McCloud and Arnheim

These articles both address pictures, symbols, and signs but in different manners. McCloud presents his argument in a completely visual way laying out his points through a comic strip narrated by an iconic cartoon. Arnheim follows a more traditional route in laying out his argument via discourse with a couple of illustrated figures. I found myself floundering about in confusion hoping for a visual example to aid my understanding while reading arnheim's article. McCloud's article, on the other hand, was just as in-depth but much easier to understand as there were plenty of visual examples to aid a reader. Is that a signal that we truly have shifted into a visual argument era where images hold higher value as they contain the argument of hundreds of words in a single image? The cliche statement "A picture is worth a thousand words" is so true with the proper interpretive context. Perhaps that is the new role of words, to provide context. Does that in turn lend room for a very slippery slope? I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Idiocracy when the main character goes to the hospital and the receptionist has a completely visual keyboard with pictures of the patient's injury. While visual images are helpful, they have a place and need boundaries...who knows? Our society could one day look like that within the movie completely dependent on visual stimulation to function. Scary thought!