make ~ense of an image? ta , ,

grasp its structure--is in keeping wit~ other theories of visual perception.

To clarify the necessary relationship between theories of visual

perception and the concept of vis~al literacy, a breakdown of the steps in

<=>- visual perce~tion may be useful. If we can determine the place in visual

literacy of visual perception, then we can also determine the importance of ,-

12

leàrning for visual literacy. Rock describes the steps in visual perception

,-----._--.,.........-~ ,;f' ~ • t ~A ... f ~ .,,. .

• ~ l,. , ,--

(

(

13

;n the following way:' ,/' ;

1. 'The initial vent is that of energy or infonmation coming . to the sense 0 ganse On this 1eve1 the perceptua1 processoconcerns the manner in hich the senses--far our purpose vision--react ta the v;sual p nomenan. This step is identified as. the 'descrip-tion ' ph of visua1 perception .. ' 2. The s condary event occurs between the eye and the brain. Here the information apprehended in the first step 1s transmitted from the receiving organ to the brain. This step 1s identified as the 're~ognftion' phase. (NB: Recognition here does not mean fami1i­arity, but recognized as Jnformation.) 3. The third event is the cerebral act of reaction, response and/or storage of information received\ recognized and here identified. 19 .

In other words, the "description" of the visua1 experience in terms of

its visua1 characteristics occurs first. Granit has shawn that initial

sorting and patterning occurs in the ~ye even before the image reaches the

optic nerve. 20 This event occurs without learning or experience; it is

a pro pert y of the human ey~. The second event is also innate. It is on1y

with the third event--the reaction of the brain--where.learning is effective,

particularly in 1earning ta see the meanings of things, ~nd where individua1

taste, habit and experience take over. The II visual literacy" of the. v1sua1

literacy movement is meaning-oriented, attributing universal meanings to

visual signs. To be visually literate does not mean perceivi~g more--it

means knowing more about what it is one perceives. The implication of

visual illiteracy is that we do not know the meanings of what we see.

The native perception of pattern which occurs in t~e first step of

visual perception is vastly different from the application of cultural1y

assigned meanings ~o that pattern. James J. Gibson's wark" focuses on the h •

'perception of pattern; he is interested in the perception of shape, depth

of field, texture, Jigure/ground and other contrasts •. This is a type of

i

~ ::""'_~':""'~_" 'A.~'";. .;r" .. ~""';t'''''''·~1.1'''"~ ,F""'f""'_',6"""'~.:""'5._""" .. -', ,.--~-,-.-c 1

·-. .-.------_ ...... ---.- ._---q, 14

, ~~-

, vi sua 1 perception he ca 11 s 1 i tera 1 percepti on: perception of the substantial

or spati'a1 world, primari1y dependent on stimulation. Opposed to literal

perception is schemat1c perception: perception of the world of useful

and significant things, dependent on meaning or mental elaboration. 2l

Schematic perception is culturally determined, and is the province of th~

work of E.H. Gombrich and Anton Ehren2weig.

E.H. Gombrich is best know for his theory of making and matching, an

explanation of the perception and' creation of representative art. In

Art and Illusion Gombrich suggests that visual perception consists of a

learned ability to discriminate (match and\compare) r.ather than a trained

ability to see. rhe scanning of the visible world which provides sense-...

data for G.ibson's work 1s for Gombrich the arena of interp.lay between ,

expectation and observation. Our (schematic) perceptions are limited and

'infonned by schelnata derived fram experience. ~Jhat we see; according to

Gombrich, 1s essentia1ly what we recognize, through having seen ft or ; ,

something'similar before, and by differentiating throJ9h a process of

matching and comparison.

Jo more r~cent book by Gombrich, ~ Sense of Order: ~ Study on

the Psych0109X of Decorative Art, maintains the theory introduced in

Art and Illusi'on and /apPl ies it à...the perception of pattern and design.

The schemata derived fl'om exper; ence wh i ch i nform our percepti on of

representational art a1so provide a means for perceiving decorative art,

o via the anticipation of arder and repetition .Jnd the discrimination of

irregularity. As noted by Henri Zerner in his review of The Sense of , , ,

Order, this version of the making/matching theory is in keeping with

. ,

'.

,

(

(

/-

i

contemp9rary philosophy of sci'ence. 22 Gombrich refers to lia 'Popperian

aSJllllletry' . • •. Our whole sen~ory app;'u'atus is ba~ically tuned to the

monitoring of unexpected change. 1I2.3 The theorv of the perc~ptién of \

pattern he has proposed incorporates a checking mechanism to monitor the

con~istency (tt;'utp) or inconsistency (falsity) of the pattern. Zerner

also points out that current trends in psychology employ information

theory and the model of computers programmed for ~he detection of i~­

regularity.24

Whether applied to representative or decorative art, Gombrich's ,

theory of matching via schema ta derived from experience provides a strong

argument in support of visual literacy as a learned skill. Irrespective

of whether or not the ability to make, match And correct visual perceptions '.

is native or learned, the schemata used for matching can only be learned--

that i s, acqll i red till'ough experi ence. Further, whether or not one agrees

with the notion of conventional schemata in Gombrich's sense is not as

important::Tor our purpose--as is the shared notion that both v1sual

perception and visual literacy mean the recognition, identification and

communication of visual phenomena. For the visual literacy movement the

means by which one recognizes and identifies a visual image 15 secondary

to the meaning or understanding one has because of a literacy dependent

on learning.

In this context tne work of Anton Ehrenzweig offers a contrast.

What is key in Ehrenzweig's The Hidden Order of Art for th1s qùest10n of

recognition and identification is his notion of syncretistic vision-7

a holistic, though ~ot enÙrely Gestalt, visual perception. Syncretistic

o

, ) ,1

16

vision entails comprehension of a total structure rather than" an analysis

of single ~~ements.25 The contrast with Gombrlch lies in Ehrenzweig's

emphasis that syncretistic v,ision ;s initia11y not a consequence of learning;

ft is na~?ve, obscured by subsequent (non-syncretistic)"learning, and we

can re-learn to see syncretistically. Syncretistic vision employs s~anning

without the culturally determined schemata proposed by Gombrich. Schemata,

according to Ehrenzweig, provide a basis for cl;chê and are the foundation

against which innovation in visual art develops.26

The conflict between Ehrenzweig's theory of sync~etistic vision

and the Gestalt "theory of perception as held by Arnbeim lies in the nature

of the image itself. Ehrenzweig contends that children see syncret;st;cally

before the differentiation pf rational thinking evolves at around age

ëight. Gestalt theory suggests that the tendency ta select the simplest

and most coherent patte~rom all visual stimuli is ~nnate. The difference

be:!;~n the syncretistic vision of children and percept"ion as proposed by

Gestalt theory is essentially this:

The gestalt princ;ple not only governs the selection of the best pattern from within the v;sual field, but it will also actively ;mprove ft. Little gaps and imperfections in an otherwise perfect gestalt are filled in or smoothed away" This ;s why analytic gestalt vision tends to be generalized

Syncretistic vision suppresses itrelevant detai1 28 but does not

substitute a generalized structure 'as gestalt vision does. The conflict

i s important for theori es of vi sua 1 percep'ti on and for vi sua 1 li teracy.

If visual literacy requires the teaching of meanrlngs associated with 1

visual signs, the percèption of those signs as generalized or specifie· "

-._---- ~ ... ~ ~ .~:--.

- 27

(

.,

(

__ ~ __ $ ___ ":-_"J'I"_O _______ ...... .-,. -.._

'17

structures can determine whether or not they are pr ly identified.

A somewhat different theory of visual perception is outll ~y Ij -------- ________

--------Suzi Gablik ,in Progtess in Art. For Gab1i.k, the evolution of human c09- ~ _______ " ----------------nition explains the development of visual perception and artistic styles:

"different developmental levels correspond to different ways of seeing \

and thinking about the world'," 29 from perception of space to the represen­

tation of'perspective in visual art. The psychology of Jean Piaget

provides a foundation for a theory arguing that there is a transition from

early influences on pe~cep'tion ta later influences of l09ic and mathematics. J

The connection between ways of seeing and ways of'thinking, important for

a general as well as the movement1s notion of visual literacy, will be taken

up again later.

What ;5 obvious from this brief survey of theories' of visual percep­

tion ;s that learning influences not how we perceive, but what we make of

perceived images. We learn,what kind of schemata to use for matching, what

meaning to give to images, what significance vi'sual experiences have

iR our cultural sett;ng. The visual literacy movement proposes that we

rather than how to see. Unfortunately, its

mn1ftt:y-ç.:.oDJQe~ptual~, not vi~ual--a curious emphasis

in a movement concerned with visual communication. o

The recognition of pattern, including audial as well as visual • pattern, ,which is essent;al for the surv;val of livi,ng organisms (the frog

is a good example) ;s different from the recognition of culturally

assigned meanings. The next section reviews material addressing the

influence of environment and culture on visual perception, implying

how environment and culture may also influence visual literacy. , .

1

l, 1

j

1

l' !

- ~ .... - ~"~--"-"''''--''''--'---<'''''''''''''''''i>'''' \, ... ~ . ~"W., ~ ....... ,,. .. ,,, .....,. ~ _

18

-. -0- =--~- ~ ~ ---- - 0

---------------------------------------------------___ With the function of learning and experiente in visua1 perception -------------- ' ----------- " .

established,~nd~th~efore implied for v;su~_~ literacy, ft is helpfu1 to i) ___-

look at literature whi~h addresses the environmental and cultural in-

'--------------- ' 1 ---------__ ' ---

fluences on visual perception~nd learnfng._ , ~ /' ' '-~, - ,- '

---------------------_________ ~ TI:!! 1 nfl uence.---ofêu l ture Q!!. Vi sua l Percèpti on ,the' authors s tate

• 1

o

the1r thesis that cultural inference syst~s mediate visual'perception.

Thefr approach to their own data and that of other social sc,ientists

results in the followin~ theor~tical system:

1. a v1sual perceptiQn system uses numerous clues of low and probabilistic (bût still positive) validity 2. op~ical illusions demonstrate the function of normally useful élues but provide atypical visual performance settings 3. if human groups differ in their visual inference ten: dencies, it is because their visual environments differ 4. given a herid1tary and a learning explanation that both ,fit the data, the learning (empiricist) explanation is,th~ more plausible30

• • 1Fw

The learning Segall et al. refer to in the above system is behavioral

as well as,environmental. Instruction, reward and-punishment are be­

havioral tools of ènculturation. A less obvious factor in enculturation

1s the limitation of alternatives offered either by'a physical environ- \

ment or by a cultural system of'thought, or any of the conditions mentioned v

in the Introduction. The fact that these conditions impose certain in­

ference habits--in effect prescrib1ng certain products of visual perception-­

implie~ that other inference h~bits could also be taught under other con­

ditions.

Less empirical but equally valid observations of a'similar nature

are found in the work of'both Edmund Carpenter and_Edward T. Hall. Carpenter1s ~ , ("

<.

'. ..

.....,

.1

, 'II

. , .

1 •

I~

, ,

____ .... b~I .... 'i!1!tICI 4'»wtr';"r':~ ..... ~--------_·t-_':" >~ ---".

'---~----__ --·· _____ i.~' ____ __

(~ '.

/J.

, 19

-1

~ • • \ 1

sojourns, with the n"the people of the Arctic have·caused hlm tolmark

on the particular skills of observation made nec%ssary by thèir habitat. . - . The distinction between, cultural1y diffenentiated perception and cu1tural1y

differentiated communication concerning perception is important for the

concept of visual literacy. The Eas~ meets West notion of two different 1 ~

sys~ems of thought, 9r C.P.Snow'os division 'e! science and the humanitfes o~. 31 . -

into The Two Cultures;· are the verbal counter;Parts of ~he multitude of

cultural systems of visual perception. Carpenter's obsérvation of image-. '

making in Àrctic art,has 1ed him to the f0110wing assessment of western

perception, an assessment more importarlt for its recognition of cultural 51

differences than for its \view Of,history:

. -.

The phon~tic,a1phabet and al1 its derivative~ stress a one-thing-at-a-time analytic awareness in percep~ion. This intensity of analysis 1S achievêd at the pri~e of forcing

"

all else i!J the field of pereeptiQn ipto the sub1 imioflal. For c25 hundred years 1iterate man'lived in what Joyce ~alled "ABCED-mindedness. JI As a A~ult of this fragmenting of the field of perception and the breaking of movement into static bits, man won a poWèr of app1ied knowledge"and tecbnology unrivaled in human histor.y. The priee he paid was exist1ng pers,ona 11 y 3~nd soc; a 11y in a s ta te of al mos't tota 1 sub 1 im1 na 1 awareneS$. '

Edward T. Hall's The S,ilent Language iridicates ma,ny clues to

. culturally detennined behavior whÙ:h outsiders simply mfs-interpret or ,.

fal1 to recognize.. Appreciation of' these differences is perhaps as far

'às we can hop~ to go, for we are as bound in and by our' own cultural

systems as 1s .anyone el se. , l ,\ , 0 ~

\\Wtiat significance do es this :have for visual 1 iteracy, either 1 ..

general or as definèd by the visual 1 iteracy movement? We do not yet , 0

7

'1

l 'r " -, -----_________ --- _""--_t.o -----~~---.-~ •• _ .. ___ ,..,_ ... ,.. ........ ._~~ .. _-~,..;.f. ,~,~ '_"'n~.,...,-~ ... i_( ~ _,

•

o know if there are any visual phenomena' which transcend cultural differen­

tiation, though one would suspect that they do exist. What is certain is . . .... that we must be extremely conservative in any assumPtion~ in this regar4,

employing the traditional caution of the a~thropolOgist. For visual

fiteracy advocates, the education process entails something other th an

learning "how to see. 1I TO,be uni'versal, visual' literacy would entail

al teri,ng or transfonning the options and systems that now form the foun­

dation and reference points of'·our visual perception, with ·the reduction

of images to signs. r10r~ than education would be required to accomplish

such a totalitarian feat:

New ways of seeing or hearing are not simply the result of improved or refi'ned sensory perception, bu't also of new social realities. For example, the rhythm, noise and tempo of great ,cities stimulate new kinds.of seeing and hearing, a peasant sees a landscape differently. from a city dweller, and so forth. 33 .

From the perspective of the history of science, the wark of Thomas S.

Kuhn indicates links between Gablik's understand1ng of perception as a

'way of thinking and the concerns of Marxist critics like Ernst Fischer, ~

quoted above. Kuhn describes the transition over time of one paradigm 'J

1 of sei e~ti fic knowl edge to anoth~r as the, bas i s for the deve 1 opment of r:-----, ~ seei-ng. In discussing the res~nse of science to approaching

'j"'l ërises, Kuhn ~ays:

o Others who have noted this aspect of scientific advance have emphasized its similarity to a change in visual gestalt: the marks on the paper that were firs,t seen a's a bi rd are now seen as an ante 1 ope, or vice-versa. That parallel can be misleading .••• Nevertheless, the switch of gestalt, particularly because it is today so

.., . 20

,

,----

(

c

fami1iar, is a useful elementary prototype for what occurs in full-scale paradigm shift •..• In cases like these one can say only that a minor breakdown of the paradigm and the very first blurring of its rules for normal science were sufficien4 to induce-in someone a new way of looking at the field. 3

~

Kuhn ' s analysis suggests that a breakdown or threat to the parad,i~ is

necessary for a change in a way o~ seeing. The visual literacyOmovement

'neither challenges the existing paradigm nor proposes a new way of seeing;

it merely isolates certain objects of vision and ignores others.

, Needless to say, Kuhn" s theory of ~aradigm shift would explain some

of the changes in perception which have occured over centuries of cultural ,

change. In discussing some of the major shifts in scientific research,

21

Kuhn addresses this question'! "Did these men really see different things

w~~ looking at the same sorts of objects? Is there any legitimate sense

in which we can say ~ they pursued their research in different worlds?"35

If paradi~s indicate so readily the foundation from which a·scientist

sees the world around him, it is reasonable to assume that similar non-~

scientific paradigms exist to dictate the way non-scientists view the

world (and actually see). If the answers to Kuhn's questions quoted

above ar,e "yes, Il then one would a1so answer "yes" to the following

questions: "00 people in different cultural settings really ~

different things when looking at the same sorts of objects? Is there

any legitimate sense in which we can say that they express themselves

visually in different worlds?1I Of course there is a big difference ,

between seeing and looking--one usually looks for particular things; o

seeing is more general and less specifie. None~heless, Kuhn's reasoning

____________ ~~, <~ -'.C" •. ",,-.-.. ~ .. -_~ __ ~~_,--- .--- ,-

, 1

, ~{ l·~

J. ~

1

_. __ ~J

i '·1 i

',"-'

1 '~

~Î

4. -_-!._---~--~----,---~~-_ ........... ~~,-'" \<, .... , ..... ~- ... ",.

22

implies that the visual perception habits of one culture will actually

(~ yfeld different things than the visual perception habits of another culture.

o

ln a Postscript to the enlarged second edition of his book,The

Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn addresses the question' of the

applicability of his theory to fields other'than science. First, he ,

acknowledges hls debt t~ a long tradition of similar theories in the . humanities which describe development in tenns of "revolutionary breaks

in style, taste and institutional structure."36 Then he adds a cpTlJllent

relevant to our criticfsm of the limitations of the visual literacy

movement:

1 suspect, for example, that sorne of the notorious diffi­culties surrounding the notion of style in the arts may vanish if paintings can be seen to be modeled on one another rather than oroduced in conformity to sorne abstract canons of s ty le. 37 .

