One of the first books I read with Anne was _Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials_ by Gillian Rose. This book was packed full of helpful advice, but I think the most important point in the book was the argument that we must approach each visual material with three things in mind:

1. Take the image seriously. Visual materials do have deep meanings and are rhetorical.
2. Think about the social conditions and effects of the object. Who is included? Excluded?
3. Be self-reflexive in your interpretation.

Addressing the first point is relatively easy for me. I've been interested in visual arguments since studying news photography in 1991. I realized very quickly that taking still or moving images of a news event was an ethically charged action. After studying Graphic Design, I realized that every imaged, color and line in an ad was carefully thought through to maximize impact with the audience.

The social conditions of the people looking at the image requires some generalization, but I think we're within reason if we say that people looking at the poster are mostly college students at Michigan Technological University. A major concern with students is the amount of work/debt needed to pay for college. Since many of the students at MTU are from "working class" families, financial concerns seem common. However, and this is interesting, the money/training aspect of joining the military is not addressed here. Instead it's moving forward and making a difference. So who is being included? Perhaps students who feel like their day-to-day activities as a college student brings little fulfillment. Notice, also, racially, that the soldiers depicted in the add are somewhat diverse; however, all the participants seem to be male.

What do I think? This is the toughest question Rose wants us to ask before we begin analyzing a visual message. I have been studying, to some degree, military recruitment visuals for almost 10 years, and I think my approach is one of concern. Although I do feel the USA should have a military, and I am happy that it is a powerful one, I think many of the ways we fill the ranks of our military is, at the least, unexamined and careless, and, at the most, downright deceptive. My motivation is to raise awareness of the way these images work/the way recruitment works. Once we understand this, we can discuss how we feel about the messages being used.

So far, in my readings for comps, I have found a lot of info on how to "interpret" visual images. (For example, Dondis, Arnheim, and Bang talk about how shapes and colors have universal properties because we all, as humans, have bodies that relate to the earth in similar ways, and Kress and van Leeuwen talk about how images of people can be interpreted by how we would feel if they were standing in front of us ... and so on and so forth). But what these entries should help me deal with is how these readings explain the way 2D images encourage the audience to engage with them. So the entries that follow will talk about various readings as well as some of my own observations.