Switch to: References

Citations of:

Visual Culture: An Introduction

&
St. Martin's Press (1997)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. C. S. Peirce and Intersemiotic Translation.Joao Queiroz & Daniella Aguiar - 2015 - In Peter Pericles Trifonas (ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 201-215.
    Intersemiotic translation (IT) was defined by Roman Jakobson (The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge, London, p. 114, 2000) as “transmutation of signs”—“an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.” Despite its theoretical relevance, and in spite of the frequency in which it is practiced, the phenomenon remains virtually unexplored in terms of conceptual modeling, especially from a semiotic perspective. Our approach is based on two premises: (i) IT is fundamentally a semiotic operation process (semiosis) and (ii) (...)
    $287.00 new   (collection)    View on Amazon.com
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Cartoons can talk? Visual analysis of cartoons on the 2007/2008 post-election violence in Kenya: A visual argumentation approach. [REVIEW]Nyongesa Ben Wekesa - 2012 - Discourse and Communication 6 (2):223-238.
    The growing influence of the visual media in contemporary society is quite alarming; hence, learning to explicate them is inevitable. This is a paradigm shift from verbal argumentation to visual argumentation. The aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of visual analysis and visual literacy, a part of discourse analysis. Visuals employ a number of rhetorical devices; however, understanding the effectiveness of these devices is still a challenge. Adopting Visual Argumentation Theory, the article analyzes argumentation in cartoons (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Why We Need a Theory of Art.Annelies Monseré - 2016 - Estetika: The European Journal of Aesthetics 53 (2):165-183.
    In this article, I argue against Dominic McIver Lopes’s claim that nobody needs a theory of art. On the one hand, I will demonstrate that Lopes’s alternative to theories of art – namely, the buck-passing theory of art – is neither more viable nor more fruitful: it is likewise incapable of resolving disagreement over the status of certain artefacts and of being fruitful for the broader field of the arts. On the other hand, I will defend the view that we (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•