-

Aside ~dm the fact that art historians are well aware of this point,

Kuhn's comment underscores our suggestion made earlier that the visual

literacy movement has more to do with its own context, the atmosphere .-'

in which it is conceived and the objects to which ft pertains, than with

"any universal canons of visual commun~catfon. We are bound by and in

the circumstances of our perceptua1 'habits and environment. Just as

1ndividuafs in two different cultures may have different value systems --

.and differ~nt belief systems, so too may they have different systems

of visual" perception based on not only cultural habits (environmental

and behavioral)" but a1so on abstract paradigms. This is ~ aspect of .

cultural differentiation anthropologists engaged in fie1d work have

c'

c~

, , , ."'. . ,

:

long been aware of:

\ the proponents of canpeting paradigms practice their trades in dffferent worlds .... Practicfng in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same pOint in the same direction. Aga1n, that 15 not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But 1n sorne areas· they see different things,3ftnd they see them in different relations one ta the other.

Not only do we see di,fferent things because of different paradigms of /

. science, beHef, or whatever, but because our purpose in seeing and looking

is different. Loo~ing at something i~om a new pe~pective--e.g., a newly . "

advancing paradigm--may revea1 new infonnation, or d1fferent infomat1on,

as will looking for hay rather than a needle 1n a haystack.

In order for visual literacy education to enhance visual communi­

cation and understanding, the new social realities mentioned by Fischer may

be necessary. As long as we continue to think' about our environment from

the perspective of a certain belief system (paradigm) and a11 our

visual.experiences can be accomodated by that wayof thinking, little or

no new "way of seeing" will ensue. Attempting to change the belief system

or paradigm which determines how we see is futile if the visible world

presents the same familiar conditions and objects, or ones contràry ta

the new sys 1;em:

There i s no good purpose in deve 1 opi ng the creative and appreciative impulses in the child ff at the same time we compel ft to inhabit ugly schools, go home through ugly streets, and to live in an ugly house surrounded by ugly objects. 39 . '

The visual literacy movement does not recognize the end towards'

23

, 1),

, " 1------""----.;.:................1- .. ,."~.- .. --_____________ ,_ ... _______ -,_ .. ~.!"'._

o

'4

whfcfi ft tends: reductfon of vfsual expression fram a complex, exciting,

fndfvidua1 and ~xceptiona1 means of 'communication into a simple, static

and cOIIIIIon system of signs. Where a general vi'sual lfteracy ~ees in visua1

expression both the unfversal and the unique, the visua1 literacy movement

reduces a11 differences to none. The trees lose their identity in the

forest. In the primary material, to which we now tur~, two approaches

toward th1s goal emerge:

through visual 11teracy.

to educate for vi sua 1 li teracy, and to educate

o

b

24

(~

(

25

Part Two

One of the greatest difficulties with "the tenn nvisual'liter§€~11 is that it has become more of a slogan than a usab1e concepti "" a spirited movement has grown which supports the tenn, promotes and designs curricula to foster "visual literacy," but hitf\ only a vague i~8a of what the tenn means and has not seriously i nvesti­gated it.

The above quotation from an article appearing in the Visual l1teracy j

Newsletter indicates two importânt issues:' first, the ambiguity and weak­

ness of the tenn "vi sua l li teracy ," desp1 te i ts wide usage; and second, the

general are a of concern of the visual literacy ~ovement: the relationship

between visual literacy, education and learnil19. The material surveyed in ';;"

the following pages addresses both these, points. Sorne of th; s lfterature

cornes from a group of educators whose main concern is to incorporate thefr -"-... 4

notion of visual literacy into their curricula. Other 1 iterature cornes out

of a growing concern àmong social critics regarding our environnent and

attitudes towards the visual detritus around us. The overriding issue for C

a11 of the se writers is the neglect--both in institutionalized education Q

and in sQciety at large--of our ability to know through 'seeinÇ!. For edu­

cators, the· p~oblem is focussed in school children coming from an environ­

ment of visual learning and communication at home, via observation and i )

televis,ion, into an educational system which emphasizes verbal and different

non-visual modes of learning and communication. For the critics the issue

is one of coming to terms with a global world shrunken by elec.tronic and

satell ite comnuni cation, where the verbal mode i 5 an often inadequate or Q

- '_,.~ •• 0' .. ______ ,.-:-:. ,---

,0

1

,1 1

! ,

o

., ,1 'J

26

" , insufficient means of communication.

An unpublished paper by Charl ene Castello, nTne Parameters of

Visua1 L1teracy, Il gathers the answers of a number of ·educators to questions.

concerning the defini·tion, deve10pment and philosophical basis of. visua)

literacy. Castello di stributed a questionnaire to fort y-four members of Cl

the International Visua1 Literacy Association (hereafter referred to as the

IVLA). In response ta questions regardihg definition, most educators

"conceived of visua1 literacy as a dual skill. To them visual 1iteracy'

implied both the comprehension of non-print media and conmun;cati on by

non-print media. 1141 A1ready we have a prob1em with the eKpression "non-1 1

print media," which could suggest radio, which iS.'not quite a visual

medium of cOlll11unication. One assumes that Castello means v;sual media

other than books, newspapers and other ma ter; al s wh; ch are seen but are Cl

nonetheless primari1y verbal1y oriented. The respondents further. indicate

that recent research on the 1 a tera 1 asynmetry of the human bra in and

hemispheric learning ten~ncies has encouraged educators and curriculum·

special ists to deve10p programs specifi,cally designed to stimulate the

ri ght hemi sphere:

•

Recent research by Bogen, Sperry and Orns tei n as we 11 as others, suggests in a most forthright manner that American education has pract~ced hemispheric discrimination by channe li ng . the maj ority of 1 earni ng exper; ences i nto the left brain. The pervasive influence of visuals on children suggests, too, that they not only need visual learning experience.s, but are wel] prepared without formal ski11 development to work within the visual realm. 42

'l>

( 'Ç1

{ (

(

(

'r 1 .... -- .. - .. " ... - ~"I\"~'-" ·'t"'-Ior~ .... , ........... -~",..- .... --.,.--- ---·----'--2' ....

The goal of a balanced education is indicated as an objective of

the new curricula:

It is the possibility that the combination of both. visual, and verbal learning might provide a more balanced education, but even more, a capac1ty for solving problems that exceeds the suros of~ t~3 verbal and visual input--a k1nd of super inte 11 igence. ,

The IVLA developed a definitio[l of visual literacyat its 1969 "

annual co~ference' (see Introduction, p. 2); nonetheless,1 respondents to

the' Castello questionnaire clearly fe l t a need to articulate their own

definitions. Castello quotes Don Cyr as saying:

As 1 see it visual literacy is an acquired capacity that helps one to read and understand the visual imagery created by man. Not only photographs are to be understood, but a1so painting, sculpture, graphies, architecture, film and TV. And the more visually literate a person is, the greater his eapa­city to ,inc1ude as visual language, the wide range of visùal imagery that oceurs. 44

and Henry Ray:

On a somewhat primitive level this [visual literae~ would inc1ude being able to loeate and identify essential visua1 signs and symbo1s such as road signs, business symbols, and transportation graphies .. lncluded would be the ability ta recogni ze a per'Son, place or object from a photograph or other graphi c representation. On a higher level, visua1 literacy would be the development of sensitivity to esthetic (and non-ésthetic) qualiti es in the environment and in the visual arts, including photography.45

For many educators,the foundation of visual literacy lies in,the importance

of the visual mode in l.earning Qf a11 kinds, and in the value of using the ~

visua1 mode in classroom instruction.

Among respondents to the Castello questionnaire, on1y one indicated

1

l '

1

'1 l 1

o

Q

the necessity of coming to tenns with visual perception in fonnulating

a theoretical framework and a definition of visual literacy:

The looseness of this rather uni'ntegrated definiti on [that of the IVlA for "vi su~ 1 li teracy"] has a lways bothered me. 1 think II vision competencies" is a poor catch~all tenn. ~Je must deal with the process of perceiving or perception •. That the concept of image or imageries does not appear in this definition is a great failing. That fundamental esthetic principles have not been pointed up more as the syntax has been debilitating. 46

Unt'ortunate ly Cas te 110 do es not quote thi s respondent further on th i s ,

subject; 'itwould be interesting to see how he would resolve the inade­

quacies he points out.

The theoreti cal foundation of vi sua l li teracy i s nowhere so

developed as it is in the work of J~hn l. Oebes, III. His analysis relies

on parallels between visual and yerbal literacy and the "languaging" that

occurs in each mode of cOlTll1unication. The "1anguagingl' to whi ch he refers

is the intentional communication between human beings via cul turally de­

tennined signs, both verbal and visual. The implication of Oebes's work

1s that the structure of human communication--bQ1h visual and verbal, and

possibly all cOll1llunication--is the same: verbal languaging uses sounds to

transmit meaning, and visual languaging uses visuals to transmit meaning. 47

Literacy, hèwe~er, is concerned wi th meaning as well as structure:

Visual literacies depend on visual images being inve~ted by the culture wit~ certain meanings. Verbal languages depend on audible signs tnat are culturally eshbN"Shed; visual languages depend on visible signs that are culturally esta­bl ished and constantly being modifi ed by the peopl e who use them. 48 "

28

..

/ "

(

,----------.~--

29

Oebes equates images with signs, as do most of the proponents of the visual ,

literacy movement.

According to Debes, visual literacy develops out of the visual voca~u­

lary of children through the process of assigning meanings to objects in

the same way that verbal vocabulary develops through the process of as­

,signing meanings to sounds. 49 If this is true, then we are all visually ,

literate, and the justification for new school curricula becomes more one

of using different literacies to teach, rather th an teaching to develop

different literacies:

Whether we speak of" 1 earning, teachi ng or 1 i teracy, we are really concerned with problems of conmunication .••• Visual ' literacy is but one element in a concept of comprehensive literacy involving all the ways in which individuals com­municate with one another. It is true that verbalism has received major ~ttention as a body of communication skills essential to a well educated individual. However, there are se~eral·personal modes of communication that we all must consider if we address ourselves to the general idea of li teracy .50

Truesdale's concern with a comprehensive notion of communication and \

literacy as evidenced by his comment above';s rare in the visual literacy

movement. Debes's view is more typical, narrowly considering visual literacy

as the source of all other literacies. Ta writers such as Debes, visual

literacy is acquired through experience, exposure to visible signs in a

context which implies or makes clear the1r meaning. Visual literacy 1s . . rarely concerned with style or aesthetics;'~~7ead it emphasizes the re-

, l' lation of visible signs to socially acceptèd/;' and, ther.efore often convèn-

tional, meanings. As such, the movement1s concept of universal visual

literacy is a contradiction in terms: if visual literacy 1s the ability

j ,

, 1

1 I~ l ' ! ~ \

1

. -,-7'7-,."...-rr:: {/, ... C·, !,:' .. ','., ~",:-::l;;J, ,.. 'D.',,',' ,,,,.=_~.~ ... ti <' ,"'.,W ,H ,'. . _.~ •• :-'-~-:'~",~--r l 'i

, ,

· _ .. _----~-.-._--- ~.

to understand and communicate via culturally established non-verbal media,

i) then once one leaves that culture, the literacy is irrelevant or invalid.

, One can almost imagine E.H. Gombrich nodding approval. ta Oebes' s

suggestions. A notion of schemata for matching,fits well with Oebes's

analysis. Neither Gombrich's schemata nor Debes's languaging, however.

allows for the possibility of a general, notiçm of visuàl literacy based on

vlsual elements that are not culturally determined--a visual literacy that -,

is visually oriented rather than meaning oriented. The differences between

30

visual literacy as Oebes defi'nes it, and visual 1 iteracy as defined by his

colleagues who responded to thé Castello questionnaire, indicate the\awkward

state of the concept -and its vlirious applications. 'Oebes regards visual

Hteracy primarily as a tool for learning. The IVLA members 'who responded

to the questionnaire regard visual literacy as everything from a result

ta an aptitude:

visual literacy is a result. It is an effect of certain learning and teaching practices. ,Being visually literate is an aptitude. It is a capacity to use imagery ta faci1i­tate; deegen and complete comprehension and conceptual learning. 51 -

The inconsistency of theory and methodolo9y in thé visual literacy

movement is indicatëd in the above quotation and in Debes's frequent references

to verbal language structure and theory without allowing for' differences.

5uch parallels have been criticized in the Visual Literacy Newsletter, the 1 c:> monthly publication of the IVlA:

---.. ,,"'._---- ~ ... .. _ ~,- _ .,.,. .. _.-.,,~

First, are the skills of vision so similar to verbal skills that the same concept of l iteracy can app ly to both? •.• The procedure of defining and training vis,ual ski11s may be very

(

(

..

different from those requfred for defi nlng and tral ning v~rbal' sk i 11 s. Al 50 1 we have seen that the concept. of 1 i teracy i s arnbiguous ev en in the verbal domain. A concept of proficiency

31 ,,}

is ev en more prob1ematic in tfle visual domain where visua1, skills and their relations are not,identified, and the theorizing 1s in its infancy. There are a1so theoretical arguments that visual and verba l phenomena can not be tr§ated by the same theory (Langer, Phi,losophy in .! New ~ey). 2

And in the same issue:

Why do visual 1iteracy advocates contrast thernselves with pri nt li teracy when reams of data document that thi s cul ture does not deal effective1y with the printed word? Can there be a l ess appropri ate standard than pri nt 1 i terag~ hy, whi ch to evaluateoones~lf or to establish one's goals?

Donis A. Dondis, whose work suggests the necessity of teaching

visual 1iteracy has made the following COlTll1ent on this issue:

.

The mos t di rec t route to the deve 1 oprnent of a vi sua 1 ca tegori - , zation is through recognition' of the essentia1 differences between the verbal and the vi sua 1: the verba 1 a conventi on, a code invented and constructed by man; the visual more heavily influeneed by pe5~eptions--physical and psychologieal as well as conventional .

. While Dondis recognizes that there is a difference between visual and

verbal modes of corrmunication, her insistence on a "visual categorizationU

limits her notion of visual literaey to'one which, like that of Debes,

equates images with signs.

Severa1 contradictions confound the visual/verbal parallel so important

to the visual literacy movement. It 1s especially troublesame that the

educators who cite the theory of lateral brain functioning, with a visual

right hemisphere and a verbal 1eft hemisphere t as a criterian for developing

new cur!"icula" nevertheless insist that le~rning in either mode occurs via

identieal structures of vocabulary, grammar and the associated meanings of

l,

1·

o

t ' , ,

( . culturally established 519ns. To overcome right hemÙpheric discrimination

:) in American' education (see quotation p. 26) by the development of programs

in v;sual literacy is an underestimation of the right hemisphere. The

, v1sual literacy movementls proposals for curriculum changes ignore right ,

hem1spheric abil ities and tendencies for intuitive and spatial thought in

general. above and beyond the visual. 1

Debes's own notion of visual literacy is one of a naturally developed

ability to comprehend a culturels visible signs, rather than a skill re-.

quiring instruction to develop. This formulation further distinguishes

vi sua 1 li teracy fram a verbal counterpart. The ; ns tructi ona 1 programs

Oebes designs use visual literacy to promote conceptual thinking; they

do not prorhote visual 1 iteracy through instruction in the same way that

traditional c1'assroom instruction promotes verbal 1 iteracy. Kodak's

Photo Discovery Sets, which Debes was instrumental in designing, have the

obj ective of bri dgi ng the gap between the pre-schoo l or i nner-ci ty chil d' s

experience with visual vocabulary and visual -literacy and the school's

emphasi5 on verbal vocab.ulary and verbal literacy. Similar projects •

are suggested by Caleb Gattegn,o in Towards .!. Visual Culture, employing ,

what he sees as a population's natural visual literacy ta promote com­

munication and learning:

We would ask no more of the viewers th an that they look; the rest, i.e. making them see, 1s the 'job of the pro­gramers with their technicians and the television set. If the programs have respected the real ity of seeing, education will happen, 'an education that does not need remembering, for a part of oneself will Rave been foreyer mobilized Ely the complex image on the tube, àvaila~le àlways to be evoked'at will or triggered up

32

. ~

•

c:

• • Q

..

