The Grammar of Visual Design

This week, we shift from our first textbook to a new visual communication textbook entitled, "Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design" by Kress and van Leeuwen. My initial thought was... "where did all of the pretty pictures go?" I find it a bit contradictory that a book about visual design has very little pictures, and practically no color. Hmmm... interesting. I know people always say you can't judge a book by it's cover, but this time, I was hoping that I could. The cover is very colorful and implies that the best is yet to come. However, as far as the first chapter is concerned, that is certainly not the case. The book is extremely heavy on content, and no so much on the pictures. But, I'm willing to give it a try. After all, change is a good thing, right?

Another thing I found to be interesting was the use of the grammar metaphor. Although the authors do a good job explaining their reasoning, my initial thought is that with grammar there is only one right way to do it. The rules are very defined and expectations spelled out. In other words, grammar is very cut and dry. I feel that visual communication, art, and images are quite the opposite. Unless it's a chart or diagram, most visuals and images leave room for lots of interpretation. However, this is the point the authors are trying to make. Kress and van Leeuwen assert, "not much attention has been paid to the meanings of regularities in the way image elements are used--in short, to their grammar--at least not in explicit ways or systematic ways" (p. 2).

The authors also argue that just as the grammar creatively employed by poets and novelists is, in the end, the same grammar we use when writing letters, memos, and reports, so the 'grammar of visual design' creatively employed by artists is, in the end, the same grammar we need when producing attractive layouts, images, and diagrams for our course handouts, reports, communiques, and so on (p. 3). However, they are quick to point out that it is not a "universal" grammar because visual language is not transparent and universally understood. Instead, it is culturally specific.

Kress and van Leeuwen argue that visual design fulfills three major functions. First, an "ideational" function is a function of representing the world around and inside us. Second, an "interpersonal" function is a function of enacting social interactions as social relations. All message entities--texts--also attempt to present a coherent world of the text. This is the third function, the "textual" function-- a world in which all the elements of the text cohere internally, and which itself coheres with its relevant environment. So, are the authors saying that all visual communication must fulfill these three major functions?