Advancing an Idea for Material Argument

Material Argument 1

Advancing an Idea for Material Argument

Craig Hennigan

Wayne State University

Material Argument 2

ABSTRACT: Material rhetoric has been theorized by multiple

scholars. For this paper I advance a theory of material

argument. Argument can be fashioned from a material perspective

that goes beyond what the visual can provide. A material

perspective can bring a broader definition to argument by looking

at issues of material rhetoric as points of persuasion in

argument. Two texts are analyzed to support this conclusion: the

artwork of Andres Serrano and urban spaces in Detroit.

Attending an event live often can bring a certain excitement

or electricity that is different than observing an event

passively. There is certainly a difference from watching a

baseball game on television as opposed to being in the stands

live. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial seems to carry a special

kind of tactile value as people often touch the wall in

remembrance of fallen soldiers. Spaces, monuments, and objects

Material Argument 3

carry meaning in their materialities that are more than just

visual elements.

For this paper I advance a theory of material argument.

Essential to the review of literature are to introduce the most

common definitional argument considerations and see how those

factors are accounted for in visual argument theories. I do not

intend to continue the debate as to whether or not visual

argument exists, rather I will make the assertion that if it is,

then material has to be an equally important accompaniment to the

visual. I also look to previous scholarship about material

rhetoric in order to provide a foundation for an inferential leap

to a theory of material argument. The literature base for

material rhetoric has become more advanced in recent years, but

nothing has been written about the possibility of material

argument apart from material rhetoric, so a research gap exists

in the literature.

The research question that I intend to answer is whether

argument fashioned from a material perspective that goes beyond

what visual can provide. In answering this question I hope to

Material Argument 4

bring a new perspective to what argument is, as well as show how

this perspective can be used in analyzing texts. The paper

argues that a material perspective can bring a broader definition

to argument by looking at issues of material rhetoric as points

of persuasion in argument.

Literature Review

To begin examining how expansion of the definition of

argument parameters takes place, a good place to start is the

scholarly research surrounding visual argument. Visual argument

makes a leap from argument that is sequential in nature and based

in language toward a view that is less strict in formation.

Because there has been much work already in the examination of

visual argument, it is natural to see how the expansion of

argument definition can be acceptable in order to meet the same

criteria in a move to material argument.

A parameter worthy of further examination would be the

requirement that reasons be given to support a claim being

advanced. There is much agreement that some reason-giving be a

part of a definition of argument, but how those reasons are

conveyed may be in question. Reasons in argument have been

Material Argument 5

postulated to have a linguistic component in that there must be a

statement in language in order to be perceived (Fleming, 1996).

This requirement though can be met in theorization of the

receiver rather than the message being sent. Receivers can

construct argument from image and place it into linguistic

thoughts without the original message being carried in such a

manner. Placing focus on the reception of message is more

appropriate for rhetorical studies because of the emphasis on

effects of a text. Much of the present scholarship still focuses

on the Aristotelian notion of invention to define argument which

infers that argument is sender-based. As a result, visual

argument having more characteristics of arrangement and style

become subsets of invention and delivery. This view privileges

certain types of argument and shuts out different perspectives.

The focus on the speaker and the goals they are trying to attain

rather than the actual consequences of a rhetorical act can be

limiting to the study of rhetoric (Blair, 1999). While the

definition can be problematic for facilitating a different view

of rhetoric, there is also the opportunity to re-think what the

describing terms within a definition actually mean. In essence,

Material Argument 6

it is possible to use the material in many of the traits

describing argument if the restrictive parts of the definitions

still are inclusive of other styles of communication. Material

can best fill in the gaps surrounding arrangement in a visual

argument as positionality is interpreted as a visual arrangement.

One manner in which reasons can be given without language is

through the use of visual image. Scholars of visual argument

believe that images can bring comprehension in the same manner

that discourse can (Birdsell & Groarke, 1996; Shelley, 1996).