"

'c '

"

,---....--....... _---_.......:!"".'

t

by association. The visua1 powers of 'the l'nind will have been fer"ti l,i zed because they have been ca 11 ed upon to function and te produce meantggful, dyn8;mic equiva lents of the time spent in viewing. ' . '

~ , ,

Gattegno's uiscuss;on of the use of t~levision for education addresses

the concept of visual liter~cy only indirectly. Because our sense of

33

sight 1s so immediate, Gattegno seiz~s on television as a rapid and precisé ,

medium of ~ommunication. Gattegno'$ blind faith 1n the teleyision image

as a stimulus for creative thinkiRg and a ,source tif precise information " \

threatens his argument. Television images lack the clarity of reality,

to'say nothing of the lost experience of seeing for one's self the images - ,

'Which 'are flattened in~o electronic signals for the screen. The immediac~

t. of television progral1ll1ing has e'voked cr.iticism precisely because of its

unnatural imag~d-pacingi

Co-dirè'ttors of ,the Yale Family Television' Research and Consultation Center, (Jerome ancJ Dorothy Singea maintàin. that' new evidence suggests that ftfast-paced shows li ke 'Sesame Street' leave l\ttle tirne for thé response and reflection ,that are importaflt ingredients" or a child's' fK>mplete learntng experience. IIISesame Street, III they argue, creates lia psychological orientation in cblldren

~ that l eads to a shoçtened attenti on span, a ] ack of re­flecttveness and an expectation of rapid change in the broader environment. n56

, '

Television not,only conditions its viewers to dev~lop perceptual habits

appropriate for flat images, but also prohibits individua1 concentration

and exploration by imp'osing the will of Gattegno's all-powerful programers ,~

and techni ci ans.

The question of understanding the materjal communicated by the vfsual "

medium of te'leyision 1s the concern of Philip A. Macomber:

\,

/

o

.,

(

) Sorne visual material presents litera1 or object-type information. Visua1 comm~nication via te1evision often conceals strong sym­bols or imp1ied information. True visual 1iteracy must equip us to cope with the more sophisticated 1evel of visua1 com-muni cat·ion. Today man is competent to handle the 1 itera1 translation of verbal signs into the visual as displayed via television. This is simp1er in form and lacking comp1exity. But bec.ause of te1evisiol) we have been thrust into a visually dominantrènvironment--over three hours a day per person spent in viewfng. c There is an urgent vièwer demand for a higher 1evel of visual literacy, capable of intel1ectually compre­hending the non~literal, the symbolic aspect of communication. 57

Macomber is one of several educators whose conception of visua1

34

1iteracy has 1ed them to develop programs of instruction to promote it-­

rather than using visual 1iteracy to promote learning of a11 kinds. Programs , .

of this sort are familiar to fine arts 'and art history curricula, where

an eye for detai1ed and sensitive observation has long been considered

essential. The traditional training of artists goes beyond the dissection

bf the minutiae of visual media to encompass a sense of form as well as .. I.~ •

content--a macrocosmic and:microcosmic awareness of the observed material.

The visual literacy movement attempts to' extend only the emphasis ,on sign­

values t~ use eyes for learning in other areas of study, whereas a general ~ .

notion of visual literacy sees'both perspectives as necessary to social

responsi bi 1 i ty:

A society that does not esteem observation as a general ''--~ acquisition is not likely to produce skillful observers •

l

••• To turn out c;tizens capable of better educating themselves by being iJb1e to use their eyes more effectively, .•. \Ife need to be taken out of doors f.or demonstrations of the reality of appearances in the natural worl d. We need exp1anations of why things appear as they do. We need to understand the character and capacities of the eyes. We need'a11 kinds of systematic looking. ~nd we must have a concept of what is visua11y significant.

._._-~---_ .. ',~:' ~. 1~~ --".f' ,..

o

,

"

c

(

\ , - 35

In several detailed programs for the i,nstruction of vi~ual literacy ~~

in a general sense, line, form, tone, 'color, proportion and texture function

as elements in the IIlanguage" of visual expression. Instruction in the vo-,

cabulary, gralTlllar and syntax of visual language 1s designed to overcome

,lia widespread visual illiteracy, a public generally incap~ble of 'reading'

the current'visual languages of painting and sculpture and often extremely

limited in its ability, to 'read' the visual langUa~es of the past. 1I59

Here the parallel with verbal communication is a metaphor rather than a

source for theory, as ;'Y is in the work of Debes, for example. Visual

languages appear in visual phenomena which are familiar, but wh1ch we o

cannot read. The suggestion is that the development of visual literacy ,

is similar ta learning a language, rather than Debes's insistence that

both occur in precisely the same fashion. \

A Primer of Visual Literacy by Donis A. Dondis clarifie~he sense

in which one can speak of visual vocabulary, syntax and granvnar with~ut

imposing the structure of verbal language sY,stems. The mUltitudino~

infl,uences on our understanding of visual messages--physiological, ,psycho­

logical, cultural and social--insure that visual languages possess "

structures unlike the 1pgical one of verbal language systems--or ~t least

sô far as we have been able tp determine. 60 Nonetheless, we can isolate " \" ."

certain characteristics 'of visual messages--color, texture, scale, pro­

portion, motion--and refer to them as the vocabulary of visual expression.

We can identify certain levels of visual messages--representational, sym­

bolic' and abstract--anq refer to them as the grammar of visual expression.

()

1 )

'0

... _~-~....-..-. 'Or' "'~*' ,. f

1

1

We can distinguish aspects of composition in visual material and regard

it as the syntax of ~isual expression. Dondis details exercises designed

to develop the ski11s! necessary to identify theilé elements and thereby 1 .

enhance visual literacy. Her aim is to bring to non-artists the kind , 1

of training traditionally provided for designers, artists and architects--'1 -

to make Johannes Itte~ 1 s Foundation Course at the Bauhaus as conmon' to

school curricula as is Freshman English Composition. Her comments on t~e

complementarity of vi~ual and verbal literacy are important:

But the implications~of the universal quality of visual infor­mation doe~ not stop at the point of us; ng it as a stand-i n for verbal 'infonnation. The two are not in confl i ct. Each has unique capabilities, and yet it is the visual mode that has

lnot been wholly utilized. Visual understanding is a natural ç1neans that does not have to be learned, only refined. What

(

we see is not, as it is in, language, a surrogate that has to ~ be translated from one state to another. In perceptual terms,

what is an,apple for an American is an apple for a Frenchman, even though the latter call it "une ponme. 1I But like language,

-1 effective visual communication should avoid ambigu1ty of visual

36

cU,es and attempt to express :ideas in the simplest, Most direct li

waY. It is through oversophistication and the" choice of complex symbolism that cross-cultural difficulties can arise in visual communication. 61

We have already pointed out that it is not only the v~sual object 1

which May be.a 'cul tural ly determined creation, but also a way' of seeing 1 1

that creates different perceptual habits. Dondis again lim~ts her concept ,

of visual literacy by ~nsisting on a systema~ization of visual images as

signs. If visual communication is reduced to unambiguous, sfmple·imagery,

all the visual richness created by cross-cultural "oversophfstication,'11

nuance and custom will vanish. The development of visual lfteracy towards

this end signals a future visual wasteland, contai~i~~sual art as -'~'f-

(

(

37

unstimulating and original as highway signs.

Gyorgy Kr~es' language of Vision attempts a similar vjsual re-education , '

of its readeps/through the identification of the components of visual

expréssion. By identifying the physiological and psychological, the

internal and the external elements of visual expression, Kepes shows how

therecJs more to be seen than literal or representational content. The

rise of technology and the consequent mObility of man and his world requ1re \

a ,newlY integrated way of thinking. Through visual expression and the under- ,

stan)0ng of visual imagery we can adjust our thinking to the dynamism of

con~emporary life. 62 With a more contemporary mode of thought and a new ,

way of seeing (based on a new paradigm) we can reorient o~rselves to today's

demands and problems. 63 Kepes sees visual language as vital to communication

in the twentieth century:

Visual communication is universal and international: it knows no limits of tongue, vocabulary or grammar, and it can be perceived by the illiterate as well as by the literate. Visual language can convey facts and ideas in a wider and deeper range than almost any other means of coomuni catio-n. It can reinforce the static verbal concept with the sensory vi­tality of dynamic imagery. It can interpret the new under­standing of the pnysical wo~Jd and social events because dynamic interrelationships and interpenetration, which are significant of every advanced scientific understanding of today, are intrinsic idioms of the contemporary vehicles of visual communication: photography, motion pictures and television. 64

Kepes' idea is twofold: a 'new vision adjusted ta the global ~

'village of the twentieth ~entury, and a new visual expression to create

a symbolic order of the new way of thinking. Both can be achieved through

education in the language of vision: the laws of plastic organization.

!

. Il Il

J ,1 r

! ij

'.f)

o

the visual representation of cOfltemporary space-time events, and the

development of dynamic iconography.65

Similarly, Laszl0 Moholy-Nagy expresses an emphasis on integration 'in " .

the Bauhaus courses: if one sees everything in relationship to everything . .

38

else, the language,\of art is the union of ~motional, intellectual and sensory_

expression-. A lai9~age of art is "1earned by frequent exposure to it."66 "---

H~ notes later in the same book:

Every pictorial meaning is an abstraction to be re-translated into its original meaning. People have to be educated in deciphering and understanding them, just as they are taught to read and write. A photograph is generally understood as a facsimile of an object. Nevertheless it might be well to remember that even a photograph could not be "read ll unless one had learned to approach it, to retranslate its black and white and gray gradations in the flat plane iQto the original three-dimensional scene. 67

The importance of integration for Moholy-Nagy, like Kepes' emphasis on the

contemporary environment, demonstrates their awareness of the dependence

of ways of seeing on the.context in which one sees.

Among cri tics who have developed the concept of how we see into a

metaphor, symbol or symptcim of their society, visual literacy is Most

often regarded as a neglected capacity in need of refinement. They consider

visual literacy to mean an acknowledgement of time and place as well as meaniijQ

the understanding of modern art. Thus, Douglas Davis emphasizes the impor­

tance of how, where and when we see in his discussion of video and film. 68

lndeed how we see video and film is just one aspect of how we view art

in ',general , and the role of the art1st and the museum in society. The

American Assembly Conference of Museum Educators has resolved that the

c

(

"

"

function of the museum fs. to educate the public, specifically "to increase

visual literacy by' teach.ihg people to see. ,,69 ThiS is particularly re-o _.

vealing in view of the amlliguity of the term "visual literacy," both within

and without the movement, the many different practices which have been as­

sociated ~ith it, an.d the fact that you can teach someone ·what to look for

but not how to see. Would we tolerate such ambiguity and confusion in the

teaching of verbal literacy or mathematics, and in the role of the school

in society?

The visua1 communication/verbal communication issue is raised by

Donald R. Gord~n in The New Literac~ and William M. Ivins, Jr. in Prints

and Visua1 Communication. Gordon's approach 1s through a perspective of

illiteracy: our inability to u'nderstand visual media is siml1ar to an

inability to read the !l.legalese" of a 10an application, for example. We

would not expect a pre-school child to be able to read War and Peace-­

yet this is precisely the kind of task visually il1iterate adults face :+.

in viewing works of art, films, graphie advertising, and even televlsion,

when they have 1ittle or no preparation for comprehending, evaluating

~nd responding to visua1 media:

The rigorous preparation assumed as a prerequisite of the conventiona1 literaeyof reading and writing has not yet been widely app1ied to or accepted for the use of film, television, radio, holography, the underground, or any of th~ many other evolving means of human expression. As a result, we have suffered in employing these means7from the misuse and underuse characteristic of ll1iteracy. 0 ,

Ivins'.perspective~ by contrast, emphasizes the structure of vlsual , .

39

commu~ication and its language. Visual statements range from the schematic \

o

\

to the highly personal. The syntax of these statements, Ivins suggests, is

the ~sage of a convention or system of line particular to them. 7l This

40

is what William H. Honan calls l'the dis'trib~tion of the elements in the work, .. 72

and is sometimes referre4.to as the. artist's handwriting. In a more gene­

ralized form, syntax is recognized as the characteristics of a particular

style or school. Reproductions of one syntax byan artist who is trained

in another produces a transfonnation--or,'lto conform to the metaphor, a

transl'ation-:--of the original. r

1

A second point mad.~ by IVins'is the lack of dictio~ary definitions

for the lines ~nd spots which are the "words" of visu~;l language. Thus,

while a trained eye might be able to distinsguish the syntax'of a visual

image, the same eye might be unable to "read" H. 73 Reproduction in gene­

ral tends to emphasize the subject matter of the work and diminishes the 1

significance of its particular qualities--obvious in today's multitude

of photograph\c reproductions which redu~e the texture of paint on a

canvas to an individuality resembling sheetrock. Ivins sees eighteenth­

century 'print .manufacture as especially important in the development of

the "vision of the educated world," when genèralizations about the subject

matter took precedence over the. particulars of a work of art, its con­

struction and composition. 74

The impact of reproduction on works of art--and on ways of seeing--

1 s a poi nt of i nterest al 50 for John Berger.. Hi 5 Ways of Seei 09, based çn ,t ~

a BBC television series, draws much of it5 thesis from liT he Work of Art in

the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin.75 Benjamin's

essay 1s conce'ned with the transformation of the aut~enticity of a work

of art, what he calls its "aura," into' the nostalgia an audience feels for

the sUbject(s) it depicts. This transfonnation, 'l8erger suggests, indicates

a shift'in our way of seeing, a shift causally related to technological

reproduction. 77 In a context where anyone may own a copy of the Mona III

Lisa, the way the painting is seen will differ from the way it 1s seen when

there is only one Mon Lisa to look at. L1ke Kuhn, Berger takes note of

the influence of belief systems on our ways of seeing:

The way~ see thi~gs is affected by what we know or what we believëf. In the Middle Ages when men believe~ 1n the physical existence of Hell the s1ght of fire must have meant something different from what it means today. Nevertheless their idea ,

41

of Hell owed a lot ta the sight of fire consuming and the a~hes remaining--as well as to their experience of the pain of burns. 78

1

Ivins, Gordon and Berger are all involved with an ~nalysi? of the, relation-

ships between visual media and human society, indiVidually aS,well as collec­

tively. What distinguishes their aoproach to a general idea of visual literacy

as a way of seeing from the visual literacy movementls universal categories

is their refusal to systematize visual communication.

The twentieth century phenomenon of amateur photography provides a

prime arena for investigation of Benjamin's, Berger's and Ivin's comments

on the affect of reproduction on ways of seeing. Susan Sontagls On

Photography explores this and other aspects of the photography boom. As

she n9tes, photographs teach us a new visual code, one which uses a new

gramnar and a new ethics of s'eeingJ9. Photographs isolate, detach and

( , disassociate their subjects from their contexts, altering perspective and

. r~vealing the visual habits of the ph~tographer. The fac~lty of the Green

Chimneys Sc'hool in New York have run visual l iteracy projects with ele-

-,---' ~-/-~ - ~-- ---------~---------

/ ._----.------_ .. -.. - / --

l 1

,,1 1

J '~ fL ;'J' '.

- . ' t· . '

'~'" ._---

/

/ 42

/ /

,nintary school 'children using photography as a médium of expression and /

// found' distinctive personality characteristics revealed in the photos the

children took. 8Q It has even been suggested that photographs can be valuable

diagnostic aids. 81 What Sontag refers to as the heroism of vision enables

all photographs to be regarded as beautiful; anything the camera sees is

worth 'Seeing,82 anything preserved on film is testimony--sometimes the

only testimony--to reality. The 10ss of aura through reproduction described

by Benjamin is underscored by Sontag:

the 'identification of the subject of a photograph always dominates our perc€ption of it .•• the formal qualities of style~h.are, at most, of secondary importance in photography, while what a photograph is of is always of primary importance . ••• The assumption underlying a11 uses of photography, that each photograph is a piece of the world, means that we don't kno~ how to react to a photograph (if the image is visually ambiguous: say, too close1y sgen or too distant) until we know what piece of the world it 1s. 83

,

The ;de~tification of the sUbject of a photograph is just what the G·.t .

vlsual literacy movement is al1 about--locating what to look for rather

th an how to see. The new way of seeing which Sontag credits to photography \ .

is cool and detached, ~epicting subjects out of context and emphasizing

them as objects in isolation, not in relation to everything else as MOholy-, ~ . -

Nagy would have us see. The way we see photographs affects inevitably the

way we see the wor1d and ourselves.\ As photographs are testimony to the

real1ty o~ an event, a moment, an experience, 50 a photograph becomes the

reality, and the rea1ity is reduced to being merely the subject of photo-• •

graphy:

\

. ~-.- ...... ""--- - . , • < ,': < • <~ ;,

,

- "."",.: .. :':', .. ~1:~~~·"'lt.'~;.~î;":·~~!H·>,:!:..ti: :}t~[~ ~ .. ~ '~'\.~; .. "

.,

(

\

,. . __ -------.. ----.-.--w-------

The powers of photogra,hy have in eff~ct de-Platonized our understanding of rea~ity, making it less and -less plausible to reflect upon experience according to the distinction 84 between images and things, between copies and originals.

(

Sontag's views on photography show more awar;ness of the effects

43

of visual media than do the views of the educators in the Nlsual literacy

movement. She recognizes the effect of photography on ways of seeing through

its detachment from context and its flattening (literal and'figurative) of

experience into a t~o-dimensional image. Visual literacy programs encourage \\

the use of this type of visual media as\source material for exercises 1n

learning skills, which leads inevitably to altering ways of seeing and

knowing. Dondis' "categorization" of visual images leads ta the sarne

depressing conclusion--the glorification of visual media which offer \

static, unexciting images as signs for verbal concepts. A general

visual literacy, on the other hand, would work against the simpTistic

interpretation and use of visual medi'a and instead explore the ways ln

wh1ch visual communication consists of more than signs and r-eveals more

than conceptual meanings.

