The photograph, taken at the 1967 march on the Pentagon,
appeals to the pathos of the audience.
The image of a young girl putting a flower in the gun of a soldier is a
moving scene. The image makes a powerful
statement against war. The scene makes the
audience want to rally for the cause of peace, because who would hate the
courage of the girl putting the flower in the loaded gun. The obvious divide between the soldiers and
the protesters also appeals to the audience’s emotions. It exaggerates the issue making it seem like
one viewpoint versus the other with no middle ground. The divide forces the audience to realize
which side they support. Will you support
the soldiers pointing their guns at civilians, or the peaceful protestors with
flowers?
Kyle Strouth
Kyle Strouth
This image represents a very powerful scene during this time period. It immediately appeals to the emotions of its viewers. It shows that everyone, even a young girl, wants there to be peace. I do not think that it exaggerates the issue because this was reality. I like how you ended with a question because it gets the reader to think further about the photograph.
ReplyDelete-Zachary Karetsky
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe question asked at the end really nails this rhetorical analysis in. The emotion behind the flower in the gun is powerful and symbolic, but it also has a subtle call for action. The sentiments in the photo stimulate the argumentative nature of the observers that make them ask what the protests are really about. Who are we fighting? Ourselves?
ReplyDelete—Jack Wisniewski
I think it was really interesting how you mentioned that the photograph shows two extremes on opposite sides. It definitely called people to pick a side, and it was especially clear which side the photograph depicted to be the moral high ground. Maybe talk about what emotions a viewer of this photograph would feel...anger towards the men with guns for aiming at an innocent? or maybe even pride in the anti-war movement for the girl's courage?
ReplyDeleteI find it very fascinating how you pointed out that this picture has two sides to it and that you asked us what side we would be on. This question really plays with our emotions because we are either for peace or war, which are two extremely different ideas on the spectrum. I think it would of helped to provide the picture in the post because it was hard to understand the connections you were making when the picture is so small and on the side bar at the top.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I like how you said it forces the audience to pick a side and how there is no middle ground. It might be obvious to us, but you might want to expand upon the symbolism of the guns (violence, war, death, etc) and the flower (peace, life, etc) in order to reemphasize the major divide between the two sides.
ReplyDeleteI like that you ended the post with a question, it makes the pathos of this image seem very obvious. One thing I would have done differently with this post is talk about how the visual affects of the image grabs the heart of it's viewers. For example, the juxtaposition of the soldiers, stern and unsympathetic, to the child, gentle and compassionate, makes the viewers want to side with the child. Also, the image appears darker on the side with the soldiers and lighter on the side with the child, which is probably intended to make the child look more innocent and the soldiers more sinister.
ReplyDelete