Images can tell stories, be persuasive, and be misinterpreted

just like verbal conversations can. This is not to say that

because people will reconstruct a visual argument in a linguistic

sequence that they are alike, quite the contrary. Visual

argument is markedly different from linguistic notions of

argument because it can be both sequential or taken in through a

gestalt (Birdsell & Groarke, 1996; Lake & Pickering, 1998).

There is an embedded enthymeme in a visual image where viewers

believe the image is “real” or at least not fabricated that

cannot be duplicated in a language-based model of argument

(Finnegan, 2001). In that embedded enthymeme, the premise that

Material Argument 7

is unspoken is that a visual image is a true representation of

reality. This premise is occasionally flawed, however as visual

images can be doctored, changed, or set up to portray what the

creator of the image wants to convey. This could make the image

more powerful as a message and argument. A material version of

this enthymeme would be more difficult to fabricate, although it

would also be possible.

The visual image also brings a mode of comprehension and

potent influence that cannot be replicated through linguistic

imagery (Lake & Pickering, 1998). There is a failure though of

the visual to properly address reason giving over a course of

time. Visual images are a gestalt that is not seen as multiple

moments in time, but rather a singular point. This can create

problems when trying to present refutation through visual means.

While the use of film can be a way to show refutation through the

visual there is still the dependence upon verbal accompaniment

with the visual in order to show refutation (Lake & Pickering,

1998). A research gap still exists when attempting to see how

refutation can happen outside the use of the verbal.

Material Argument 8

One way to allow for an expansion of the meaning of argument

can be by acknowledging the idea that argument is perceived in a

receiver-based view of communication. Argument becomes what is

perceived as argument, rather than what is communicated intended

to be argument. This makes sense because often people get into

arguments as interactions, or argument2, and reach a place where

there is confusion as to what the point of contention in the

interaction was (O’Keefe, 1977).

This rearranging of message reception moves beyond Marshall

Mcluhan’s famous quotation that “The medium is the message.” A

more accurate statement might be “The medium is a part of the

message not to be ignored.” Where Mcluhan talks about modern day

media, material spans across all eras. How material communicates

can be interpreted as a rhetorical form, and a review of research

of how material rhetoric is understood is worthwhile if a case

for material argument is to be made.

In his analysis of the Monument to Joe Louis statue in

Detroit, Richard Marback (1998) puts forth a notion to view

rhetoric through a material lens. He says that “Meanings are

made, then, through the ways we occupy, and are asked to occupy,

Material Argument 9

spaces and texts,” (Marback, 1998, p. 86). Rhetorical messages

can be interpreted not only through the visual, but through

placement of texts in relation to surrounding areas. The text of

the Joe Louis fist gains meaning by where it is placed in the

urban space. The statue alone as an image would not have the

same rhetorical meaning as the statue in the presence of the

heart of a postindustrial city.

Placement in urban spaces is noted as important by more

people than Marback, however. Carole Blair and Neil Michel (Blair

& Michel, 2000) continue the work theorizing a material rhetoric

through the Civil Rights Monument in Montgomery, Alabama. Blair

and Michel respond to a reading of the memorial by Daniel

Abramson (1996) that critically reviewed the monument as

promoting a conservative view of the civil rights era. Abramson

looks at the style of the creator of the Civil Rights Monument,

Maya Lin, and notes how her work uses timelines to portray social

struggles of the 1960s. In using the timeline, there is a

restriction of creating a singular narrative to her work,

omitting any other possible readings outside of the populist

version of events portrayed on the monument.

Material Argument 10

Blair and Michel assert that the placement of the memorial

and other material considerations do quite the opposite and act

as a critique of whiteness. The Abramson reading focused only on

the idea symbolism of using a timeline, while largely ignoring

the rhetorical performance of what was written on it.

Additionally, material considerations of the multi-colored

granite (suggesting broad coalitional movements as tactics used

in the civil rights era) and its placement in the sidewalk is a

disruptive “black body” forcing acknowledgement. Another

placement issue in the urban setting of downtown Montgomery is

significant as it is nearby to many remembrances and tributes to

the white establishment and the former Confederacy.

