Visual+Rhetoric

Bogost makes some points about Visual Rhetoric, namely that, "Visual rhetoric simply does not account for procedural representation. This is not a flaw in the subfield of visual rhetoric; there is much value to be gained from the study of images in all media. But in procedural media like videogames, images are frequently constructed, selected, or sequenced in code, making the stock tools of visual rhetoric inadequate. Image is subordinate to process" (25).

If we were to look at Minecraft through a strictly-speaking visual aspect, paying attention to the visuals without thinking of the underlying processes, what would Minecraft "look" like? Could Minecraft exist as only an agent of visual rhetoric?



[|Visual rhetoric] is a recent development of a theoretical framework describing how visual images communicate as opposed to aural or verbal messages. Visual rhetoric also examines the relationship between images and writing. **Visual rhetoric is different from graphic design**, because it evaluates images from the standpoint of cultural meaning, not just esthetics. Memes are good examples of visual rhetoric in that they often include graphic and text combinations that are at times at odds with each other creating the irony. The visual rhetoric of Minecraft makes a statement about blocks. All of the images are block-like including the humanoids. As the game is about building or crafting, the visual rhetoric is that everything is buildable including the humanoids. Although the images wouldn't be considered beautiful when compared with modern-day games, they do provide clues to the game and I believe that changing the visual rhetoric of Minecraft to a more realistic visual world would not necessarily enhance the game.

What is visual rhetoric you might ask? It is the interpretation of graphics, art, video games or visual media to communicate a story, idea or thought. In Minecraft, the visuals are less than stellar for this day and age of visual gaming graphics (think Xbox Kinnect, Nintendo Wii, Play Station Move, etc.). For a game invented in 2009, it's rather [|retro]. For that reason I would say it can exist as an agent of visual rhetoric as it brings one back to the graphics of the 1990's. The addition of the underlying processes of the game connects all of the parts and brings meaning, which is determined by the players choices, experiences in the game in addition to the programing of the game.

The fact that the signature graphics of Minecraft are built using cubes as a foundation hint at the idea of going back to basics but the [|developer's idea] of simplicity to develop entertaiment and challenge to maintain the gamers' interest cannot exist just as visual rhetoric. Without thinking of the underlying processes that develop the game the images it provides soon fall at a disadvantage in comparison to other more richly designed games that can offer the same concept.

While the Visual Rhetoric is stimulating and understandable, I question if Minecraft could work without the Sound Rhetoric that is also present in this game. The [|sounds]compels one forward and encourages one to leave a place of danger. If these sounds were taken away, the player would get disoriented in this game, and would not understand the visual markers that are needed to pay attention to for his or her avatar's survival.

Finally, many have criticized the visual displeasure of Minecraft. The pixelation is rather distorted and reminiscent of Nintendo64 bit graphics. However, Markus Persson is intentional here. While many games pride themselves on graphic clarity and special effects, Minecraft does not. The builder is left to focus specifically on building and creation.