Andrew Incandela Dr.

Erin Dietel-McLaughlin Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric, Section # 9 11 October 2013 The Rhetorical Strategies of Charles Moores Photography In his photographs depicting the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, Charles Moore provides viewers with an accurate representation of the events that took place as well as the people involved in them. Moore traveled through the Southern states of the US from 1958 to 1965, taking pictures of key events and people to put together this collection. When asked about his pictures, Moore has been quoted saying, I did not like seeing what I did, and Im a fighterI fight with my camera. Thats my tool. That was my weapon (Oral History: Charles Moore Interviewed by Mary Morin). Taken collectively or by themselves, Moores photographs present an argument about the state of affairs in the South at this time in history. In order to make sure this argument was heard, Moore published his photographs in Life Magazine, where they were distributed across the country and had so much influence nationwide that they are now credited with spurring the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Kodak.com). While many of his photographs speak for themselves on the surface, a rhetorical analyses is necessary to gain a better understanding of their full significance and why they were so powerful for so many people. In his photographs, specifically the two that depict people being sprayed by fire hoses during the Childrens Crusade on May 2, 1963, Moore uses the composition of the photographs and the idea of contrast to convey the injustice present at that time in history in order to elicit an emotional response from the audience.

Incandela To understand the rhetorical significance of these photographs, we must first understand the rhetorical situation in which they take place. According to Lloyd F. Bitzer, rhetorical

discourse comes into existence as a response to a situation (5). The situation can be any number of things, but in this case it refers to a specific exigence, which is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be (Bitzer 6). The defect that Moore was responding to was the prevailing practice of racism, segregation, and violence directed towards the African American community in many parts of the country at that time. His photographs are an attempt to expose the country to this reality, and his strategies for doing so are as follows. Several aspects of the composition of the photographs, including the closeness of the images and who is included in them add to their rhetorical impact. The pictures are shot close up so that the viewer is closer to the action. This allows more detail to be expressed through the photographs and lends to the immediacy of the work, which is promoted by involving the viewer more intimately in the image (Bolter and Grusin 28). In the case of the woman running from the water towards the camera, the viewer can see her panicked facial expression, the impact of the water as it hits her legs, and the water dripping from her face. In the photograph of the people huddled against a building, you can see the scared expression of the woman clutching the building to brace herself against the water. The details of the running woman give the viewer a sense of just how much distress she is in, and the woman bracing herself testifies to the intensity of the hose they were being sprayed with. These details provide more information to the audience than if the photographs were taken from far away, testifying to the harshness with which these people were treated. The viewer, upon seeing this, is made to feel compassion for these people as well as anger at the people doing this to them.

Incandela

Another aspect of the composition that Moore uses rhetorically is whom he does and does not include in the images. In both photographs, the people shooting the water are not pictured; all the attention is on the victims. Moore is saying that it doesnt matter who is doing this to them; the only thing that matters is that it is happening, and that is what the audience should focus on. This is also powerful because it makes viewers symbolic enactors of the very act they would condemn as inhuman (Lancioni 111). Also, the composition of one of the photographs is such that it shows many people in the background looking on as the woman is being sprayed. The fact that so many people are focused on her testifies to the fact that this is an important event which deserves our attention. Two of the people watching the woman stand out from the rest. One is running to help the woman and the other is shaking his fist in anger. Someone could say that these people arent actually significant and it just happens that they were in the background. Moore could have actually taken the photo from any angle and gotten the same effect. However, this seams very unlikely because they are expressing the same emotions that Moore is trying to elicit from the viewer using many other rhetorical techniques in the image. As viewers, Moore is hoping that we see these powerful depictions of emotion and react in much the same way, because in the photo as well as across the country, there are many people watching and only a select few helping. We, as the audience, are encouraged to act like the running man and help these people rather than just stand there. Along with the composition of the photographs, Moore uses several forms of contrast to form his argument, specifically the contrast between the foreground and background, the color contrast between the water and the people, and the contrast between our expectations of how people should be treated and how they are actually being treated. In the photo of the woman running, which is the only photo in question that has a distinct foreground and background, the

Incandela two are separated by the white blur of water hitting the woman, effectively cutting the image in

half. We are on one side of the water with the woman, and all other figures are on the other side. This creates a feeling of isolation from the point of view of the audience. As the woman is cut off from the other people by the water, so are we. Even though we see the man running to help her, we see this as a futile attempt due to the separation that exists in the photograph and the strong sense of seclusion we feel as viewers. This same water is significant in a different way. In both photographs, the water is very noticeable due to its bright color, which stands in contrast to most of the surrounding objects, which are much darker. The people, for instance, are by large much darker than the water. Paying attention to the traditional interpretations of light and darkness in images, as well as the context of this photograph, we can derive meaning from this depiction of light and darkness. The photo was meant to show the reality of the situation in the South to other parts of the country. The fact that the water is a source of light, while the people are mostly dark is indicative of the attitudes of the people spraying them. They thought they were doing a good thing by trying to drive out these evil people. However we, as viewers, know this to be the exact opposite of the actual situation. The water is the bad while the people are the good. Some people may say that the color is actually insignificant. If Moore wanted to use a reversal of color roles rhetorically, why did he not print the images using an inverted color scale? To this, I would say that Moore has put a great deal of effort into achieving a sense of immediacy, which leads one either to erase or to render automatic the act of representation (Bolter and Grusin 33), with these images by shooting them up close that he would not sacrifice this by modifying the colors of the photographs. He must have felt the original color palate was enough to get his point across. The argument made with colors is one example of the third form of contrast employed by Moore: the

Incandela contrast of ideas. We experience this contrast of ideas in the sense that our predetermined ideas of how things should be are flipped around in both of these photographs. Besides the reversal of traditional color roles, we see people being treated in a way that sharply conflicts with how we

know they should actually be treated. We know people should not be sprayed against a wall with a high-pressure hose, yet there they are. This adds to the feelings of anger and outrage that the audience is meant to experience. Using his photographs and the power of visual rhetoric, Charles Moore was able to speak to the sentiments of an entire nation, and in the process became an integral part of one of our countries most important movements. Influencing so many people the way he did is no easy task, so why do we remember him apart from the other countless people that photographed the Civil Rights Movement? His photographs have remained because they are taken in such a way that fully utilizes the medium of photography to bring the viewer as close to the subject matter as possible, creating a powerful and emotional message. The fact that he was so successful speaks to the power of photography. Photography, when used correctly, can arouse strong emotions in people, moving them in a way that written words simply cannot achieve, and the photography of Charles Moore is a testament to this.

Incandela Works Cited Bitzer, Loyde. The Rhetorical Situation 1968: 1-14. Print. Bolter, David and Grusen, Richard. Immediacy, Hypermediacy, Remediation. Remediation: Understanding New Media 2000: 21-50. Print. KODAK: Powerful Days in Black and White." Kodak.com.4 Oct. 2013. Web. Lancioni, Judith Revisioning Archival Photographs in The Civil War. The Rhetoric of the Frame: 105-115. Print. Moore, Charles. People Sprayed Against a Wall. 2 May 1963. Printed Photograph. Moore, Charles. Woman Running From Water. 2 May 1963. Printed Photograph. Morin, Mary. "Oral History: Charles Moore Interviewed by Mary Morin." Wordpress.com. 7 Oct. 2013. Web.