How can photos of people make emotional, ethical and logical appeals?

Photos of people can appeal to emotions, ethics, and logics in many different ways. One way photos appeal to emotions is by the facial expressions and body language of the person/people in the picture. For example, if the person is smiling then the photo may appeal to happy emotions. On the other hand, if the person is frowning then the photo may appeal to sad or displeased emotions. Body language can express these and other emotions too. For example, if there is a photo of someone who is standing with their arms crossed then this may appeal to emotions like annoyance, disgust, or rejection. In addition to appealing to emotions, photos of people can appeal to ethics, too. Basically, photos show this when the person is doing something ethical or when the person is doing something unethical. An example of how a photo of a person can appeal to ethics is if the photo is showing someone helping another person. But, an example of how a photo can show a person is unethical is if it shows the person physically hurting another person. In addition to this, photos of people can be logically appealing. It is only logical to have photos that you would not be embarrassed for others to see or that could get you into trouble. For example, many teens have photos of themselves on their Facebook that shows underage drinking. It is not logically appealing to have these photos out for others to see since they can get you into trouble. Photos are usually appealing in all three of these areas.

How I View Advertisements

My view about advertisements has not changed that much through this project; hence I still view advertisements the same way I did before the project. Even though I actually thought of the ethos, pathos and logos of the two ads for the project, this does not mean that now I do that when I see an ad. And even more so, I do not compare and contrast the ethos, pathos and logos of different ads. For those reasons, I still think that I am a passive audience to visual arguments; therefore, I have not noticed a change in the manner that I look at visual arguments. I have not changed because, for the most part, I ignore a lot of ads. Many ads do not catch my attention so it would not make sense for me to care about their ethos, pathos and logos anyways. When an ad actually catches my attention, it is because the picture (visual) is of something that stands out from all of the other ads. Or it catches me attention simply by being something I usually buy, for example clothes from particular stores I like. If the visual is of something I do not care about, like sports, then I am not going to read more into it or even actually read what may be written on it; that would be a waste of time to me. These things that I do when I view an ad are not going to change just because I viewed two ads differently.