The contradictory readings of the same text could be looked

at as a point that Fleming might make as to why the material

would have difficulty in sustaining a coherent argument.

However, contradictory readings of the same text are nothing new

in rhetorical scholarship. The second Lincoln inaugural comes to

mind as a point of contention based upon the cultural makeup of

separate audiences of the address (Ceccarelli, 1998). This

actually reinforces the notion of the use of space, or at the


very least the placement of the audience is integral to gain a

better understanding of what a particular text means.

Additionally, it is because more can be derived when material

considerations are taken into account that they should be

recognized as pieces of a text that have the ability to persuade.

While museums and monuments help to construct public memory,

there are other more personal spaces involved with material

rhetoric as well. It would seem that the occupation and use of

space is very complementary to material rhetoric. How the body

takes up space in a material way contributes many connections to

other rhetorical theories (Forbes, 2000). Material also has

linkages with individual memories as well (Rohan, 2004).

Scrapbooking, journal entries, collection of photographs or

mementos can all be linked to an attempt to remember events or

people of the past. In this sense, those materials perform a

rhetorical act by symbolically representing memories or people

that are not present. Material rhetoric can affect memories and

records of people on the margins through its emphasis of

reception theory rather than focusing on the rhetor giving

material focus a liberatory potential. Marginalized groups are


often shut out of conversations when research focuses on rhetors

from dominant classes although the view of the material can be

looked at in a more economic or Marxist analysis under this

interpretation (Collins, 1999).

Victoria Gallagher and Margaret LaWare (2010) continue to

show how the material can bring more conscious meaning to a

particular text. Once again, they look to the Monument to Joe Louis

to show how theory surrounding materiality can enrich our

understanding of other concepts like public memory. When

assessing Marback’s work and applying it to other theoretical

concepts, there is increased standing given to the idea that the

material means something more than the composition of the

aesthetic piece. In this case, the focus on placement is front

and center, so rhetorics of urban spaces become prominent. It is

here that I would like to begin my analysis of how we can look to

material rhetoric as a stepping stone into the realm of argument

through materiality.

Textual analysis

I intend to use two texts for this analysis. One is from a

very controversial artist who uses unconventional medium in order


to present a countercultural argument. Second a text regarding

urban space and how it creates argument regarding the

epistemological construction of the city of Detroit. When

reading these material texts, the visual is a part of how the

argument is formulated, but it will not be a privileged aspect.

Use of urban space as an argument may entail many sensory traits

as a part of the argument, from the sights, sounds, smells, and

even theorized senses of “place” that we do not typically

recognize as among the human senses. Along this reading,

justifications for how the material of the text can function

along various definitions of argument will also support the idea

that with material rhetoric come material arguments. Where to

divide these fields at is of lesser concern to the theoretical

nature of this paper, and future scholarship or a paper revision

is welcome to attempt to divide that line. For our purposes it

is better to theorize that material argument can exist, and then

progress from there.

Andres Serrano’s material art

Material in some form surrounds us all. From the air we

breathe, to the food we eat, there is no doubt that material is a


part of our lives. These statements are profoundly obvious, but

in many ways, material is taken for granted. People observe the

great works of art as what as what is produced in a specific

medium, with little regard to the meaning of a particular medium.

Artist Andres Serrano is an exception to that rule. His works

place the material of his art as a focal point of the work.

Controversial works such as “Piss Christ” and “Blood and Semen”

were dually praised and reviled in artistic and political

communities (“Andres Serrano’s controversial ‘Piss Christ’ to be

displayed in New York,” 2012).

While Serrano placed the material of his work in the center

of his art, unless the focus of an artist is strictly on medium,

the communicative message is often relegated as secondary. When

communicative messages are outside of aesthetic forms then

concerns over material drop more dramatically. There is little

concern for what a communication is made of rather than what it

tries to convey. Overlooking material though when analyzing

communication leaves out a portion of a message that may have

influence on meaning.


