The Character and Content of Visual Literacy

Dondis, Donis A. "Chapter 1: The Character and Content of Visual
Literacy." A Primer of Visual Literacy (MIT 1973). Available through Google Books.

I've been having a difficult time understanding exactly what visual literacy is. At the beginning of this week, I was thinking it was being able to read chart and tables and other things that authors often add to their text to give the reader a visual representation of what the point they are trying to make. Sometimes these are pictures or photos with captions. At that point, I thought I was visually literate.

Then I read "The Character and Content of Visual Literacy." Here Dondis talks about visual literacy as related to film, paintings, photography, etc. Are we literate in these visual mediums? I'm not sure what is meant by the question, but I doubt that I am.

I'm not sure I agree that "a bias toward visual information is not difficult to find in human behavior." It was certainly my initial impression, but when I've discussed the question, "Would you rather be deaf or blind?" with others, I learned something I hadn't expected. If you're deaf, then you are only aware of your surroundings if you are looking at them. But if you are blind and still have your hearing, then you can be aware of your surroundings in a 360-degree manner. Maybe Dondis is right, but I'm not so sure.

I have also thought about the difference between utilitarian art and fine art. My sister is an artist and creates fine art to be used. One small example is that she makes beautiful quilted potholders. She expects you to use it. I hate to use something like this when I know that my using it will only result in it getting worn out.

I appreciated his example of Michelangelo's fresco for the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to illustrate how blurry is the line between fine and applied art. I do wonder what he would have painted if he hadn't argued with both popes the way he did. Had it not been for those wranglings, would his art be as famous today? Of course, no one knows. I have to agree that the distinction made between fine and applied art is a false distinction.

I have to admit I didn't understand the section called "The Impact of the Photograph." I had difficulty with the different ways he used the word "see." I think he did so intentionally, but I found it confused the meaning. If he's talking about visual art, then I assume he's talking about art we visually see. Close your eyes and you don't see it. But on page 7, he wrote, "To see has come to mean understanding." Certainly, seeing aids in understanding. But so does hearing, touch, smell, taste, and touch. So does logic, visualization and experience. He doesn't quite equate seeing with understanding, but he comes close. I think he's saying in that section is that most of what we understand is determined by photographs. I don't know about that.

So then I ask myself, What is Dondis saying in the section called "Visual Knowledge and Verbal Language"? Again, I'm not real sure. I think he starts by saying that visualizing is important for thinking. He tries to make analogies between language and visual arts, but I don't understand his analogies. We learn spoken language naturally. Written language has to be learned by going through a number of steps which means it is more structured and organized than visual literacy.

Visual Literacy. Visual literacy is universal and it is not simple. . . . .

I suppose I could go through this chapter and keep trying to understand what each section is about. But who would want to continue to read it. So if anyone would be willing to summarize this chapter for me, I would appreciate it. Perhaps with your summary in mind, I will be able to read it again with more understanding.

Becky