Via GIPHY by Jacqueline Jing Lin

Eyes can be regarded as a portal through which data about our surroundings is collected. Yet, the meaning of this data only becomes clear in conjunction with other processes that take place in our brain. The physiology of our eyes is more sophisticated than that of other sense organs, as the eye has more components to collect and send information. This may account for the fact that vision dominates all other senses (Biggs and Stokes, 2014; Minnesota Libraries, 2010).

Compared to how we read text, the process of meaning making when interpreting an image is more subjective. A written text abides by a strict set of rules that more or less guarantee that a message gets across. The chances of reaching consensus about the meaning of an abstract work of art are lower, except if we are in the company of an expert who can explain the visual cues of the piece of art that are embedded in the cultural and artistic context in which it was made.

Therefore, it makes sense that the term ‘Visual Literacy’ (VL) and the notion that a special set of skills is needed to understand images, gained traction art education in the 1940s. This was followed up by the need to study the phenomenon of mass media in the 1950s (Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997 ; Avgerinou & Pettersson, 2020). Especially in the United States, due to concerns about the impact of television on society, the visual literacy movement gained momentum and in the long term led to the introduction of ‘media studies’ in the academic realm (Kaplan & Mifflin, 2000). One of its pioneers, John Debes, who pursued an academic career at the University of Rochester (NY) after working for Eastman Kodak, made one of the first attempts to define Visual Literacy:

"Visual literacy refers to a group of vision competencies a human being can develop by seeing and and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to 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." - (Kaplan & Mifflin, 2000)

What is striking in this early definition is that it already stresses the connection of vision to other sensory experiences. It further presents VL as a pedagogical asset that it is applicable to a broad variety of visual stimuli, and, in parallel with reading and writing, has a passive component - understanding an (moving) image or object - and an active one - creating a visual.

One would think that this was a good starting point for eventually reaching a consensus about the characteristics of VL and what this means for defining a coherent research agenda. Yet, according to the VL experts Avgerinou and Petterson, this stage was hard to reach (2020). They argue that the recurrent obstacle for agreeing was the eclectic nature of VL. As the use of pictures and concepts such as ‘perception’, ‘meaning’ and ‘sign’ is relevant to a broad range of disciplines, a myriad of definitions have evolved in which concepts have been integrated from widely divergent fields such as Philosophy, Art History , Linguistics, Psychology, Visual Perception, Anatomy, Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, Educational Technology, Interaction Design and Communication Theory and Semiotics (Avgerinou & Pettersson, 2011; 2020). This hybridity leads to interesting cross-disciplinary theoretical and methodological discussions, but bears the risk of the discussions becoming an end in itself.

In an attempt to synthesize this diversity, Avgerinou and Pettersson conducted a longitudinal, systematic survey of literature on VL theory that revealed a considerable agreement about the principles and core topics of research. They propose to group these elements in five interconnected themes. Petterson explains the logic of these themes and what they entail in a form that is appropriate to the theme of this course: an online multimodal essay published in the Journal on Images and Culture (Pettersen, 2013). A concise summary is offered here:

1. Visual Communication
   Visual messages have a stronger emotional impact than verbal messages as they speak directly to us. One can distinguish the content, execution, and form of a visual message and the process of perception, learning, and memory.
2. Visual Language
   Visual Language exists and consists of a coding system of basic graphic elements. It is, however, not universal as it is bound to a cultural context. It is a language that must be learned, as it supports other forms of learning. As images are not self-explanatory, they often need verbal support.
3. Visual learning
   Learning through visuals is most effective if responses are evoked from the reader and text and image are in close connection to each other. This asks for dedicated design. Too many visual stimuli might cause distraction.
4. Visual Perception
   Recognizing images is faster than reading a verbal description. Yet, similar to the process of meaning making in verbal languages, prior experience and context are key. The meaning of images are often apparent on a basic level, but need to be enhanced with frequent and rich experiences for true comprehension.
5. Visual Thinking
   Visual literacy involves a specific way of thinking, organising knowledge, and communication, as the memory for pictures is more effective and faster than the memory for words. It appears that this way of thinking is more common among professions with a practical relation to vision: engineers, architects and graphic designers.

Avgerinou and Pettersson propose to make a distinction between ‘abilities’, ‘competencies’ and ‘skills’. The first would refer to the capacity to interpret and create visual statements and think visually, the second has a broader meaning and refers to combining verbal and visual information for intentional communication, the third refers to a broad range of sub-dimensions of visual literacy, such as being able to identify colors to mastering sign language. Skills refer explicitly to something that can be taught and learned.

References

• Avgerinou, M., & Ericson, J. (1997). A Review of the concept of Visual Literacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 280–291. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229792471_A_Review_of_the_Concept_of_Visual_Literacy
• Avgerinou, M. D., & Pettersson, R. (2011). Toward a Cohesive Theory of Visual Literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy, https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2011.11674687
• Avgerinou, M. D., & Pettersson, R. (2020, September 24–27). Visual Literacy Theory [Presentation]. 52nd Annual International Visual Literacy Association Conference - Seeing Across Disciplines: Visual Literacy and Education., Toledo , Ohio. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria-Avgerinou-4/publication/344350394_Visual_Literacy_Theory/links/5f6b15e6a6fdcc0086348712/Visual-Literacy-Theory.pdf
• Biggs, S., & Stokes, D. (2014). 14. The Dominance of the Visual [E-book]. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen, & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and Its Modalities (p. 0). Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199832798.001.0001
• Kaplan, E., & Mifflin, J. (2000). “Mind and Sight”: Visual Literacy and the Archivist, American Archival Studies: Readings in Theory and Practice (American Society of Archivists, Ed.).
• Kaplan, E., & Mifflin, J. (2000). “Mind and Sight”: Visual Literacy and the Archivist, American Archival Studies: Readings in Theory and Practice (American Society of Archivists, Ed.).
• Petterson, R. (2013, February). Views on Visual Literacy. VASA Journal on Images and Culture, 1, http://vjic.org/vjic2/?page_id=214
• University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing (Ed.). (2015). Chapter 4. Sensing and perceiving [E-book]. In: Introduction to Psychology, University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.1201. (Introduction to Psychology is adapted from a work produced and distributed under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA) in 2010).