Where Serrano messages with material, the placement of the

material also carries meaning. In his work “Piss Christ” a

crucifix is placed into a jar of urine. Where the crucifix is

placed has an effect on the message of the work. Placing the

crucifix in front of the jar may carry a far different meaning

than placing it inside the jar. Thinking upon placement, there

is more to the material than just the composition of matter. The

use of spaces also has to be interpreted in ways that communicate

in conjunction with material and message.

There is argument though in Serrano’s work, not only message

to create meaning. Artist Eugenio Merino (2011) reviews “Piss

Christ” saying:

In ‘Piss Christ’, Andres Serrano casts doubt on belief and

purity. And it is this doubt which ‘offends’, since religion

is based on dogma and absolute certainty. This year, the

piece was attacked in the Contemporary Art Museum in Avignon

and slashed beyond recovery by a number of Catholic

demonstrators. This is a violent, anti-democratic stance,

typical of totalitarian groups that only allow a single

vision of the world. Absolute certainty. (p. 75)


Merino says that the meaning of this piece is only realized

when reading the title. There is symbiosis with visual text as

well as verbal text combining to make argument. Birdsell and

Groarke (1996) suggest that this combination together reduces the

uncertainty of both the verbal and the visual thus making a case

for the visual to be interpreted as argument. However, in the

case of Serrano, the material must be a part of the argument as

well. Should the picture in “Piss Christ” not actually be

composed of the urine of Serrano, then the verbal message creates

uncertainty (possibly deception) rather than assisting to remove

uncertainty. Rather than casting doubt on purity, it reaffirms a

euphemism that Merino says is exactly what this piece is

critiquing:

We live in a society that is adopting the ideology of the

politically correct and are becoming wary of expressing

ourselves for fear of causing offence. Euphemism has become

established as a way of repressing ideas, and the meaning of

things is becoming diluted. For this reason, beauty is not

enough. Art should not be a pleasant, beautiful escape

mechanism. It should not be a euphemism covering over the


holes in society, but the light that makes us reflect upon

that society. That is why art is and will always be

uncomfortable for the system. Art must move closer to

activism rather than to the purely aesthetic. There is no

aesthetic without ethics. (p. 75)

Previous definitions of argument can explain how the

material operates in this piece as well. Under the

interpretations of argument1 and argument2 by O’Keefe (1977), the

material is a “communicative act” (p. 121) in the sense of

argument1. The interaction required for argument2 does not really

exist in a bidirectional fashion from material to audience and

back again. Although because of the communicative act, there was

certainly a response from the audience as this piece was

irreparably vandalized by Catholic activists (Merino, 2011).

If the aim of argument is to reform beliefs, as Ehninger

(1970) suggests, then once again the use of this material

confirms its importance in argument. Meaning behind the art from

Merino indicates that there is a correction that is attempted by

Serrano.


Also important, and drawing upon research into rhetoric of

bodies, is the magnitude of a material argument. The “Blood and

Semen II” is composed of the literal blood and semen of Serrano.

The work spans three feet by five feet (Moscrop, 2001). It is

not an insignificant amount of Serrano’s biological pigment that

is used to generate this art piece. Visual portrayals alone

cannot account for the material experience of beholding such a

large portrait while carrying the knowledge of what the “paint”

is made of. This magnitude enhances the validity of the argument

that Serrano is making, that society is in need of a literal and

honest view of the shocking in order to understand itself.

Brightmoor Gardens

Brightmoor is a neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan noted for

crime and economic disadvantage (Hackney & Tanner, 2011). The

neighborhood has many abandoned and foreclosed homes, prostitutes

and drug dealers operating in the daytime and illegal dumping

happening in the community. Recently, there has been a boom in

urban agriculture in Detroit, as there is an abundance of empty

lots across the spacious city. Brightmoor is home to some of

these gardens.