George Nelson's How to See 1s an exploration of this more general

notion of visual literacy concérned with awareness, sensitivity and re­

sponsibility. Nelson admits, that his book ought more aptly be t1tled

How! See, because the illustrations in it make numerous pointed visual "

comments from his point of view on how to see and what to look for. b

How ta see, as Nelson demonstrates, need not be a chore nor the result of

intensive visual education. "To see, as Or. Jashua Taylor of ~he National

Gallery has observed, is to think. Seeing is not a unique God-g~ven talent.

L 1

! , . ,

i)

_.~

()

. _. -~ -~ -.--, ---~_ ................ -.,..., .... ------~ .. ..-....... ~ ,.. ..... - .. ,- . n

but a discipline. It can be learned./lf5 Nelson's approach is casual, 1

avoiding the systematization and structures of other work surveyed here.

His 1s perhaps the most visual expression of the~ all, and perhaps alsa

the most successful example of lucid visual communication that is neither )

too familiar nor too strange. Instead of comp'licated verbal justifications

for the use of visual media in classrooms, Nelson accomplishes in his book - 1

the demonstrations requested by Frances J. Hanosek (see quotation p. 34).

The judgement filters through these photographs more effectively th an any

words could, and ,i,n an ~wesome demonstratlon of the difference between

verbal and visual commu~ication, it cannat be described adequately~ This

is where visual 11teracy bursts out of terminology and becomes' an active,

vital experience.

From the foregoing survey, the difficulties concerning the concept, .

theory and practice of visual literacy as a general term and as a movement

in education should be evident. The term itself is the subject of several

definitions, usually concerning competencies (ta understand and crea te

visual messages) of a communicational nature. The theoretical foundation-­

or rather lack thereof--behind visual literacy creates confusion over the

nature of its practice: to instruct in the skills of visual literacy, or

to use visual literacy as a learning tool. Even thus differentiated.

most of the programs related to visual literacy surveyed here agree on

viewing visual images as signs. What is consistently neglected is serious

and responsible attention ta several fundamental issues: the learning

principle, or theory, necessary ta unify an instructional program; the 5i9-

n1f1cance of v1sual perception for visual literacy and any lear~lng theory

44

(

related to it; and the recognition that beyond apprehension of the sign, '\

the meaning of the visual message and its content, ~s its form--that aspect

which is purely visual, that aspect which verbal comnunication produces, ,

when spoken, in an audial sense! 1ine, form, color, contrast, texture

and 50 forth. In discussing visual literacy and visual communication,

comparisons between the verbal and the visual modes can only obscure the

distinctly visual elements of visual communication, and thereby neglect

them in the structuring of a complete definition and theory of visual

literacy. In order to strengthen th~ significance of visual literacy in o

45

education and to make it a viable part of our lives, discussion and resèarc~

must now foclis on the foundation of visual cOl11llunication and vi sual in-.~ ~

, " ) telligence, ahd the umbrel1a phenomenon of communication as a whole.

Il

References ta the abjects of which one is literate, and the function \

of visual litera,cy in a time- and space-bound environment have been made "

throughout the foregoing survey of literature. The next chapter takes

a more precise look at the objects available ta us, and the conditions

of their existence. The context in which the visual literacy movement

has developed 15 the source of many of its problems.

--

__ --M-.--____ - --.~---- --------.--------, .. ---' -~,. .. -~._--'" ~-

o

o

o

Chapter Two

The Context and Objects of Visual Literacy

»

The preceding survey of literature, intended to indicate the founda-

tions of the visual literacy concept and its present structure, has a1so

j highl ighted objectives and their attendant practices. The confl iet between

qvisual literacy as a tool for learning and visual literacyas a ski'l to o

be learne~ is a representative example of the disùnity in visual literacy

praetice. The context in which such practices have been developed is

largely to blame: an immature theory of visual communication based on

theories of verbal communication, an imprecise definition of visual literacy,

and an environment where the reliance on verbal expression determines to an

, extent the attitude tawards visual expression .. Visual literacy theorie~

and practices rely upon traditional learning theory for·their methodolagy, " neglecting ta recagnize that traditional learning theory and its instruc-

" tional practices have deve1

J

oped in relation to verbal ma'terial a-nd verbal

1i~eracy. A program for the instructi~n o~ual literacy, or .one employ­

ing visual literaey as a tool for learning, ought to be grounded in theory

which accounts for the differences as well as the similarities between

visual and verbal communication, and ought ta employ an appropriate metho­

dology as well.

Tbe visual literacy movement at present operates within a system of

institutionalized education. Its objectives evolve out of the system,

'" and are -1 imited by it •. The foûndation of the concept is undermined when , -

chal1enged by the work of Segall et al., whose book The Influence'of Culture

, \

c

,~ i~ , ~~ " .1 ". ~

} .1 !'~

"

j

! ;~ ~, • f

.') \ 1

1 ~ ,; ; 1 1

, , ,

; ,

Cf

o

~ __ 0 _______ ...e._ .... _,_ ~

l on visuàl Perception was mentioned earlier. They have shown' that individuals

whose vocabulary does not distinguish certain c6.10rs are nonêtheless àble . ,

to differentiate those same colors in an exercise in matching. Therefore

;t appears that verbal labell1ng and differentiation are not necessary in

order ,foi)vis'ua'l differentiation to tak~ 86 A Whorfian87 analysis . ~/ - .

of this conclusion'would con tend that verbal differentiation--that 1s, names

for colors--is necessary for conceptual differentiation--that is, the \ '

mental concept. Therefore, Segàll et al. 1 s data could only mean that

visual differentiation--the ab1lit~ to match colors (without names ~

them)--is based,on visual perception, ·not on conceptual ization. Concept-s'

are verbal, percepts are not. James J. Gibson agrees, when he suggests

that a different relationship exists between objects and their names and

objects and their pictures: IIThe object and its name have an extrinsic re­

lation, whereas the object and' its picture have an i.ntrinsic relation. ,.88 ,

Th~ foregoing comments imply fundamental differences in the perception

of visual information and the conceptualization of verbal information, as

well as differences in the learning of each--differences not accounted for

by current visual literacy theory and practice. One might well wonder at , !

the appare~t paradox of instructing visual l1teracy verbally; what of visua~

data we have no words for, or no conceptua 1 i zati on of, but pe'rceive none-III

theless'? Is this the rnost effective way to learn about visuai 'communication? , " -'

The greater context of the Western world in the twentieth,.~ntury

also affects the ,formulation of a concept of visual literacy. Our values

and belief systems. our reliance on si~ht as the key to print communication.

our at_titudes towards creative visual expression, and the place of visuaJ '-

• •

-----~----------------~--48

\ art in our view of the world mediate the meaning and effect of visual

) ~

literacy. Our understanding of visual communication is based on our reliance

on print: the word, the book, from Gad to the telephone, emphasizing "

linearity (visua11y and verbally), 1eft to right orientation, perspective,

proportion, and-distinctions between figure and ground. Naturallya

concept of visual literacy created within this context will bear biases

favorable to the se conventions. It is not surprising that the visual , .

literacy movement empha~izes litera1 interpretation of visual material.

--- Not only are objects mediated by tontext, as suggested in the Introduction,

but the notion of visual literacy and its objectives are equally sa mediated.

Visual literacy defined as the ability ta eommunieate via non-print media

is a distinctly twentieth century Western concept. IIUsing medi~ ta com­

municate" ignores the effect of the medium on the eonmuni eator and the com-e ' .. """

mun1cationi "non-print media" estab11shes a category and reference foreign

to a print-free society; a literacy of ~isual signs ignores the vast visual

significance beyond the literal. A visual literacy concerned with the

literal meaning of visual signs is a verbal literaey of on)y one aspect

,of visual expression.

Identification of the elements of visual language is equally context­

bound. p;i~ing out the effe~ts of 1ine, color and contrast in a highway

bi11boa'rd isolates visual e1ements famn iar ta a contemporary Western mind. . ,.-" The presence of the b1l1board on the highway ought ta be equally imp,ortant

() for visual literacy. Just as the nearly 100% literacy in English in

)Ca",da i5 nearly-100% ill1teraéy in Urdu, so too 1s visual literacy dè­

{fined in·a Western context Western-eonfined. Visual literacy is relative.

,

(.

Visual literacy is in reference to something: 1t does not exist 1n a .

vacuum. Carpenter says about the effect of culture on experience: "we

accept that culture & language & othèr man-made patterns alter experience.

Even to observe 1s to alter, and to define & understand 1s to alter drasti--

cally ... 89 5uch an effect applies not only to the objects we observe. but

also to what we think of their perceived images.

The objects to which visual 1 iteracy pertains, or the domain in

which one is visually literate, are other elements of the visual literacy

49

concept limited by 1ts context. The history and sociology of art have

established that human beings have created visually pleasing objects since

the earl iest civilizations. hWorks of art" are by no means th~ only objects

to which visual literacy pertains; there remain architecture, advertising,

road maps, fashion, and a11 manner of other visible phenomena, man-macle and

natural. The domain described by e tenn "visual art" is a convenient

focus for this aspect of the di cussion: the environQ!nt in, whfch one 1s

visua11y literate, and the objects which exist in that environment. The

Introduction makes references to conditions under which such objects exist: "

socio-cultural, political, economic and 10gistfcal. The condition which

underscores °a11 others is our attitude tmllards vfsual expression, vfsible '" ;

phenomena, and visual art. The authority of print and verbal expression

in documents, books, mass media, and personal cOIIII1unication places non-verbal

foms of expression into a "pleasure" rather than a "purpose" class.

_.Museums and phonograph records fu1 fi 11 the social requirement for culture,

a displ ay of abjects and sounds .9.Y! abjects and sou~ds and littl e else.

The place of visual expression and vi sual cormlUn;cat;on in our value system

'0

()

50

Î

predetermines visual l1teracy by limiting the kinds of visual expression ? 0

which are created, acknowledged and encouraged by prescribing the attitude

we have towards the significance of such expression, and--as a,consequence-­

l1miting and prescribing the concept of visual literacy which i5 now in

evolution.

The material surveyed in the preceding chapter reflects these pre-

conditions in i'ts indications of objectives. With few exceptions, visual

literacy is understaod by these ed~cator~ as a 'Conceptual interpretation

and manipulation of visual media,. Visible phenomena are viewed as signs

whose conceptual meaning 1s revealed through visual literacy--the visual

aspect is merely a medium for .the communication of an essentially verbal

message. t)

Donis A. Dondis says the goal of visual literacy 1s

1

the same as [thoseJ that motivated the development of written language: to construct a basic system for learning, recognizing" making and understanding visual messages that are negotiable by all people, not just those special1y trained, like the designer, the artist, the craftsman, and the aesthetician. 90

This goal ha5,two main points: f,irst, systematization of visual messages,

and second, that the system be negotiable by all people. The paradox , should be obvious: if it 1s necessary to construct a system of visual

messages, then it will also be necessary to instruct for the comprehension ,

',of the system. The special training formerly accorded the' designer and

~ther specialists will have to be rèpeated on a mass scale, like the \ .. ~pecial. training ~OnnerlY reserved for members of the c1ergy and now un:i-

V~rSally available 'i~ elementary 'schools to teach the basic system of 1

}i-l

\ \ ,}.

\

î

verba 1 1 i teracy • ,

• Visual messages now negotfable by all people (within a cul~ural1y 1

- . defined éontext) are those which reqûire neither systematization nor formal

instruction: a smi1e, a wi~k, a shrug of,the shoulders., These and

similar gestures are learned by observation. Visual signs with distinct

literal meanings, such as arrows above elevators,~on street 51gns, or on ;

maps, are less perceptual and more conceptual. What we miss 1n our reading \

of tbe arrow as sign is the reading of its other aspects. Why 1s an arrow

an effective indicator of direction?\ 0' The optic movement ,triggered by the 1

triangle and its intrusion into the space surrounding ft may be important. 1

The shape JJi a fl int arrowhead as prescribed by the laws of aerodynamfcs

for optimum movement may also be import~nt. Which fs visual lfteracy: the

comprehension of the concept indicating direction, or the comprehension of

51

the visual components of the message? The literature fram the vfsual lfteracy

movement would indicate the former; a general notion of visual literacy

would Qpt for the latter.

Dondis' objective in 8. Primer of Visual Literacy is "to pursue 1

and develop a structural system and a methodology for teaching and learning

how to express ideas visually.1I91 The visual mode 1s the medium of ex­

pression; the fdeas are the con~ent. To her, visual 1iteracy is concerned

with the wolf in sheep's clothing: verbal concepts in visual disgu1se.

--""""By; break i ng down vi sua l el ements the concept wi thi n i s revea l ed, and the

way this is accompli shed is through a methodology derived from theor1es

~ ; of language and verbal communication. The objects of vfsual l1teracy 1n r

Dondis' theory are, then, concepts; the perception of the visual message

. 1s merely a code ta be declphered.

Caste119'S paper uThe Parameters of Visual Literacy~1J mentioned

earlier, indicates the split between visual literacy as a learning tool

and visual 11teracy as a skill to be learned~ and documents the extension

- of this division into objectives. The objective of the first is to expand

ways of thinking and knowing, enhancing present conceptual probl~solving . .

,

techniques; the objective of the second is the growth of an understanding

of visual language. The context iry which v;sual literacy has developed

as a movement in education and teaching 1s detailed as the discovery of

the lateral ~~try of the human brain and the growth of visual communi-

52

cation technology.92 In view of the emphas;s among respondents to Castello's

questionnaire on visual learning rather than visual literacy, the absence

of acknowledgement of a larger context--e.g., institutionalized education,

consumer economy of communication products, the effect of technology on

curricula--p1us an additional absence of clearlY,indicated objects--

is not surprising. In western culture visual learning is a process

oriented towards a product (understanding of meaning) rather that a skill

orientedl towards an object domain (apprehension of appearances). This

1s the direction research must take to find alternatives to the current

metbodology of visual literacy based on structures of verbal language

theory. A theory of vlsual learning would, one hopes, go beyond the , .

understanding of visual exp~ssion as signs and approach the ~isual aspect

o of visua] cOll1llUnication.,

From the standpoint of context, the work of John Oebes is part of the

1 .

, " '.1 ...... ·r-'~ .. "'t1.1'"4! .. ~_ .. ".~IY/.f~J"'f~~e"tj'''M~ ___ ,,-_ .... , ...... _ ..... .-___ ... _ •• _ ~

53

same construct as that of the educators surveyed by CastellQ. Visual

c- literacy, for Debes, is a tool for learning; the context in which it

has developed is the visual media jungle of the mid-twentieth century.

The objective of'usin9 visual literacyas a learning tool to enhance con­

c~ual thinking takes advantage of the native capacity for visual learning y #

fn children and prepares them for a world increasingly reliant on a visual '

(,

mode of cOlllJ1unication.

Macomber, Kepes and Moholy-Nagy seek to understand more than the

meaning of signs concea'led in visual expression; they seek to understand

the visuals themselves. Macom.ber notes the need for a higher level of

visual literacy, meaning comprehension of· the non-literal and the symbolic

aspects of visual communication (see quotation p. 34). Kepes' objective

is to ide~tify the elements of visual experience in order to see more th an

a literal or representational content of visual expression. The context

of hi s thought is ~ r~pidly mobile world to which the speed of visual

cOl11llunicatjon is well suited. The ,content of visual expression 1s

secondary to the express; on i tse 1 f: vi sua 1 conmunicat iOI) offers a new

way of thinking and an 'opportunity to find a means of coomun1cation ap­

propriate for our age. In recogl\1zing the context in which he wr1tes,

Kepes is~ble to indi'cate an objective that can be transformed through

its own praètice, unlike the objectives of the educators which are

statically linked to -cultural1y determined meanings of vlsual 519ns.

An objective whfch 1s proce~s-or1ented 1s flexible in practice; an

objective which 1s product-oriented 1s less likely to respond to change.

Q

o : 1

:,1

The theoretical framework of verbal language and verbal literacy which

ir1fonns much speculation about human cOII1TIunication in general is evident

'fn theories concerning visual corrmunication as well. The general cons~­

quence' of this theory-borrowing is an emphasis ,on the content of visual

conmunicatfon and a disregard of its mode. How, can we approach visual --'.>

\

communication if not through its characteristics of communication--that is~

message and content? This is a question current visual literacy theory

has avoided by its adoption of verbal language methodology and theory.

Given the option to regard visual l itèracy as meaning-ori ented or

process-or1ented, the choice has been for the former. The visua1 aspect

of ViSU91 cOll1l1unication really doesn't enter into the visual literacy

movement. Its propon,ents fail to consider as important the way in which

54

we iso1ate ce,rta~n elements of visual expression and identify them, while

ignoring others. The elements of a "grammar", of visual expression' identified

by Dondis and others are e1ements common to the visual expression we are

exposed to and encourage the creation of: 11ne, contrast, form, texture,

in a conceptual framework. Anything goes as long as it means something.

In another culture, other elements might be fundamenta1, and another

literacy--perhaps a non-literal one--wQuld be necessary relative to its

objects and context.

