In the chapter “Visual Literacy Theory”, Paul Messaris strives to provide readers with the comprehensive insight on what the notion of visual literacy stands for moreover, as it appears from chapter’s context, author suggests that there is a big difference between visual and verbal semiotics: “Whereas verbal language contains an explicit vocabulary for indicating how one object is related to another (“a is like b,” “c leads to d,” “e is different from f,” etc.), visual language has no such indicators. Unless they are spelled out through captions or voice-over, the meanings of visual arguments are always implied” (Messaris 21).
This suggestion serves as the metaphysical foundation, upon which author’s argumentation is based – Messaris’ article implies that there is no commonality between what he refers to as “conventional” and “visual” intelligences, with the thought that any kind of intelligence derives of people’s ability to operate with highly abstract categories, never occurring to him. In other words, the very essence of Mesaris theory corresponds rather well to neo-Liberal outlook on intelligence as highly subjective concept. We will dare to disagree with the author on this, simply because there is no objective evidence as to the fact that the process of people being instilled with the semantic meaning, when exposed to visual signs, is essentially different from the process of people finding a semantic message in verbal constructions. In both cases, it is the rate of their IQ, which defines their ability to find an associative or direct meaning in just about anything. In its turn, it explains the popularity of avantgardist art in recent years – marginalized public that is being exposed to such art simply assumes that there is a deep meaning behind avantgardist “masterpieces”, such as Malevich’ “Black Square”, when in fact, there is none. In its turn, this points out at the fallacious essence of Messaris’ idea that spatial intelligence (people’s ability to define a connotative message, deriving out of sequence of seemingly unrelated visual signs) is an objective category: “One of the clearest examples of spatial intelligence is the ability of movies to conjure up a coherent sense of place and action out of a succession of fragmentary views” (Messaris 8).
As the practice of designing “progressive” TV ads and musical clips shows – the uniting semantic motif, which binds different parts of such ads and clips together, only exists in viewers’ imagination. Therefore, we cannot seriously believe that viewers’ exposal to series of fragmentary shots, would result in these viewers reacting to these visual shots similarly, unless viewers’ consist of representatives of clearly defined racial group. In its turn, this explains why many Hollywood movies are now being designed to target racially-specific categories of viewers – for example, nowadays; we have “White”, “Black” and “Hispanic” comedies. In his article, Messaris makes a good point when he suggests that the utilization of visual analogies in movies significantly increases these movies’ cinematographic value, simply because these analogies actually stimulate viewers’ brain cells:
“This cross-cutting (visual analogies) between the two sets of images can be seen as the equivalent of a simile. It explicitly juxtaposes two events and implies an analogical connection between them” (Messaris 10).
However, author fails to provide readers with the answer as to why the utilization of juxtapositions became a rarity in today’s Hollywood movies, even though he admits that this is actually the case:
“The interruption of a movie’s story line by the insertion of an extraneous image may have been incompatible with Hollywood cinema’s increasing tendency towards unobtrusive narration” (Messaris 10).
Apparently, Messaris intentionally withdraws from establishing a clear link between such recent tendency in cinematographic industry and the intellectual marginalization, which seems to affect the psyche of moviegoers in Western countries to ever-increasing extent. The reason for this is simple – author’s admission that such link exists, would significantly undermine the conceptual validity of his view on visual intelligence as something utterly objective and static, and as something unrelated to IQ intelligence. Therefore, we cannot accept Messaris’ suggestion that producers are capable of creating a universally recognized semiotic meaning, by utilising the methods of visual analogising in movies. In its turn, such our conclusion points out at the very premise of Messaris’ article as being largely unsubstantiated, due to the fact that, during the course of working on it, author strived to sound both: scientifically sophisticate and politically correct at the same time. Thus, we can say that, whereas the analysed article contains many valid points, as to the technical aspects of visual literacy, author’s apparent intention to set the concepts of verbal and visual intelligence apart, can hardly be referred to as fully appropriate. These both types of intelligence derive out of people’s genetically determined ability to indulge in abstract philosophising. Nevertheless, author should be given a credit for not bringing up the notion of “emotional intelligence” (the neo-Liberal intellectual invention, meant to explain racially defined mental inequality among people), while proceeding with his argumentation, simply because this indicates a certain degree of intellectual integrity, on his part. This is the reason why it would be inappropriate, on our part, to limit this critical review of Messaris’ work to solely exposing chapter’s weak points. There can be no doubt that the reading of this chapter will come in particularly handy to those who want to get a better understanding of semiotic mechanisms, associated with movie making industry and with TV. In “Visual Literacy Theory”, Paul Messaris had proven himself as a true Media professional. The fact his article implies the absence of connection between conventional and visual intelligence, simply corresponds to socio-political realities of the time when it was being written. Had Messaris suggested otherwise, he would be risking the chance of his article not being allowed for publishing, simply because we live in time when politically correct censorship undermines the value of just about any scientific theory, designed in recent years. Messaris’ theory of visual literacy is not the exception.