The positioning of urban gardens in Brightmoor has called

into question how rust belt postindustrial cities are defined in

the minds of occupants and outsiders. Usage of urban space to

perform what typically thought of as rural activities creates an

opportunity to rethink what it means to be an urban dweller. The

visual of the garden among urban settings as well as blighted

buildings (aka urban “ruins”) create a natural conflict of

narrative regarding the city. There is heavy emphasis on the

positionality of these gardens in order to create an argument

that would break down the dominant perspective of the post-

industrial.

Although it has been avoided thus far, some photographs may

help to enhance our understanding of some of the material

elements in this argument. Figure 1 depicts one of the

Brightmoor gardens positioned in a lot of a burned out home. The

home has been decoratively and playfully painted as a burned out

window turns into a mouth for a face and a sign declaring the

words “Peace, Faith, Joy, Hope, Passion, Thanks, Love” sits on

the porch. In front of the burned out home is a garden. The


garden is surrounded by caution tape, not unlike the police tape

that someone might expect to find in this community.

Community gardening in Detroit, unlike certain other places,

focus on food production rather than beautification. There is

significance in that choice that has everything to do with the

location of these gardens. Detroit has been called a “food

desert,” or a place where mainstream grocery stores are difficult

for inner city residents to find. This moniker may or may not be

justified, and media has argued this issue in the past (“Detroit

Truck Responds To City’s Food Desert Crisis : NPR,” 2010;

Oosting, 2011), but regardless the growth of food in the urban

area serves to debunk the myth or combat the crisis. The garden

in this case is well kept, but not producing flowers or

decorative shrubs. In a neighborhood plagued by crime, there is

no fenced, no locks and no protection from theft or vandalism

whatsoever. The gardens are arguments as well as actions against

the media narrative of food deserts. It is a way to respond to

the dominant theme that mainstream grocers are needed in order to

properly feed people. The gardens then have anti-capitalist


undertones as people are encouraged to simply come and eat what

is grown rather than wait until it is on a store shelf.

In this case there is not only an argument being made, but

an argument2 as interaction between the two conflicting

narratives continues over time. During the planting of the

garden, the house was burned out and not in use. As the garden

grows, the appearance of the house improves. Every new plant in

front of the house is a new reason in the argument. Every new

piece of art painted on the house is a reason in the argument as

well. And every piece of the house that collapses, or is burned,

or decays, is reasons to the opposing view of the argument.

While it still is likely not structurally sound, there is now

decoration. Decoration exists on the otherwise destroyed house,

but the garden is strictly business. The garden needs no

ornamentation; its presence in the neighborhood is ornamentation

for that urban space. As the garden grows, challenging the post-

industrial blighted neighborhood meme, the home answers back with

collapsing pieces of the roof. The people running the garden

then create artistic pieces to place on the house. The garden is

winning this tactical argument of revitalization. It is an


argument in a very figurative sense, as a mental agreement

between the parties of the house and the garden cannot be

established. That mental agreement is what O’Keefe (1977) says

has to exist for there to be knowledge that an argument is taking

place. However, the spectator of this figurative argument2 makes

an independent judgment as to whether or not the house and the

garden are in this interaction.

Another place where the material is a necessary part of an

argument being made is at another garden in Brightmoor. The

garden (Figure 2 and 3) is labeled as “Brightmoor’s Brightest

Edible Playscape.” Children are encouraged to play at this

garden while tasting the fruits and vegetables that are growing

around them. Figure 3 has what is called the “Sunflower House”

that has hay bales surrounded by sunflowers in a circular growing

“structure” (“Youth Ministries Blog,” 2011).

The argument being made is to rethink what it means to have

a play area for children. There are environmental overtones

where playscapes do not have to be built of wood, plastic, and

steel, but rather they can be grown from the ground, and eaten!

The visual can never fully deploy this argument on its own as an


integral proof of this argument lies in its ingestion. A sign

can say that something is edible, and the argument can be made

visually, however the proofs behind the argument lie in the

material makeup of the garden.