Cultural anthropè>logists have long been aware of and strugg1ed to

define the significance of context for the appearance and meaning of symbols

and 51gns. Dan Sperber, in Rethinking Symbolism, proposes an argument

important for v1sual 1iteracy theory. He suggests that the notion of

symbol 1s itself lia secondary and cultural deve10pment of the universal

C 1

(

- --- ------ ---~---------

phenomenon that .1s symbolism •• :.The notion of a symbol is not unlversal

but cul tural; present or absent, differing from cul ture to culture, or

even wi thin a culture ... 93 To assume that elements of v1sual comnunication

qniversally have analogous verbal meanings is to interpret one mode of

human cOO11Iunication through our cultural "Ilias. According to Sperber, the

"symbolic" ~alue of certain Dorze (Ethiopia,n) ritual s 15 p~obab1y uncon­

scious for the Dorze, and the interpretation we come to would "scandalize

them."94 The va1idity of our interpretations must be evaluated from this

perspective.

,Similarly, the notion of visual~ literacy as conceived in the context

of the\entieth 'century in the Western world is .cultural, as are 1ts

prflctices and objectives. Application of a conteptually-based visual \ .

literacy theary to the visual expression of other;' cultures is merely 1m-

posing a notion conceived in one context on objects created in another.

The context and conditions of the concept of vi sual literacy have

several times been indi cated as factors whi ch determi ne the objects of

phenomena of which we are literate, and consequently also detennine the

nature and extent of our v;sual literacy. The conditions under which

objects of visual expression are created and exist ar.e as important for

the val idity of the visual literacy movement as h" i ts verbal emphasis . ,

The visual appearance of these abjects, the attitude we have towards them ,

and towards visual expression in general, as well as their mode of creation , '

and production are defining features of our concept of visual literacy

through the context they create.

55

_ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ ___ • _____ .~ ... _ .... _~~ _... '._, lo" ~ ....... -';1<. ~ ~

56

• The fir~t feature--the visual characteristics of abjects in the

() Western world--has been 1 inked by McLuhan, Carpenter and others to the

five hundred year authority of print:

\

.. The value we place on verticality (it influences< even our perception) stems from the strength of literacy in our lives. Children must be taught it. Natives do not know i t. And when the mentally i11 in our society withdraw from the~ burdens of 1 i terate values, and return to nonvert i ca 1 non 1 i nea 1 codi­fications' we call them childlike •.. and not even parallels with primitives. To the lack of vert,ical ity can be added multiple perspective, vfsual puns, x-ray sculpture, absence of background, and correspondence between symbol and size: all examples of non-optical structuring of space. 95

Carpenter elsewhere tells the story of native children mimicking his

efforts to look at magazine pictures hung on igloo walls. The lack of

consistent verticality in the hanging of the pictures illustrated to

Carpenter the confines of his own perceptual habits and the multiple

perspective favored by the natives, 'in oral as well as visual expression.96

The s trangeness of the vi sua l art of other cu 1 tures i s often i ts

appea 1: the trea tment of space inDri enta l pa i nti n~j, the ma sks and totems (

of African sculpture, the mixed profiles of E9YPti~tJ murals. A culture

in which visual expression emplqys a single perspechv-e-- find~ multiple f

perspective strange. The Cub1st renderings of Braque and Pi casso were

"i11egible" to eyes accustomed to repre'sentational art using a vanishing )1 {l,

point. A culture without the experience of exposure to multiple perspectives

1n its visual dlet will not be visually literate of such i~agery. Im-

G pressionfsm 1n the nineteenth century, followed byabstract art in the

late nineteenth and early twenti eth centuries, transformed the appearance

of v1sual objects, and in so doing transformed the way ln which we see them. 1/

•

• '.

c

l'

(

. --------------

Transformation in styles of visua1 expression occasions transformation . . in our expectations and tolerance of appearances. The reverse 1s a1so

true, and both are transformations in our visual literacy relative to the

objects we see . •

The concept of vi sua l ·1 i teracy conceived by Oondi s. Oebes and others

is based on the coherence of linear thQught native to Western society, the "

necessity of uniform comprehension and the tendency towards uniform use of ('

visual media. This means that such a concept is relevant only to our

culture (or another culture where the same conventions "xist). Visua1

·languaging has meaning in reference to fami1iar verbal and linear lan­

guaging. V;sulll languaging as a basis for visual literacy relies on the

availability 'of visible objects displaying linear and litera1 coherence

and consistency. " Such a concept of visual l1teracy could not have evo1ved

without the ready example of linear and literal visible objects: ffdelity

to up, down, left and right coordinates in print, television and film;

architecture that is a conceptual metaphor (e.g., fortress-like banks'

that protect their holdings); sign systems with consistent conceptual

meanings (e.g., arrows). The concept of visual literacy is bound by the

objects to which it pertain~, since they are the objects fram which the

concept is original1y derived. A theoryof visual literacy capable of

leading to tluniversal" visual literacy through practice will have to

recognize this limitation of context, and the limiting nature of objects

as refere~ts for the theory. Visual lite acy practice at present does

not possess a mechanism through which it can incorporate a transformation

in the appearance of objects, even gh the transformation of appearance

57

1

,1

'~ 0

"

, .' ',-

o 58

tha~ occurs through paradigm shift (Kuhn) or innovation against clichê

(Ehrenzweig) is as often the impetus for new ways of seeing as it is the

conséquence of them.

The attitude,we hold towards visual communication and expression is

a1so subject to transformation and equally responsible for the objects \

to which visual literacy refers • . t

Public exhibitions of works of art--

"thé'"democratization of c~ltu~e!,97_-are largely r-esponsible for the functio'n ,

of creative visual expression in culture. Whether regarded as represen-

tations of'~he real or the ideal, products of mind or spirit, objects of

worship, wisdom or amusement, the attitude is crucial for the interpretation

and maintenance of visual expression and the development of a notion of

visual literacy. Thousands of people will line up in major cities of

North America in order to see the contents of the tomb of Tutankhamen.

Businessmen regard works ~f art as capital investments and display their

investments in their off~ces like so many stocks. Botn of these situations

'say something about atUtudes to~ards visual' expression in a consumer ;

eèêmomy. "What enhances art enhances business," Robert W. Sarnoff sa id

on national Canadian radio. 98 . Corporate patronage of the arts, in the'- "

name of culture and national heritage, is a valuable public relations

gesture linking culture with business, national heritage with free enter­

prise.

As long as visual expression., communication and art are,.;.;egarded as

modes of entertainment and pleasure, the means to understand(and enjoy

them are 1eft to those who choose to do so--or so says Fred Licht, former

director of the Princeton Art Museum:

~ .. ,----"'4:--

... ~~.,,~ ;;,~""~...,..I. ...... I~~ ... ~. ~"- - - --" ~ ..... ~ 1'~,~1 " ' ."

(

f

Knowing art is not like literacy; 1t's not absolutely necessary. People should be allowed ta pass it by. If YOU 1 re tone deaf t why go ta a concert? 1 t becomes

-

a social occasion and you get in the 'Nay of péople who really want ta enjoy ft." Elftist? Nonsense. '. You wouldn' t call it el itist if 1 said that !lbout chemntry. \ 1 want99 the museum to be vi si te<! by everyone who i s i nteres ted.

What Li cht fa il s to recogn i ze t among other thi ngs ~ f s tha t vi sua 1

art and music are"tPodes of human comnunication, which chemistry is 'not.

And if the energy and convi:tion of, the writers surveyed 1n the previous

chapter count for anything, knowing art is absolutel.y necessary for sur­

vival in our highly visual and visible world. The attitude that it is not

necessary to "know" or ta "understand" art-": 1I 1 don't know anythin~about

art (music, poetry, etc.), but 1 know what 1 like"--has fostered a type

of visual expression that defies knowing, that exists solely as something . .

visual. Sorne critics credi~ a growing rati9nalism with the evolution of ,

visual expression emphasizing fonn rather than contrt:

59

Today~s symbols are anonymous; they seem to exist for themselves alone, without any direct significance. Yet they are imbued with an inexplicable attraction: the magic of their foms. In a sense, they represent.a regenerative or healing process, a fl i ght from techno l ogi ca l frenzy. . .. we have become ever more conscious of the situation to which rational i sm has led us throughout the nineteenth centruy:' that of living only for the moment, lacking all certainty regarding decisions that take on psychi c d1rnensi ons. The one-way street of l og1 c has landed us in the slurn of materialisrn. 100

..... Despite the maker's emphasis on fonn, the public, the cri tics and

the visual literacy movement are looking for,a message, a co~ceptual .-

meani ng • As Sontag observes, i t i s not enough that there 1 s a photogrllph

and it is interesting to look at. We demand to know what it 1s a photograph

- -_ .. _------------

of. ,And 50 photographs have captions"paintings have tit1es, and both

j ~re thereby rendered meaningfu1, in our view.

()

The function of appearances and attitudes in determining the objects

of which we are ,visual1y literate raises a chicken and egg tYJle of question.

In the interdependent relationship between what is produce:d and what we

find acceptable, how does public opinion foster one or the other? How ,f.. ~ ,

does genealogy, for exarnple, become the object of social status, museum

exhibits, and government grant~? Arè "rootS" focused on because people are

interested in them, or are people interested in them because industry and

mass media have focused on th~m? The means by which objects of visual , r J

literacy come into being is éentral to their appearances and our attitude~,'

towards ,them.. There i 5 not room here to survey a 11 economi c' and creative

impulses which produce visual expression, not is that our purpose. However,

sorne attention to these sources is relevant to our concern for the context

in which obje'cts and objectives of visual literacy exist and are. formulated.

Visual expression as a general mode of commuhication do es nct rely

entirely on patronage, as the ar.ts often do; in fact" visua1 expression

occurs without a profit motive each time a facial expression changes or

someone gestures in conversation. Howe~er, because the visual aspect, of

cOlllllunication is most often regarded as npn-utili,tarian in Westèrn society,

visual comnuniciltion media are often financ~d only as means to ulterior

" II'IOtives. Advertisers sponsor televi sion programs not because they enjoy , éoltlTlunicating in the visual mode or because visual conmunication is the

best' 'medium for their messages,~ They sponsor~ programs because t.hey are

the most effective mode of conmunication for their objectives, e.g., to

60

,0,

.'

'1

. ,

..

/.

._ .... :0:11 ... '''4 .......... b lU * 4:: "fil ••

c

(

T"

, 61

.. sell soap. In this way the economics of the vlsual media determlne the

Q C "

objects--in this case television programs--of which we are visually .. • J

literate, and the visual mediùm of television is maintained because its

economic function--a~ a vehicle for advert1sing--is profitable.

In the special' case of funding for the arts, patronage often detenmin~s , , \

the extent ta which they flourish or flounder. T~e ~oviet Union supports :v

artists whose work does not inspire dialogue which may result 1n dissent.

The objects of which Soviet cHizens are visua.Hy literate are abjects whfch

pr~serve r!ther than challenge a status quo. New ways of seeing are dan­

gerous because of their tendency to prornote new ways of thinking. 8y

contra~t, government support of the arts in the United States 15 often

given in the form g of matching gr~-eaCh goverJ1llent dol·1ar must be r

. matched-by at least one, and often two or three, dollars donated fram the

pr1vate sector. The American system requires'citizen participation in

support of the arts, and in theory at least a1so allows citizen selection ... ~ .

of which types of creative expression receive support. Individuals may

• r

patronize artists whose work appeals ta them. The "own your own" syndrome 1

of ~aterialism maintallrs this kind of economic activity. The Original Print

Collectors Group, ltd. suggests you johl. Us organizaUon with the

following rationale: "Original art,you can own, 1nstead of just visite

Once you l·ive wlth' "1t; you can1t live without it."IOl Possession of o

original art is essential for your survival t the reasonin~goes; joln our

group and we will select the art that will keep you alive. Here the

selection of objects of visual literacy through economics is one step re­

moved; when someone else selects the art you buy. But of course this 15

_ ______ -" __ ~ __________ r~ _____ ~_,.,.",..,..,· __ ,~·"'_·~·,· .. __ ...... ""~· ... .", ' ''-'-'

j-l­i J

62 ",

1 1

·1 1

1 1

: 1 t { i

l

'" 1

. ! : 1

r

1 f 1

.J

o

"

what happens anyway, though more subtly. Arch1tects and designers,

,criti cs and entrepeneul's decide what i s marketab 1 e, and onto the market, / ,

ft goes, where we will see ft and incorporate its visual appearance into

~ome concept of visual Titeracy.

As obvious as it seems that a theoretical concept 1s o~as far­

reaching as the foUndat1on on wh1ch it is formulated, visual literacy

theorists (literacists, they cal1 themselves) have not recagnized the (

limitations of thefr own work. " The universality of visual literacy as

they define it is an unattainâ6fe id~all, owing to the conditjons imposed

by cultural and regional contexts. Objectives and abjects are bound by

time and space. The literal empnasis of the visual literacy movement is

itself .enough to,limit application of ilts practices to literate societies. ,1)' •

A general notion of visual literacy emphasizing visual form instead of

conceptual mean1ng sometimes offers a way out of these cultural limitations. ..

The sel f-refl exivit y and uni ty of theory and practice absent in

current thinking about visual literacy limits its effect and value. To l , - ,. ach1eve objectives of heightened knowl~dge, awareness and underst~nding,

to explore the potential of thé·~ght hemisphere of the brain, visual

literacy theory requ.ires an unde,rstandin~;of visual intell igence ani recog­

nition of the visual mode of cOlllllunication as different from the verbal.

As it now stands, visual literacy as a concept and praçtice suffi ces to

explore literal elements of v1sual communication. We should take care to --....,.'..

remember the visual elements not accounted for in current visual literacy

thinking, and to direct energy and research toward developing a theory

wh\ch will account for al1 aspects of visual communication •

•

1

- 1

1

Cl

.'

. ln the meant1me. how èan current theory and practice be employed

to greatest advantage? What will be the consequenoes of d01ng so? The , 1

next chapter approac'hes these questions and others in an,attempt to syn-

thesize what has bee discussed so far concerning the foundation of the

v1sual literacy mov ent~ its concept~ ,theory, objectives and objec~St and

the conditions of it context.

- -----

"

.. \

,63

~

1

, ,

,.

'y

o

\ ---\

\ 1 \ \ \ 1 \ 1 i 1

\ Cttapter Ttwee 1

\

• \ \

Th.e limitations. of-Visual Literacy

\

1 The visual literacy movement has taken shaRe 1/1 ike a mountain out

of the mists" withfn the confluence of .technology, psychology, linguistics

and education in the mid-twentieth century.102 Technology developed

visual media for communication: television, videotape and Ins~amatic

cameras. ' Physicians and psychologists discovered the la\teral asyrrmetr~

of the human brain and hypothesized about new frontiers of human mental

act1vjty. lingu1sts proposed the universal ity of grammal'" in verbal

language. Educators jugg1ed al1 three and came up with a brainchild:

visual literacy. What does it mean?',

To most users of the terro, visual l1teracy means the ability to

understand and express ideas visually--with crayon .as wel~ as with a Super

8 camera, in cartoons as well as in Mondrian. Thus defined, visual literacy

seems simple enough'. Ho~ever, the preceding pages show th~t the visual

1iteracy movement entails more th an a neat definition. The movement has

spawned a cause, the cause objectives, practices, and sorne ideas resembling

theory. Each of these 1s the'product of an attitude about human cOl1l\luni­

cation and the primacy of verbal (i.e., conceptual) e»pression.

The single most limiting element of the visual literacy concept and . its practices is the context in which they are formulated and occur.

Because v1sual literacy practice emphasizes concepts, which are notuni­

versal (due to cultural values, belief systems, etc.), rather than percepts,

whfch are more likely to be universal (because of the,1r physiological basis

in sense-~ata), any system of visual communiëation thus developed will

,------ -----., 1--. ,...., ~""" :..".. .. /.t • , t,..... IrJOfo;: ...-1"" ~

, 1

1 1 1

< :

be limited in applicability and relevance. The meanings visual literacy

discovers in visual communication are not universa1--we know this frorn

anthropology and cross-cultural studies. The vfsua1 phènomena which

make up appeàranc~s, however, may be un1versal, determ1ned as theyare

by physics, chemistry and biology. The occasional effect of cultural

inference Habits on visual perception is a constant implicit in con­

ceptualizatfon. Out of a11 perception, sorne percepts are 1solated and

recognized; others are disregarded or eliminated. In conceptua11zat1an, . -

sorne percepts becorne the foundation for concepts, while others do note

A literacy of concepts is re~ognized as such in a cOntext of those

same concepts; it is a literacy consisting of the literal interpretation

of visua1 s1gns. Yet, as we have seen, it is not necessary to have a

(verbal) concept of a visual image in order to perceive it. A literacy

of images derived frorn sense-data--co10r, form, texture, contrast--

is more likely to transcend the limitations of its context, to reach a

potentia1ly universal ,l.evel of conmunication. Thus if visual 1s to

be a too1 for human communication in the global village, it wou1d seem

natural to aim for th. broadest relevance rather than an appl ication

that is 50 clearly limited by cultura1ly-designated concepts. At present, • the visual literacy movement is ad~quate on1y for a verbal1y lfterate

..)

Western world. ~ecause of its dependence on the structures and concepts

of verbal expression, this very limited notion hold sway nowhere else. \

Until the theorists see in the phenomena of communication--verbal, visual,

audial or other-- more than culture-bound concepts, this 1s as far as

they can hope to go. ,- What these educators claim as the object1v1ty of . '

65

o

e

. \

l '

v1sual signs 1s a na1ve has1s for universa11ty.

