RA - Future, by Tomer Hanuka

WATCO modern-day apathy in home and world affairs on the possibilities of the future?
Audience: The average citizen
Enthymeme:(a)Modern-day apathy in home and world affairs (b) degrades the possibilities of the future, because (a) modern-day apathy in home and world affairs (c) distances our culture from emotion and motivation for change.
Assumption: Anything that distances our culture from emotion or motivation for change degrades the possibilities of the future.

Ethos: He portrays the classic western family (mother, father, daughter) in normal-ish poses, even though his name doesn’t sound Western. The point of view is also third-person: no one in the painting is looking at you. It’s almost like looking through a glass wall and experiencing their life for what it is.
Pathos: So much of the painting is done in a deep orange color. I’m not sure what Hanuka meant it to represent, but I see it as Destruction. The tornado, storm, and volcano are all causes of destruction, the leaves in the background are being infected by it, the father is already full of the orange color throughout his skin, and the daughter is being infected by it. The color kills nature and kills all emotion in the people – why aren’t the father and daughter interacting in any way? Why is the father ‘reading’ an empty paper? The orange has destroyed all sense of emotion for the father, is destroying it for the girl (she's only somewhat interested in the leprous infection on her arm), but has not yet touched the mother - the only one in the painting interested in the turmoil and chaos outside her own bubble.
Logos: The painting is obviously a look into the future (the title is Future). The newspaper is empty. Not a word. They also all have oxygen tanks – they’re must not be any breathable air at this point in the future.

STAR
S: This painting isn't exactly sufficient, but for the medium I believe that there is a lot of information in it.
T: The reasons supporting the argument aren't exactly typical, nor do they explain how we reached this point. The painting is almost totally an appeal to pathos however, so the reasons don't have to be too typical (at least, I don't think they need to for a painting such as this).
A: I don't believe there is any kind of authentic sources to back up the artist's claims. But they are kind of catchy.
R: All the reasons pretty much are relevant to the argument. After all, the argument is the painting, and the reasons are all aspects of the painting.