Lastly, the gardens make an argument about what it means to

be an urban dweller. The themes of urbanity where swaths of land

are covered in a concrete jungle are broken down as gardens grow

under the shadow of skyscrapers. This is a literal

interpretation in the case of Lafayette Gardens, a project

undertaken by Compuware corporation (Lingholm, 2011). More of

these gardens are popping up downtown nestled between 15 story

buildings and donating the food to charitable organizations. In

urban areas, particularly downtown areas, space is a premium.

Space is commodified and sold for large amounts of money in what

a late capitalist system considers “successful.” Detroit gardens

break down that notion by creating green spaces that provide no

surplus value, rather they work toward a charitable goal. While

it could be argued that the sponsorship of these areas carry a

value of corporate goodwill toward people that will eventually be

turned back into profit, the use of a highly valuable downtown


property would not be necessary in order to make that case.

Something else is going on in the formulation of what it means to

be an urban citizen.

The garden is a symbol of independence and separation from

the rest of the state, nation, and world. Gardens make

statements that sustainability in urban areas is possible through

management of spaces and rethinking the actions that an urban

dweller takes. Actions of rural farmers are not relegated to the

rural areas. In an age of factory farming, the urban farm

retakes holistic qualities of the old rural image and

reappropriates them inside the city. This is a form of

constitutive rhetoric that takes the signs and discourses of the

rural to articulate a new urban identity and culture (Deluca,

2008). The urban space provides a unique place to provide this

argument and reshaping of the urban identity. The garden in a

suburban backyard is not a surprise, nor does it have the same

argumentative goal of the garden in a run-down neighborhood, or

burrowed in between large office buildings.

Conclusion


The material is an integral part of many arguments. As

innovative ways to portray argument is employed, the material may

become a more prevalent part of reading how argument operates.

New research into areas such as argument using bodies may be

considered a part of the material, as bodies are made up and

contend with matter itself. The civil rights monument being

compared to a “black body” supports the idea that bodies are a

specialized part of the material. Arguments consisting of usage

in urban spaces are a part of the material. Issues surrounding

positionality and magnitude are informed by the material.

While the material may not be able to conduct an interaction

on its own, it can be a part of or an embodiment of interaction

to be witnessed. The material cannot be separated other parts of

the visual in an argument. While current scholarship in argument

studies focus on the Aristotelian canon of invention, a focus on

material can uncover more about how arrangement can be a part of

argument.

Urban spaces and position is one way that argument is

conducted through material. Another is through the magnitude of

material making arguments. Items that are “larger than life” or


scaled to a smaller size change the message and the argument

being made through material. Material argument also has

possibilities to approach enactment of argument in a real world

setting that is more difficult to fabricate than a visual

representation alone.

For argument scholars, there seems to be an ever expanding

boundary surrounding what is and what is not argument. The use

of material can beg the question of where argument is not to

expose how the discipline may need more stringent standards.

However it is always going to be the better option to define in

an inclusive manner of where argument is rather than to ignore

the possibilities of new forms of argument to study. The

importance of accuracy in finding what kinds of arguments exist

should take precedence over any concerns about creating borders

around the field. If argument is everywhere, perhaps academics

should embrace that notion and begin to ask the question of why

we perceive argument to be everywhere, rather than bemoan the

idea that it may be damaging to the field of study to have such a

broad area. An expansion of the field doesn’t necessarily

require a rethinking of what we define as argument previously,


but rather a rethinking of how the parameters of those

definitions are perceived.


Figure 1, a Brightmoor community garden in Detroit


Figure 2

Figure 3, The Sunflower House


References:

Abramson, D. (1996). Maya Lin and the 1960s: Monuments, time

lines, and minimalism. Critical Inquiry, 22(4), 679–709.

Andres Serrano’s controversial “Piss Christ” to be displayed in

New York. (2012, September 21). NYPost.com. Retrieved

November 7, 2012, from

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/art_controversy_back_in_ny_Z

juqKoVhysXZ3eQg6U6n1H

Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual

argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33(1), 1–10.