. The visual literacy movement 1s an important step in broadening the

basfs of human knowledge beyond verbal expression, conceptual thinking

a~d print communication. But a future step needs ta be taken beyond

literar and conceptual meanings, 50 as to approach other ways of seeing

and knowing.

In the survey of primary and secondary 1iterature, severaT areas

~ere deve10ped as focii. The first of these was visual perception. The (

theories of visual perc~ption discussed in Chapter One address the issue /'

of whether vfsua~perception is .an innate or a learned abi1ity. 1t

was determined that whi1e the ability to perceive is innate, learning " .. \ ..

and experlence effect what ~e make of our perceptions--through th: ap-

plication of assigned meanings, matching and comparison with other

images, and other cultural1y-determined sense-making activities. A second

area fqcused' on i,n the" SUrvey Of 1 iterature was the objective of the

n visual lit~racy movement--to educate for what to look for rather than to

educate how to see. We a11 know how ta see, 50 al1 visual literacy could

teach us is what to look for. Learning what to 10okufor might a~ou~t to

a different way of seeing-- lIdifferentll not in the bio10gical means of

visua1 perception, but in a different way of interpreting visua1 media.

Like different ways of thinking, ways of seeing reflect cultural habi'ts

and epistemological priorities. "How ta see" is as 'different from "what . ,

ta look for" as is "how to think" from "what ta think about. Il

What does this mean for v;sual literacy? Visual literacy--the ability

ta use visual media ta express ideas, and the ability to comprehend ideas •

66

~

1

c

-- ~- ----- ~------------~-----~-~--~----

sa expressed--of necessity relie~ on visual perception for the initial

appr.ehension of visual data. A learned'Yisual literacy superimposes

meaning on the images produced by visual perception. 50 far visual

literacy as understood by its advocates doesn't seem ta be either ,

revolutionary or objectionable. After all, th;s is what takes place

anyway~ v;sual imagery acquires cultural significance as icons, symbo's i

and signs. What;s differentabout the visual literacy movement 1s that

its proponents attempt to break out of the cultural limitations of the

meanings of visual images to suggest that sorne (simple) images have

universal meanings, and that througn a systematization of these images

we'can establish a universal code of communication.

This brings us to the third and fourth focii of, the first chapter:

67

tne practices associated with the visual literacy mavement and the context

in which they have evolved. 'The links be~ween~the practices and the con~ext

reveal the source of the visual litéracy movementls greatest p~oblems. 1

Programs directed towards educating for v;sual literacy associate visual

signs with verbal concepts. A visual1y literate person can grasp the

meaning of visua1 signs and therefore understand a visual message. Pro­

grams using visual literacy as a tool for learning other literacies

are supported by the recent discoyery of the lateral asymmetry of the

human brain. Educators have made of this information an argument for

a more "holistic" education, one which makes use of all mental capacities,

not just the capacity for conceptual thinking and reasoning which has

been the traditional mode of instructi~n. Unfortunately these· programs -

use visual material as if ft were only another kind of pr1nt, thus under-

o

G

mintng any possibility of overcoming the verba~ and conceptual bias

of instftutionalized education. . --' /' ...

As the cODtext ~f the visual literacy movement has been discussed

in detail in Chapter Two, a few comments will suffice here. The concept

of visual 11teracy is the product of an age when reason, 10gic, linear

th1nklng and formal education àre the hallmarks of progress. In the

quest for more knowledge, greater understanding, more reliable and better 1

" communica~ion, the visual mode of expression appears to be a new frontier .

possessing unreckoned potential. Visual media of the twent;eth century

are often substitutes for verbal media, not least because they can

reach more individuals than words can;,like medieval stained glass they

can and are able to teach the illiterate. If the visual media of today \

do net approach the beauty and spiritual significance of medieval sta;ned

glass, as sources of information they are nonetheless analogous. Wh en

used only as substitutes for the verbal, v;sual medià are underappreciated,

bound by a context of verbal meaning, thinking and understanding that

fails to recogn;ze the significance of v;sual communication as visual.

The notion of a way of seeing, referred to earlier, is both the

doing and the undoing of the visual literacy movement. The movement

do es not challenge the traditional Western framework'in which our - "

visual perception and visual thinking occurs. We may go on seeing in

the same way we always have and still attain visual literacy just by

looking for the right things--for example, seeing in visual media the

messages rather than the media themselves. This reinforces the learned

nature of visual literacy and does nothing to remedy the criticism 1

1

--,- - . -------;-,' " ~ -"'~V.f, .... .,' ...... 1 .. ,.., .... '.::' .• ,<{.~,q ..... • ,. .. ",,~. '.~;>

68

c

(

---~-----

that we use our eyes in the wrO~g way, as receptors of visua1ly expresséd

conèepts. In fact, this appraoch encourages the acceptance of,any and al1

visua1 media as bearers of information, despite the fact that sorne visual

69

, qualities are offensive, unnecessary and ineons1stent, or beautiful, revealing . .

and clarifying. The ignoring of the form and appearance of visual elements

in or~er to emphasize the conceptual meanin~ of those elements equates

visual literacy with a skil1 in recognizing concepts, rather than a skill

in recogn;zing visuals,

The problem with the visual 1.iteracy movement should be obvious.

A way of seeing 1s a cultural habit, detennined by external. pressures as

well as by individual taste. What may also be a cultural habit is the

use of visual media to deliver information through visually encoded signs,

whose conceptual meanings are almost entirely culture-bound. As we have

, seen, the objects available to us for visual perception are se1ected first

by the eye, biologically, then cognitively identified by a mental process.

But even before this fndividual selection of images occurs, a collective

selection has taken place b~ the determination of what our visual ex­

periences will consist of: buildings rather than underwater grottos,

clothing rather than nudity. The images that the v;sùal literàcy move­

ment wQuld identify as universa1 appear so only because of their way of , \

thinking, not because they truly are. Likewise, the meanings the vfsual

literacy movement assigns to those images are equal1y su~pect. The pe­

duetton of images to signs obscures the one thing that may actually be ,

universa1--the unfquely visual characteristies of visual expression. The

familiar di1emma of whether the colors 1 see are the same as the colors \

1 ,

-_._-.;.....---. -, ,-, ,.,.. • ...". ''''''~,<~';t,"''''~1..r,'2;'~*~.;'''"':., ,-:~--:--...,..---:-'1.,~r;-j.'. ,-::T'., l~ :~!~;t ;r .. '; :~.'~~~~t~~~j~~~~~t:1~~~l!,.~§l$iVr!,it"t.1' 7'~ .. ~".~'~~: ... -~

,1

o

yQu,se~ doesh't matter because we bath see sorne colors as different from

other color~. A general notion of visual literacy, one concerned with all

70

expression, not Just the communication of concepts in a visual mo~, avoids,

t~e pitfalls of the visual literacy mOVèment by acknowledging the distinctively

visual characteristics of visual expression. The difference between the 1

visual literacy movement's focus and the scope ?f a general notion of

vlsual 11teracy 1s suggested in this comment from Jeff Howard, a film­

maker in Canada's north:

In a southern film you can show a couple of guys walking past the camera Just to'add color. Northern audiences would wonder who the guys were, why they weren't talldng to_the hero and what they have to do with the plot ...• The Northern filmmaker has to set up his shots very carefully because he has to account for everything on the sereen. The northern eye is trained ta be sensitive and to observe closely.103

A general notion of visual literacy, unlike that understood by the

movement, would question the tradi'tional framework of how we see. It

would require that al) eyes be as sensitive and demanding as 'the eyes of \

the northern native. The visual literacy movement has to recognize that a

habitual way of seeing and the eontext in which that h~bit opera tes control

the meanings and appearances of visual expression. '\

Throughout this anilysis, the general notion of Visual literacy

has provfded a counterweight to the visual literacy movement. This \

general notion of sensit1vity and awareness emphasizes visual charaçter­

istics more than literal meanings and form more than content. "Visual

o literacy" in this sense is not the subject of annual conferences and

~ewsletterst because 1t is a principle rather than,a cause~ This pr1n~

'"-

- .. ~~ .. __ <~","<_l"-"""."''' __ ~_''''''3'''",,_r~_ ......... '' __ ' _______ ~

(

ciple appears--in the work of $ome of the finest artists and teachers--not

as "visual literacy" but as a unit y of a way of seeing with a way of

knowing. Oriental art--Chinese brush painting, in particular--displays

this unit y in its appreciation of form and movement as elements of a

s'piritual sense of Tao. In the West, the Bauhaus, in its .manifesto and

its instruction in Germany, exemplified the incorporation of a principle

of a general IIvhual literacy" into education and creative production.

Though different-teachers associated with the Bauhaus used individual

approaches in their teàching there, differences in practice did not

indicate differences in the concept itself.

For example, Paul Klee's Pedagogical Sketchbook is a masterful

example of teachjng how to see ~ore than the instinctive identification

of objects and meanings. In the Introduction ta her translation of Klee ' s

work, Sibyl Moholy-Nagy notes:

When Walter Gropi us deve l oped tlie éurri cul um of hi s German . Bauhaus, he gave back to the word teacher its basic signifi­canee. Kandinsky, Klee, Feininger, Moholy-Nagy, Sehlemmer, A l bers, who ,taught there, were i nterpreters of the vi sua l as tokens of a fundamental optieal and structural order that had been obsc~red by centuries of literal allegorism. 104

The Pedagogieal Sketchbook and Klee's other published work illustrates

-proportion, motion and depth as fundamentals, not as signs--as form,

not as meaning. He uses metaphor ta describe the movement of visual

form:

An active line on a walk, moving freely, without goa. A walk for a walk's sakV05 The mobi1ity agent 15 a point,' s its position forward.

\

lng

71

"

o

circle: a line finds its center and revolves around it. 106

Famili ari ty wi th these fun dam en ta l s enab l ed Bautiaus students to approach

any phenomenon of the visual world and be llliterate" of it. Recognition

of this basic vocabulary of structure also eliminated the troublesome ")i

division between the fine arts and app1ied art. The unit y of all creative

work by virtue of visual form and structure was the foundation of in­

stru~tion at the Bauhaus:

what the bauhaus preached in practi ce "was the conmon ci ti zen-ship of all forms of creative work, and their logical inter- ,:,-,'" dependence on one another in the modern world. our guiding principle was that design is neither an intellectual nor a material affair, but simply an integral part of the styff of life, necessary for everyone in a civilized society. 107

The way of seeing that unified all creative work at the Bauhaus under

72

a "vi sua 1 li teracy" of forrn i sana 1 ogous to the way of seei ng that unifies

much Oriental art. What to the "illiteratell Western eye appears repe­

titious and spare is the essence of Chinese painting. In Chinese tradition,

painting is regarded as "not a profession but an extension of the art of

living, for the practice of the tao of painting is part of the traditional

tao of conduct and thought, of living in harmony with the laws of Tao. 11108

This attitude perrn.its Chinese artists to explore visual form without being

overly concerned with meaning. As a result, tra,ining in brush painting was,

until recently, common for all Chinese children, regaraless of social

status., The effect of suCfllfà'fri1flg on the pub 1 i c way of seefiig and 1 . ~

appreciation of visual forrn carries on the effect of ritualistic copying

of the works of old masters. The following quotati?n, although quité

long, is excerpted in its entirety from The Tao of Painting because it

-

c.

describes the evolution of a general IIvisual literacy":

There i5 an aspect of copying that should be mentioned, for-. topies and reproducttons. of calligraptly became available at quitè'an early date. were wtdely~pular. and led to some significant results. The meaning of the characters was often not understood and often they were not even read, but appre­ciation of brushwork was markedly increased by the disseminat10n of such examp1es. The consequent sharpening of sensibility must have been cons~derab1e. The spread of such examp1es of brush­work contributed to an awareness and esteem of painting and calligraphyon a popular sca1e far exceeding the limtts of the re1atively sma11 scholarly and 1iterary groups who created the works and fonmulated th~ standards. And this particu1ar kind of appreciation s broad in extent with a finely developed core of cu1tivated discernment, accounted largely for the refined taste genera1ly ascribed to Chinese civilization. It has, in -fact, been remarked of Chinese painting that it has a long and vigorous tradition, a vague aesthetic, and a great deal of taste. The age and continuity of the tradition 1s we11 known, and the pres~nt inquiry into the ideas of Chinese painting serves to show that what seemed to be vagueness and a lack of an aes­thetic system was due to the way painters and critics endless1y discussed a few basic concepts without attempting to arrange ' them formalll. They recognized, however, that an understandihg or-them was essential; and out of the thougbt, discussion, and constant examination devoted to the principles -~erged the ideals, high standards, and pattern of discipline that P18duced works with the quality known ·as taste. (emphasis added) 9

50 at least one~ successful II visual literacy" of form has developed

without the systematization central to the visual\literacy movement.

Certainly Chinese brush painting, until the Maoist revolution~ adhered

to certain canons of technique, all dedicated to expressing the philo­

sophy of the Tao. But these canons, far from proposing a system of '---

technique, instead encourage all sorts of suggestiveness in the use of

spQntaneous brushstroke, ink tones, and space. 5pace 1s f111ed with

meani n9, si nce i t i s fi 11 ed wi th Tao. -However, thi s ; s not a verbal or "

conceptual meaning, s1n:e the Tao cannot bec described. 1 It almost seems.

that literal ,meanings are avoided in Chinese painting: , ,

\ -

73

o

"'"

o

" , , ., ____ ---0. _____________ -:--7'----.-., ~Jral!.".GfoCI!Ill_~~_.';'1'i"-·,·t"~"v-,,,_-.--.ra."'-.....

'.

Col ors were imbued wit~ so mucn additional meaning that 1t 1s surprising tney were regar~ed as secondary in painting. The mànner ~h1çh they came to be used in painting, simply to add a tint"llf the natural color of objects with little refe­rence ta the el aborate7 symbo 1.1 sm of each co 1 or s - re l ega ted them to the superficial s'tatus of meré decoration. The ideas as­sociated with colors, even when they \'ferelfôcalled, were there- , fore outside of and apart from their use. •

The success of Chinese brush painting as a medium of visual com­

munication is of course due 1n part to 1ts context, one where the extra­

ord1nary unit y between a way of seeing and a way of thinking ensures the

"visual literacy" of the public. At the same time, the emphasis 'on fonn

and other visual character1stics in Chinese brush painting actualll make • - 1

it nlegiblell even without an understanding of the philosophy behind it.'

Because the human eye perceives change and difference, it is difficult

~._, " not to see the relationships between fonns in Chinese brushwork, the exer-~ -

cises in texture and contrast. The use of such basic elements in visual .

'expression allows a spectator to enjoy the work even if the symbolism 15

unfainil i ar o~ otherwi se obscure .111

The examp l es of the Bauhaus and Chi,nese brush pai ntl ng offer a sharp ~

74

contrast to the'interpretation of visual art encouraged by the vlsual literacy . \

movement. "Vi sua 1 li teracyU' does not have ta' mean efther the reductfon of . )

visual images to signs or the literal interpretation/of visual art. ·It

caft..mean an appreciation of the visual as v1sual. and the literal as litera1.

The- narrow acceptance of the Bauhaus pri nci pl es in the U"i ted States

suggests that the Western context cannat yet accomodate a new way of

seeing. The abitity to see new relationships and new meanings 1s de-o

pendent on a new context" or on an,extraordinary feat of the will.

o - .

h {

.' ,

. ~_~~oo:~_ .. ,~~~ ___ .. ____ . ....;::.-..... __

'c

'\

. (

New relations~1ps and new meanings are not part of t~e visual . literacy movement. A full scale implementation of.visual I1teracy

programs~, ,they now e?,ist would ap'pear "to change school curricula and

: update teaching materials and methods. At the same t1me, these prog~ams ,.

A'

would reinforce a status quo, a twentieth century Western way of seeing

in which the logical, linear and literal dominate, further entrenchihg -'

thè orien,tation ~f ou~& towards meaning and message and away frèm

media of visual communication and thetr visible appearance and images.

Suèh a consequence would indicate that the visual literacy movement fails , "

to ta~e 'advantage of what the discovery of the lateral asymmetry of the '" '

brain may really mean. Visual literacy programs neither allow for nor

encouragè the development of a new way of seeing, a tra~sformatfon that

would be necessary ~n order to be visual1y literate (in t~e sense of .

awareness of fonn rather tha'n competent in expression) of renderings of

space in non-Western v1sual communication and non-representational art •

Jhese difficulties w1th the visual literacy concept and its practice-~ ~ ,

limitations imposed by cQntext. narrowness of scope in available objects. "" 4''"''u ...

and inabil ity to incorpora te new ways of seeing--are s.1l}!ilar to the pro-

blems encountered in the premature application of science. Jerome R. r ,

Ravetz, jn Scfentific Knowle~ge and ln Social Problems, discusses the

development of science as a~ actlv1ty seeking solutions to social and ... ' " .

practi~al prpblems. Ravetl.-points out: f",

, \

Because of t~e 'increastng re<;ognition of new prac'Ue~l. Problems, jmnature sciences are ass1g,ned tasks wh1ch they' are not strong enough to accomplish properly;" ta the1r internal diff1~lt1es (aggravated by th~n~ceSSâr~l~retence of maturityl are then . added t~ose of hypertrophy. '

. ' , .

