Towards a Rhetoric of Tactile Pictures

Carol Wiest

continued . . .

In the alphabet book, scale and social distance enact imaginary social relations in much the same way as in visual images. Objects which occupy a large amount of picture space and which are equal or greater in scale than the objects they represent, have the characteristics of "close-ups." Such pictures seem to have more power and seem to create a strong sense of involvement. The Clown and the Queen for example, occupy most of the page and are closer in scale to their referents than Ears and Nose. The Clown and the Queen seem "closer" and more compelling, perhaps even more like intimate friends. In contrast, Ears and Nose take up about 25% of the picture space and are much smaller in scale relative to their (presumably human) referents. Ears and Nose seem far away and much less imposing than the Queen and Clown; they enact a much more impersonal social relation.

An object's angle of rotation relative to the plane of the page elaborates further on relations of involvement and power. Kress and van Leeuwen do not discuss this aspect of representation in their model, perhaps because most visual images do not need this added dimension. However, the tactile pictures use this angle very effectively, attesting once again to the spatial nature of the tactile mode.

In the tactile pictures I studied, objects represented at a 45 degree angle, such as the Lollipop and Key, seem most within reach while objects at an upright angle, such as the House and Rabbit, seem less so. I suspect that the physical position of a reader's hands has a great deal to do with this sense of "within reach." The angle of the reader's arms and hands is not straight, but acute (less than 90 degrees relative to the centre of the torso). Picture elements that have a 45 degree angle of rotation, then, are more congruent with the physical position of the reader, creating the sense that they are more "within reach." In the alphabet book, objects over which the viewer is most likely to have the power of manipulation or use, tools and food, appear at 45 degree angles. Objects which are likely to be outside the reader's influence appear at an upright angle: House, Queen, Clown, Ears, Nose. The interactive participant is thus constructed in a social relation of power over tools and food and a relation of equality or of inferiority to people and certain objects such as houses. My analysis of the angle of rotation is tentative, however, since I am working with a limited set of pictures. Tactile rhetoric will need to explore these possibilities further.

A final question relating to the interpersonal metafunction is that of modality. A consideration of modality is crucial to a social perspective on communication because

[Modality] does not express absolute truths or falsehoods; it produces shared truths, aligning readers or listeners with some statements and distancing them from others. It serves to create an imaginary "we." It says, as it were, these are the things "we" consider true, and these are the things "we" distance ourselves from. (160)

Like language, visual images express modality but do so using different techniques or modes of expression. Kress and van Leeuwen identify four coding orientations or "sets of abstract principles which inform the way in which texts are coded by specific social groups or within specific, institutional contexts" (170). They then discuss the features of visual representation which constitute high or low modality for each coding orientation.

Tactile pictures can have high or low modality in relation to various coding orientations. However, since tactile pictures are relatively new, it is difficult to define with any kind of specificity the bounds of tactile coding orientations. Tactile pictures lack a firmly developed naturalistic coding orientation from which to judge or compare other coding orientations and, at the present, exist between two systems of coding orientation: the codes of specific social groups, and the codes of specific types of tactile picture.

For example, consider two tactile pictures: a raised line drawing representing an x-y graph and an haut relief picture designed for children, such as those in the alphabet book. Each picture must negotiate two intersecting and sometimes opposing coding orientations. The x-y graph needs to have high modality within the scientific/technological coding orientation while the haut relief needs to have a high modality within the naturalistic or sensory coding orientations. However, each picture must also work within the coding orientations relating to its form. Raised line drawings need to meet different standards of elevation and contour than do haut reliefs. A raised line drawing can use lines of the same elevation to represent the outlines of picture elements. Haut reliefs, in contrast, must use variations in elevation, rather than outline edges, to represent objects. Modality is thus a factor of both the content coding orientation and the form coding orientation. The designer and reader of a tactile picture must know and work within both sets of coding orientations.

This brief analysis shows that tactile pictures have an equally complex set of strategies for expressing the interpersonal metafunction as their visual counterparts. The methods for expressing interactive-representative participant relations are significantly different and yet both modes can represent relations of power, involvement, intimacy, and modality. The visual model, with its spatial orientation, offers a useful starting point for a rhetoric of tactile pictures but cannot fully explain the interpersonal metafunction in tactile pictures. The sequential quality of tactile perception disrupts a purely spatial model and gives tactile pictures unique resources for expressing the interpersonal metafunction.

  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next Node | Works Cited