visual arguments

1. first this article is too long
2. second read the first

from my understanding towards the beginning the inference is made that for the past 30 years or so, the use of images has been more present in the situations of making an argument, or getting across one's point. Often a picture can express ones feelings more than a slew of words, hence the phrase, a picture is worth a thousand words, one thousand words...you get my point.
the article shows arguments explaining the reasons for which one would go about replacing text with scenery. When going about making an argument in a visual or text way, the visual object, being the picture, must convey the text it is trying to enforce or interoperate. without this, all arguments would be considered invalid if taking the side of whether or not a picture can get a point across just as text would.

When going about using visual objects or examples, the article gives some pointers or examples about the different color schemes and their mood tones which are represented by the reader, blue for coolness, red for warmth, black for dark. the question is raised, is it possible to understand arguments in a picture, or between 2 people? the question is answered with the examples of ones facial expressions or hand gestures. The question is also made if adds in magazines with text are more assertive or powerful over plain visual non text adds?
some may speculate that an ad with text is more inviting or persuasive than one without but would one with text sort of defeat the purpose of a visual only argument?

the closing arguments are that visual depictions are not as strong as textual, why this had to be proven over 18 pages?, i don't know? my argument in text to the length of this piece is step number one listed earlier. as for a visual i don't have a paper shredder on me, but if i did theres a chance it would be a picture of this article going through it.