.. " . ,

75",

-------------- "

'1 1 1

1

1

\0

" ~ .

This 15 not td suggest that the visual literacy movement 1s what Ravetz

cal1s lIan ineffective field of inqulry," meaning that this kind of

research yields no results. {" ••• we could defirre this state (as] a

condition caused by'the absence of criteria of adequacy appropriate for

, the detection and avoidance of pitfalls in research. u113) Rather,

wh~t tHe theorists of visuàl literacy propose is reasonable wlthln bounds--Co

understanding the .,literal meaning of v:iSual cOfIIIlunication in a specifie' , context--but 1nadequa~e elsewhere--sa~, as a universal system for the

comprehension and use of non-verbal communication media.

Nonetheless. the visual literacy movement indicates an interest

in visual iommunlêation which may be a harbinger of changing attitu~es and

approaches to vlsual expression. This brings us back to the circular

argl.lllent of which canes first, a new' environment in which to come to new

ways of seeing, or new ways o~seeing which will inspire the design and . creation ~f new Objects and fonms of communication. The vlsual literacy

movement accomplishes neither, but it does suggest a direction. \

The last question raised in the Introduction seems now rather

rbetorical. What are the consequences of a visually literate public?

Giv~ the definltion and limitations of the visual literacy movement just

noted, 1t would seem that a visually literate pubiic differs little as a .,i "1 lh. <.l fi

gro~p from a vlsually i11iterate public. Museum attendance might rise;

. the quality of ~elevision prqgrallJl1ing might improve. These'~peculation,s

fal'l to..address the real _issue. The lmplicatiorl s_ of a general concept

of visual literacy raise questions concer.ntng the role of the pUblic in - D ~ ,~

controlling its visual environment, the ,miiOipulation and exploitation of , ,

76

, c ,

.}

~~G 1

l'{ ! .

c

1

~

( ,

. cl

visual media, the unpredictability of fashion, the support of the visual

arts. Is visual literacya publie responsibillty? Is visual awareness,

~ince this is what really matters? Thi~ is what a general sense of visual

literacy means, and what the visual literacy movement fails to address.

The effect of environment on mental activity, long suspected, is only no~

, being approached empirically. For instance, we now know that'artificfal

, lighting affects tooth decay as we:y':i'-~' ought processes, and colors , . 114

can promote as well as inhibit physic strength and weakness • .. Unfortunately t~~e priorities affecting choice of lighting fixtures for

classrooms, the plan of a new rapid transit system, fndustrial research

and design, are most often priotities of industrialism: economy, effi­

ciency,and utility, rather than human well-being, comfort and preference.

A visually aware public can~-indeed would--be involved in the creation of - '

its visual environment, and would place the quality of human life first.

A visually aware public would recognize the funct10n of'personal. creative . .. /,

" visual expression in a h1ghly.fmpersonal, prefabricated marketplace of

. mass-produced expression from greeting cards to doormats. Financial

Support of the arts, instead'of being a write-off in the dubious 1nterest

of culture and civilizatioh, would be an investrnent 1n 1nd1v1dual 'and 'i' .. ~ -co11ective surviyal, preserving a sense of the human in an increas1ngly

plastic world, and ma1ntaJning at least the possibi~ity that creative

visual expression may reveal new realities and new ways of seelng. . .

In a book revlew of David Jones"T~e Oy1n9 Gaul Stephen Spender

notes Jones's theory of the relationship between civilizat10n and culture. , " 1 )

A visually awar~ public would see in crea~ivè vBual expre,ss1on not only < ( ,

, .

f • • 1

77 .".

" ,

. ,...". . :\" ____ ....:.---.--':..:--J.-!...'-.-' _. _---' ________ '''''.,~~.qoo ... ~t.l~.,.Wl~.M'I~~tlfl!.\~ "" ..... "'" ....... ~ ... I"'-~.,~~~

o

1-

o

..

the creation of new realitie~ and new ways of seeing, "7

but the ver:( ne-

°cessary opportunity to "unite' the materialist and spiritual sides of

their natures within creative, rituaHstic, ceremonfous acts and behavior-­

'm~l<ing Il,115:

Culture is local: the relationship of people living in a gfven place to the religion they believe in, to the objects that surround them and one another. Civilization is urban, central, and centraTizing, and much human history consists of the urban centralizing forcff6imposing themselves on the local ones and overwhelming them. '

The visual literacy movement attempts to "civilize lt visual cO/llJluni- '

cation by making culturally determined expression function as a universal . ,

language. What 1s universal about visual expression, however, is not

1ts messages, but its inspiration: the need to create, to humanize the

envlronment. Visual expression does more than supply aesthetic objects

and literal meanfngs. The reflection or view of reality expressed in

visual communication and v1sual art is the reflection or view of a ,human

presence--"objects in a c~rtain relationship to man~1nd. ,,117 The know­

ledge prov1ded by vi5ual'communication i5 on1y nom1nal1y the message ~ -, .

understood by the visual literacy movement; a far ~reater knowledge 1s

provided in the view of human reallty suggested by visual communication " '

and visual'art. Meanings revealed by the visual literac1 movement are

relevant for culture. and are therefore local; the meanfng fmplicft in f

~ .. 1 .-

the act of communicating'in a visual mode 1s characteristic of .cfvili-

zation, and therefore ,universal. ,­ ..

And 50 the underlying fabric of visual literacy 1s context, 'the social,

econom10, political and natural càndit~ons which mold public opfnion and

- ,

.. . ' ..

\

78

"" .

" ~

. , , 1

imbue one way of seeing with more credence and author1ty than another. "

Il

~cknowledgement of time and place means the difference between a vfsual

1iteracy movement shared in false asswnptions and a general visual literacy

whi ch may actua llY contr1 bute somethihg to human knowl edg"e. The new

realities ùrg~d by social reformers are-as often, the catalysts for new

ways of seei n9 as i ts consequence; one suspects that as. a cata lyst for'

a new way of seeing the visual literacy movement has:a, long way to go'.

" ,

o

,

\.

.. " , ,

79

o

...

' ... . ~

------

Notes .

! l Joh~ Debes, "Photographyand tne'Intellect,1I The Science Teacher,

November 1976, pp. 26-27. /' 1

2 John' Debes, "The Loom of V'lsual' Liter~cy," in Proceedings of The First National Conference on Visual Literac , ed. Clarence M.ïWilliams and John L. Oebes, 1 II (New York: Pitman, 1970 , p. 19,

3 Richard L. Gregory in The Fontana Dictionarx of Modern Thougnt, ed. Alan Bullock and Oliver Sta11ybrass (London: Fontana, 1978), p. 463.

/ 4 Corinne E. Kas~ 'IIEducational Manag~ent of Reading Deficits,"

80

in.Principles of Chi1dhood language Disab11ities, ed. John V. Irvin and M.ichael Marge \NJ:' Prentice-Hal1, 1972), p. 331. See also Hil1e1 A. Schiller, "Can Percepts Teach Concepts?1I in Williams, Proceedings, pp. 227-32.

5 David Guerin, "Extensional ity and Symbo1ogy, Il in Wi 11iams, Proceedings, p. 56 • .; .

6 Robin George COllingwood, The Principles of Art (O~ford: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 2.

7 Irv1n Rock, ,An Introduction ta Perception (New York: Macmillan, 1975), p. 12. - -

8 Rock, p. 17.

9 Rock, pp. 122-23.

10 M~r1us von Senden, Space and Sight (G1encoe; IL: The Free Press, 1960), pp. 295-96. .

11 Rock. pp. 124-26 . . 12 Rock. pp. 121-2?

13. Rock. p. 122.

14 James J. Gibson~ !!!! PerceptiQr'l' of the V1s~a1 World (CT: Green-' 'wood Press, .1~74), p. 200., . . ,

15 Gibson, p., 200.

..

" ,

'1 •

1 j

i .. i

, . ,

\ .

j 1

J , r (

_ ..... _ .... ~~~_ .. I1110 ........ _"' __ .. P .. ~tiHt ...... _""._t)ll .... t. _111lflJ_JIoI __ • ______ --

______________________ -K

V

_

(

()

16 Gibson, p. 200. - .

17 Rudolf Arnheim, Towards! Psychology of Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), p. 137.

81 ..

18 Rudolf Arn~, V1sual Thinking (Berkeley: University of Cal1fornia Press, 1969), p. .

'---..

19 Rock, p. 6.

20 Ragn~r Granit, Rece~tors and Sensory Perception (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962 " pp.M, 159.

21 Gibson, pp. ~-ll.

22 Henri Zerner, "The Sense of Sense, Il rev. of The SensE!. of Order by E.H~ Gombrich, New York Review of Books, XXVI, No:ll"llM9j, pp:-T8-21.

23 Zerner, p. 18.

24 Zerner s p. 18. c"j"

25 Anton Ehrenzweig, The Hidden Order of Art (~ondon: and Nicolson, 1968), p. xi. .

26 Ehrenzweig, p. 116.

27 Ehrenzweig, p. 11.

28 Èhrenzweig, p. 14,'

Weidenfe1d

29 Suzi Gab 1 i kt Progress !!l Art (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976) t p. 12.

30 Marshall H. Sega11, Donald T. Campbell and Melville J. Herskovits. \ .The Influence of Culture on Visu!l Perception (Indianapolis: Bobbs Merril1,

-41 1966), pp. 17'J!f8. -1

/

, • 1

31 C.P~ Snow, The Two Cultures (Cambridge: Canmridge University Press t 1969)... " .

, 32 Edmund Carpenter, "Image-Making in Arctiè Art, Il in j1gn~ ·I;~e ... Symbo1. ed. Gyorgy Kepes (New York: George 8razi11e~, 1966 • p. •

33 Ern'st Fischer. The Necessity of Art (Héll!iOOndswotth: Penguin. 1963), p. 149.

.. -\ -

)

',.

r

.. _______ ._. _______ --:....;... _______ J.="""_""'J&C"'"', œ.,.,lM="""""'_..,ai=tt:R,~""'IP.tIl!'l'! .. ___ .... ____ z: _________ lSfi1llil" ;;mdlMIII!IiTdéllôl;tœl*fWiiiC"'üi~

'"

o

Q.

_,pi ; ;

, <-,. 34 Thomas S.I K~n" The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Universi, of Chicago PresS: 1970), 2nd ed.; pp. 85-86.

35 Kuhn, p. 120.

36 Kuhn, p. 208.

37 Kuhn, pp. 208-09.

fV 38 Kuhn, p. 150.

3~ Herbert Read, To Hell With'Cu1ture (London: Paul, 1963), p • .13. - ---

Routl edge and Kegan

40 Richard. D. Herring, "Theory Construction: A Step Beyond Visual Literacy, Il Visual literacy Newsletter, 8, No. 6 (1979), pp. 2-3.

41 Charl ene Castello, "The Pa~ameter~ of Vi sua 1 li teracy ,,. TS, Vi sua 1 li teracy Center, 'Ga 11 audet Coll ege, Washi ngt,on, O. C., p. 23.

42 Castello, p. 17.

43 Castel'lo, p. 17.

44 Castello, p. 6.

45 Castello, p. 7.

46 Castello, p. 9.

47 John Debes, "The Eyefu1 pqwer, Il TS, Assoc,iation for Educational . Communications and Technology, Dallas, Texas, 15 April 1975, p. 8.

48 Debes, IIThe Eyefu 1 Power," pp. 8-9.

49 John De~es,IIA Too1 for Providing Visual Conrnunication Learn1ng Opportunit1es, Il TS, Society for the Study of Techno1ogy in Education, January 1968, pp. 2-3. 1

50 Norman F. Truesda1e. "The Magic Room--Exper1ments 1n Learniog,1I in Williams, Proceedlngs, p. 267.

51 Castello, p. 7.

52 Herri ng, pp. 2-3: 53 Philip W. Hamy; ,IIVisual Literati: Don ~ u1'xote ·Rides Again? or A

tongue-1n-Cheek Look ~t Visual Literacy;" vl'S"ü\ tèracy Newsletter, 8, No. 6 (1979), pp. 5-p: _ ' .

C- "

82

, , ~

,

1 "

J, o

1 (

\

~ .Yl~ ..... '':l'I'"'~_~·~t~~,-'''l'~,_''\ol!I~;t.,...,,('e.,,,..,.~· ... • ........... ~,,.> .. _____ .. _.1 __

(

"-

\

54 Donis A. Dondis" "Design in Conmunications ,,11 in Williams, Proceedings, p. 41.

55 Caleb Gattegno, Towards .! Visual Culture (New York! Avon, 1973), pp. 24-25.

56 Edith Spiegell, "Yes, 1 Sesame Street' Has Its Detractors," New York Times, 5 August 1979, pp. 023-24.' --- ,

57 Philip A. Macomber, "The Non-verbal Aspect of Television," 1n Williams, Proceedings, pp. 150-51.

83

58 Frances J. Hanosek, "Visua1 literacy and the Fine Arts ln Pennsylvania, Il in Williams, Proceedings, p. 200.

, .

59 Nathan Knobler, The Visual Dialogue '(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, [1967] ), p. V.-, '

60 Donis A. Dondis, A Primer of Vi sua 1 li teracy (Cambri'dge: MIT Pr~ss, 1973), p. 12. - - ,

61 Dondis, Primer, p. 148.

62 Gyorgy Kel?es, langu~ge of Vi'sion. (Chicago: Paul Theobald, 1969), p. 209.

63 Kepes, Language of Vision, p. 14.

64 Kepes" Language of Vision, p. 13.

65 Kepes. Language of Vision, 'p. 14.

66 Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Vision in Motion (Chicago: Paul Theobald, 1965), p. 27. ' -

67 Mo~oly-NagYt p. 12l.

68 Douglas Davis, Artculture (New York: ,Harper and Row, 1977), p. 79.

69 Davis, p. 112.

70 Donald R. Gordon, The New l11:eracy (Toronto: University of Toronto; Press, 1971), p. 2. , ,

71 William M. Ivins, Jr." Prints a~d'Visua1 'Conununication (Cambridge: , MIT Press. 1~69), p. 60. _ - 1

72 Wi1lf am H. Honan, "The Once and Future Met, Il New York Time~ M~g~~1 ne, 8 Ju1y 1979, :p. 17.

,.

t ~ \ "',

,~.CJ.J;œ.",'--,p ... , ,.,x.w,,,.'. ~~.,., -1: .~ .,.P.J,.9.i . ..,. .. ,dL~J . .!L"~,~:t,Yri!ll.d1k,\w)JH~SJ.~~A~~1i Mli1iit#IIiiW&&:Jai&JidBJIRl.i@bJiI .. ia't\~t~"~-.. ~_~~)R,f.flj,.~.' .•

,!

!

~o

r.'·"

73 "1 I~ins 1 p. 6f,. \

74 lvins, pp. 17.2-73.

~5 John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin, 1977), p. 34. 1

76 Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Repro­duction," in Illuminations, 'trans. Harry Zohn, ed. Hannah Arendt (New York: Schocken, 1969), cp.' 221.

77 Berger., p. 23.

7~ Berger, p. 8."

79 Susan Sontag, On PhotoQraphy (New York: Delta, 1977), p. 3.

80 Myra M. Ross, "Development of Self-Concept ~nd Self-Image Through Filnrnaking,1I in Wil~iams, Proceedings, p. 158.

81 Debes, liA Tool," p. 13.

82 Sontag, p. 91.

~3 Sontag, pp. 92-93.

84 Sontag, ,p. 179. il

84

a5-George Nelson, How to See (Boston: little, Brown and Co., 1977), p. 7.

86 Segall et al., pp. 36~Off.

87l1Whorfian: In linguistics, characterisUc of, or a fo11ower of, the v1ews of Benj~min lee Whorf (1897-1941), particularly the 'Sapir-Whorf hypothesis' (a1so propounded by Edward Sapif) that our conceptual cate­gorization of the world is partly determined by the structure of our native language. The strong form of this hypothesis, that our conceptualization 15 largely or whol1y detennined in this way, has, been rejected by most linguists." David Crystal in Bu.llock, p. 675. ~

88 James J. Git;son, liA Theory of Pictorial PercePtion,1I in Kepes, Sign,. Image, S,)1!!bol, p .. 97.

89 Edmund Carpenter, Oh, What, ~ Blow That Phantom Gave Me (New York: Bantam, 1974), p. 19. d

90 Dondis, pri~er, p. x.

91 Dond1 s, Primer, p. 18.

1

"

~ -:, l ,

..

l-

I 1

\ ;

1 • ~~flL1lNtQ."'M"PJQ"!i!:SlC .. ei_ LLdIQ

(,

• J

. . ,

92 Castello, pp. 24-25.

93 Dan Sperber, Reth.inking' Syrnbolism (Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 49-50. "

94 Sperber, p. 44.

95 Carpenter in Kepes, Sign, Image, Symbol" p. 219.

96 Edmund Carpenter, Esklmo Realities., (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973), p. 137. \

97 Hil ton KramE!r, "When The Art Wor 1 d Became Democra ti zed, Il rev. of The Triumph of Art for the Public by Elizabeth G. Holt, New York Times,

~February 1979,p. D3r:- ' 0" - ---

98 Morningside, CBC-AH. Toronto, 8 March 1979. ,

99 Ann W. Waldron , "The PopuHsts vs. the Scho1ars," Princeton A1umni Weekly, 25 June 1979, p. 12.

100 S. Giedion, "Symbo1ic Expression in Prehlstory and the First High Civilizations, Il in Kepes, Sign, Image, S,ymbo1 t p. 79.'