Blair, C., & Michel, N. (2000). Reproducing civil rights tactics:

The rhetorical performances of the Civil Rights Memorial.

Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 30(2), 31–55.

Blair, Carole. (1999). Contemporary U.S. memorial sites as

exemplars of rhetoric’s materiality. In J. Selzer & S.

Crowley (Eds.), Rhetorical Bodies (pp. 16–57). Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin Press.


Ceccarelli, L. (1998). Polysemy: Multiple meanings in rhetorical

criticism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84(4), 395–415.

doi:10.1080/00335639809384229

Collins, V. T. (1999). The speaker respoken: Material rhetoric as

feminist methodology. College English, 61(5), 545–573.

Deluca, K. M. (2008). Unruly arguments: The body rhetoric of

Earth First!, Act Up, and Queer Nation. In A. J. Aguayo & T.

R. Steffensmeier (eds.), Readings on argumentation. State

College, Pa.: Strata Pub.

Detroit Truck Responds To City’s Food Desert Crisis : NPR. (2010,

November 2). NPR News. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?

storyId=131000846

Ehninger, D. (1970). Argument as method: Its nature, its

limitations and its uses. Speech Monographs, 37, 101–110.

Finnegan, C. A. (2001). The naturalistic enthymeme and visual

argument: Photographic representation in the “skull

controversy”. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37(3), 133–149.

Fleming, D. (1996). Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and

Advocacy, 33(1), 11–22.


Forbes, C. (2000). Writing the body: An experiment in material

rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 19(1-2), 60–72.

Gallagher, V., & LaWare, M. (2010). Sparring with public memory:

The rhetorical embodiment of race, power, and conflict in

the Monument to Joe Louis. In G. Dickenson, C. Blair, & B.

L. Ott (Eds.), Places of Public Memory (pp. 87–112). Tuscaloosa,

AL: University of Alabama Press.

Hackney, S., & Tanner, K. (2011, November 14). How Brightmoor

became a hot spot for homicides. Freep.com. Retrieved

December 13, 2012, from

http://www.freep.com/article/20111114/NEWS01/311140001/How-

Brightmoor-became-hot-spot-homicides

Lake, R. A., & Pickering, B. A. (1998). Argumentation, the

visual, and the possibility of refutation: An exploration.

Argumentation, 12(1), 79–93.

Lingholm, D. (2011, August 31). Compuware plants new urban garden

in Downtown Detroit. Detroit Unspun. Retrieved December 13,

2012, from

http://blog.thedetroithub.com/2011/08/31/compuware-plants-

new-urban-garden-in-downtown-detroit/


Marback, R. (1998). Detroit and the closed fist: Toward a theory

of material rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 17(1), 74–92.

Merino, E. (2011). Picture this: Eugenio Merino on “Piss Christ”

by Andres Serrano. Index on Censorship, 40(3), 74–76.

Moscrop, A. (2001). Andres Serrano. Student BMJ, 9, 443–486.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the

American Forensic Association, 13(3), 121–128.

Oosting, J. (2011, September 14). Data Driven Detroit debunks

food desert myth, highlights food distribution issues.

Mlive.com. Retrieved December 13, 2012, from

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/09/data_dri

ven_detroit_dispels_fo.html

Rohan, L. (2004). I remember Mamma: Material rhetoric, mnemonic

activity, and one woman’s turn-of-the-twentieth-century

quilt. Rhetoric Review, 23(4), 368–387.

Shelley, C. (1996). Rhetorical and demonstrative modes of visual

argument: Looking at images of human evolution. Argumentation

and Advocacy, 33(2), 53–68.


Youth Ministries Blog. (2011, August 2). First United Methodist Church of

Waukesha. Retrieved December 13, 2012, from

http://fumcwaukesha.org/

Advancing an Idea for Material Argument

Documents

Transcript of Advancing an Idea for Material Argument