101 Advertisement, New York Times Magazine, 4 March 1979, p. 11.

102,Debes, "The.Loom," pp. 1,9. . 103 Mari1yn Beker, "In a 'fforthern l1ght," Canadian Magazine, 4 August

1979, pp. 14-16 •

104 Paul Klee, 'pedago9ical Sketchbook, trans. and introd. by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy (New York: Praeger, 1977), p. 9.

105 Klee, Pedago9i~al Sketchbook, p. 16.

lQ6 Catal0g: 50 Years Bauhaus, German Exhnbition,' Art Gallery of Ontario (MIT. 1968)~23.

107 Cata1 og, p. 14.

108 Mai Mai Sze, The Tao of Painttng (New York: Pantheon, 1955), p. 5.

109 Sze, p. 1 Dl.

110 . ,Sze, p. 74.

111 Sze, p. 41.

.'

, ~,\ ,

85

. ~ ~'.

ai u&tlAfllll!liilll!1iI YI.zJ !&IHiIÎ

o 112 Jerome R. Ravetz, Scientifié: Knowledge and Its Social Problems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 408.

113 Ravet~, p. 365. 114 . Alex Schauss, Dr. J. Mass, Dr. C.T. Ramsay, Dr. John Hott,

Sunday Mornfng~ dir. Mark Starowicz, CBC-ÀM, Toronto, 29 July 1979.

115 Stephen Spender, "Civil i zati on vs. Culture ~ .. rev. of The ~ Gau1 by David Jones, New York Times Book Review, 18 February 1979, ~\

116 S d' 9 pen er t p. .

-)17 Sanchez Vazquez, Adolfo, Art and Societ~, trans. Maro Rio~ancos {New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973J,PP. 28- 1.

... , .1.'

. " ;l"~ 1 \1" ~ ;~\,. ~

,1

, \

o

........ , ' " - \,"', '~

1

. {

1

1, \,

----........ -~- ----~,

/> . Works Consul ted

, " ,/

t' Arnheim, Rudolf. Art and Visual Perception: ~ PSlchology of the Creative

Eye. Berkeley: U~iversity of California Press, 1974. .

----------. Entropy and Art: An ESS1Y7 on Disorder and Order. Berkeley: University of Cal ifornia Press~ 9 1. >

>

... --------. Toward! PSYChOl0~Y of Art: Collected Essays. ,Berkeley: University of Ca1ifôrn;a ress,-r966.

----------. Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of Californ1a Press~ 1969. \ , .

Barker, Paul, ed. Arts!!l Society. London: Fontana Conmunicatlon Se'ries, 1977 .

Beker, Marilyri. "In a,\Northern Light." Canad1an Magazine, 4 August 1979, , pp. 14-16.

Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. ,Trans. 'Harry 20hn. Introd. by Hannah Arendt .. ~ew York: Schocken, 1969.

Berenson, Ber~ard. Seeing and Knowinq. London: Chapman and Hall, 1953.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing'. Hammondsworth: Penguln, 1972.

Berkeley, George. p! New Theory of Vision. New York: Dutton, 1934.

Bettelheim, Bruno. The Informed lieart. New York: Avon, 1960.

Blackie, John Haldane. The ABC of Art. New York: Vanguarde;< 1927. ,

Bul1ock, Alan ànd Ol ivèr Stallybrass, ed. The Fontana' D'ictiona~v of Modern Thought. London: Fontana Book5,'l978. h -

8urnham, Jack. The Structure of Art'. New York: George Brazi1ler. 1973. - ,---Buswell! G. T. How People look at Pictures. Chicago: Univers1ty of

Ch1cago Press, 19~5. .

Carpenter, Edmund. Eskimo Realities. New York: Holt, R1nehart and Winston, 1973. :

----------. .Qh., What!. Blow That Phantom Gave f1eL' New York: Bantam,,1974 •

• J

87

\.

______________________ ~jA~~~~_A __ ttZ ___ = ____________ * ____ ___

, ' --~r-·_--"-~-~----~~~-------___ >_. ______ ,*"",_,,,,,,~,,"an,,,, ~ T"'~ .. ""-~ ~~-!t"'~""".~"" ...

"

Castello, Charlene. "The Pilramet~rs of Visua1 literacy. n Working Paper, Visual literacy Center, Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C., 1977.

Jo ,

Catalog. 50 Years. B,aufiaus. Geniian Exhibition, Art Gallery of Ontario. 6 Oecember 1969 ~ 1 February 1970: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1968. '

/

de Chardin, Teilhard. The Phenomenon of Man. Trans; Bernard Wall. York: Harper, 1965:"""" -, -

, ,Cherrington, Leon G. and Richard W. Massa, ed. Aesthetic Man: His

Contemporary Values. CalifQrnia: McCutchan, 1969. -,-

Collingwood, Robin George. Outlines of a' Philosophy of Art. Oxford: 1 Oxford University Press, 1925., '

New

, ------:----. The Prlnciple~ of Art. Oxford:, Oxforc;l Uni~ersity Press, 1958.

, ,

Davis, Douglas. Artculture: Essays.QI!. the Post-Modern. New York: Harper and Row, 1977. o.

, , 0

Debes, John L., III. "The Eyeful Power .. " TS, Assodation for Educational Conmunications and Technology, Dalla,s" Texas." 15 April 1975.

"--.. -------. !"P'hotography and the' Intell ect.;' The Science Teacher, Nov. 1976, pp. 26-27. " ,

, '

----------. "Stme Coomon Traits of Visual and Verbal language and Lan­guaging." LACUS, McGill University, Montrea1. 15 August 1977. . "

t. () '. ~ •

88

-----.,.. .. ---. "Some Fbundations for "VJsual Li,:teracy." Aud.fovisual Instruction. Nov. 1968, pp. 961-64. " -

----------. "Sorne Semantics of Visual Comnùnication." TS, International COnference on .General Semanti cs, De,nver, Colorado. Augus t 1978 •.

, '

-.. --------. hA Tool for Providing Visual Communication learning Oppor­,tunities." TS, Society for Study of Technology in Education. January ~j 1968. . . ' 0 • li 0

h , . , Dondis, Donis A. A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambr,idge: 'MIT Press, 1973.

Ehrenzweig, Anton.. The Hidden 'Order of Art: A fjUdY in the, PsychOloGY of Artistic Ima'9Trïation. London: Wetqenfe andNico-lson, 1967.

" --r-- , .. <.t _",,'" 'II

feng, Gi -Fu~ and Jane English, tran~.· Th,Q.'Te Chilhg by Lao Tsu. New York: ' il Vin age, 1972. .

, 1

Fenollos ,Erne~t. The Chinese Written Character as a Medium fol" Poetrl. l'

i (,:.Ed. Eira Pound. San, Francisco: City Lights ~ooks~_n.d. ! /' ' ' 0 :.

, 1

, t'l

-i{

. " ,

1

1 J

". 1

()

o

-,

L'

r Fischer, Ernst. The Necess{ty of Art. Hamnondsworth: Penguin, 1963.

\ FiShér.; John L. "Art S;YleS aS~Ul tura1 C~gnftive Maps." Ame~ican\ AnthropoloQist, No-::t63 (1961), pp. 7~-93. -

. ~ong, Wen. SURlDer Mountains: Th ... Time1ess bandscape. New York: Metro­politan Museum Of Art, 197~

Gabl1k, Suzi. \?Progress m Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976.

Gâtteg~o, Caleb. Towards a Visua1' Culture: Educating through Television. New York: Avon, 1973~

.,.. Gerstner, Karl. Comp'tndium for Literates. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1963.

Gibson, James J. The Perception of the Visua1 World. Connecticut: Green-, wood PresS, 1974~ ---

Gonf>rich,' E.H. - Art ând Illusion.

----------. In Se~ltural Press, 1974.

J -

New York: 'Pantheon, 1961.

Hi s'tory. Oxford: Oxford University

__ .f., ______ • The Sense of arder: A SlUd.v., in the Psycho1ogy of Dec:orative Art. New York: Cornell Univers ty ress:-1979. . . .

Gordon, Donald R. Tbe New L iteracy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. .._

Granit, Ragnar. Receptors and Sensory Perception. New Hav.en: Yale University Press, 1967~

Greenberg, Clement. Art and Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1961.

Gregory ,'Ri chard l. The Inte 11i gent Eye. New York: McGraw-Hi 11, 1970.

Hall, Edward T. The Si1ent Language. Garden City: Anchor, 1973. - - - 1-' Herring, Richard D. "Theory Construction: A Step Beyond Visual l)teraCy. Il

Visual Literacy Newsletter, 8, No. 6, pp. 1-3.-

Hogg, James, ed. Psycho1ogy and the Visual Arts. New York: Penguin, 1970.

Hoggart, Richard. The Uses of Literacy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967.

Holt, Eliz~beth GHmore. The Triumph of Art for the Publ i c. New York: ~ub 1 eday Anchor, 1979. ..

Hanan, William H. "The'Once and Futu~ Met. Il New York Times Màgazine, 8 July 1979, pp. 16-26.

...

(

(

- . --'-1---, ---

~o \

, }

,Hunter, S~m. "The Corporation and the Yi~uàl Arts." Princeton AllIRn1 Weekly, 12 February 1979, p. 42.

Irvin, John V. and Michael Marge, ed. Prfncieles of Childhood Language Disabilit1es. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 197.2.

Ivins, William M., Jr. Prints and Visual COlllllunicat1on. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969.

Jaynes, Julian. The 08ig10 of Consc,iousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Miïiëï. oston: Houghton Mi'F1rfn,19'76 . .., --

Jung, Carl G. Mandala S~b01ism. Trans. R.F.C.Hal1. Pr'inceton: Princeton" University Press, 19}. .

, Kepes, Gyor~y. The Education 9!. Vision. New York: George Braz111er, 1965.

----- .. ----. Language of Vision. Chicago:" pauJ Theobald, 1969 .

...... --------. The Man-Made Object. New York: . George Braziller, 1966.

-----~----, ed. Sign, Image, Symbol. New York: G~orge Braziller, 1966.

--~-------, ,ed. The'Visual Arts ToCtay. Middletown, CT; , Wesleyan Uni-versity Press, 1960.

c< • '\

Klee, Paul. Pedagogical Sketchbook. Trans. and Introd. by S1by1 Moholy-Nagy. New York: ,Praeger, 1977.

----------. The Thinking Eye. 'trans. Ralph Manheim. Éd. Jurg Spi11er. New York: G. Wittenborn, 1964.

~ #" ' •

Knobler, Nathan. The Visua1 D1a1ogue. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967-.-

• Kramer, Hilton. "When the Art World Became Democratized. Il ,Rev. of The

Triumph of Art 'for the Public by Elizabeth G. Holt. Néw York Times, . 26 February 1979, p. 031.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure, of Sc1entific Revolutions. lnd ed. Chicago: University of Cl\!cago Press, 1970.

Langer, Suzanne. Philosophy in ! New Key. Cambridge: Harvard Universi, Press, 1978. .

lowenfeld, Viktor. The Nature of Creative,Activity. Trans. O.A. Oeser. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965. •

Malraux, A~drê. The Voices of Silence. Trans. Stuart Gilbert. England: Palad1n, 1974. ,

McLuhan, Marshall. Counterblast. New York: Harcour,t, Brace, and World, 1969.

"

, \ . ----- --~-_.~---~ -p ....... -~-~-~--.,.

()

o , j

t

~1 .. _ • .- .~~ _____ • _

---,...------. The Gutenberg ~a1aXy: The Makirg of Typographie Man. Toronto:-,rnlversity 0 Toronto-,r,ress, 96~,

----------, and Quentin Fiore. The Médium is the Massage: An Inventory , of Effects. New York: ,Bantam, 1967. ---

, ----------. Understanding Media: lhe Extensions of Man.

New American Ubrary. 1964 •. - ---New York.:

• Merlèau-Po rty, M. The Primacy of Perception. ·Ed. James' W. Edie. 'Chicago:

Northwestern University Press, 1~64.

Mohaly-Nagy, laszl0. Vision in. Motion. Chicago: Paul Theobald, 1965.

Morningside. CBC-AM, Toronto. 8 March 1979.

91

Namy, Philip W. "Visua1 l'iterati: Don Quixote Rides .Again? or, ~ in-Cl1eek look at Visua1 literacY:V Visua1 l iteracy News1etter, 8, No. 6, pp. 5-6.

Nelson, George. How to See: Visua1 Adventures in !. Wprld God Never Made. Boston: Little,Brown and Co., 1977.

Ortega y Gasset, Jose. The Dehumanization of Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. - -- -\

PanofSky, Irwin. Meaning in ~ Visual Arts. New York: Doubleday, 1955 • •

Philipson, Morris, ed. Aesthetics Today. New York: Worl~ Publishing Co., 1961;

Piaget, Jean. The Mechanlsms. of Perception. Trans. G.N.~ Seagrim." London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.1969. <

Popper. Karl R.~ The Logic of Scientific Discovery". New York: - Harper, 1968.

Rapport de l! C.pIIITl'iuion ~'en9uete ~ 11 enseignement 1 des arts !!! Quebec. , Québec: L'Editeur officiel du. Quêbec, aout 1968 .. . ,

Ravetz, Jerome R. Scientific Kn~wledge and Its Social, Prob1ems. Oxford Univers.lty Press, 19 1.

Uxford: .

Read, Herbert. Art and Society. ,New York: Macmillan, 1931.

. ---------- Education Through Art. london: Faber and'Faber, 195d. 1 •

---------- • Ta He 11 Wi th Cu l ture. Rou t l edg e and Kegan Pau l, 1963.

Rock, Irvin .• An Introduction to Perception. New York: Macmillan, 1975.

-.- ~ ~ .... ~'" ~':."".""":'"'!1' ~ - ~ I~"''' ,

) f~t " ..

fJ t:, ' \~i n

,>

,',

Wl.'YMtbXt lL.fiI r .. t_tu _ Ji.

J

92

Sanchez Vazquez, Adolfo. Art and So«t1ety:. ESfa'i in Marx1st Aesthet1es. Trans. Maro Riofrancos.- New York:Mont~ y. eYTew Press, 1973.

Segall" Marshall H.,;D~~ald T. Campbell and Melville,J. Herskovits. The Influence of Culture on Visual Pèrception. Indianapolis: BpbbsMerrl11 , 1966. - -

von Senden, Marjus. Spa ce and Sight. Glencoe. IL: The Free Press, 1960.

Snow, C.P. ~'The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambrfdge University Press, 1969.

foon~ag. susa~. On Photogr'aphY: 'New York: Delta, 1917.

~pendert Steph,n: "CiviliiaUon vs. Cu1ture. R Rev. of Thl! ~ Gaul . , by David/Jones. N~ Var" Times Book Review, -18 FebruaryîW9, pp.9, 26;'

Sperber, Dan. Rethfnk1ng Symbo1ism. Trans. Alice L. MQrton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

'\

Spiegel, ~dith. "Yes, 'Sesame Street' Has Its Detractors.- New York . --Times, 5 August 1979. pp. 023-24.

Sunday Môrning. Dir. Mark Starowicz. CBC-AM, Toronto. 29 August 1979.

Sze, Mai-Mai.· The Tao 'of Painting. New York: Pantheon, 1956. ___ ~ 1 •

Taylor, Joshua C. Learn1ng to look: A Handbook for the V1-sual Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.- - -

Toffler, Alvin. The Culture ConsÎJmers. New York: V1ntage, 19,64.

----------. Future Shock. New York: Bantam, 1971.

Valery, Paul. 'Collected Works. Vol. '!)J. ilJ'rans. Ralph Manheim. New York: Random House. 1964. -- '

Waldron. Ann W. "The Populists VS.II the Scholars." Princeton Alumn1 " Week1y,.25 June 1979, pp. 11-25.

Vernon. M.D. A Further Study of Visual Perception. Darien, CT: Hafner. 1970.

----------. The Psyc~ology of Perception. Baltimore: Pengu1n. 1962.

Williams, Clarence M. and John L. Debes, 1111, ed. Proceedings of the F1rst National Conference on Visual literac,}!, 1969. New York: pi tman, 1970. -

Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society, 1780-1950. New York: Harper. 196~.:

-0

" l;" f;:~ '[; 1 ~~:. • .1, r, ~ , ,,-'

lit., Al dAilIi$"IiIl ... , ...

• fi

\ l11son, Edward O. On Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University' Press, ")978. .

Wl1Sorlt Robert N .• ed. The· Arts ln.. Society. Eng1ewood Cl1ffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal1, 1964~

Zerner, Henri. "j'The Sense of Sense." Rev. of The Sense of Order by E.H. Gambrich. New York Review of Books. XXVI, No. 'fT (28 June 1979) t pp. 18-21. - - -

, \

\

/

'.'

.. 1

. 1

.f!!

,]

93

.'

, ,

1 l .

1 1 1 • j' •

1