Week 13: The Available Means of Persuasion

In Sheridan’s, Ridolfo’s, and Michel’s work The Available Means of Persuasion, each scholar is arguing for an advancement and rhetorical movement of kairos in scholarly fields and writing composition classes. In their work they articulate the many spheres that kairos manipulates itself - and how it is embedded rhetorically in multimodal platforms. They state that their book is about how “kairotic inventiveness changes in the context of multimodality” (10). They utilize the definition of kairos as praxis - specifically when theory is immersed as action in a particular situation. They begin their argument by addressing that their viewpoint is successful from the position of networks in the realm of  production - reproduction - and distribution - which includes “human and non-human actors” (11). Chapter One engages this argument by discussing the importance of kairos in the public sphere and how it is incorporated by deciding what “rhetorical action is appropriate” and being aware of the rhetorical options in the given moment (21).

Chapter Two discusses the avenues of multimodal rhetoric and how it embedded itself in the argument of kairos. Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel affirm that a digital divide exists in new media and the consumption of information that is “one way” - while some platforms that favor old meda can still have purpose and rhetorical agency. This argument crafts the position that cultural interest changes technology to be more accessible...giving up assets that were unique to the old media platform. This public interest that arises shapes the kairos of the developer to engage a large amount of the public, but also loses the serious user of the original product - which sacrifices specialty in favor of massive interests from the public at large.

Chapter Three engages in the subject of public rhetoric, kairotic expansion, and concerns about kairotic moments. The discussion of circulation, production, and “selling” of the multimodel product is evident in Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel’s argument in the sense that they are trying to discuss the kairotic factors related to production and reproduction. Much of the examples used in Chapter Three (Ridolfo’s documentary film, screenwriter Terence Winter) expose the knowledge of one’s audience, expectation, and insight into the medium itself to be embraced by the public (55). The expansion of kairos produces the awareness of the “aristotelian triangle” - which then becomes larger (9 points of articulation) in account of Burke’s ratio, which is very similar in nature to his Scene-Act-Agency- Ratios. The essence of Chapter Three is steeped in how there is a kairotic struggle in “choosing among available possibilities” - as well as awareness of the web of factors that craft kairos - audience, purpose, exigency, mode, genre, media…

In Chapter Four I found an insightful and revealing argument in how a rhetorical argument is shaped and modified through rhetorical velocity. This definition is utilized as the way “rhetors strategize about the potential recomposition and redistribution of a text” (79). Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel look at how rhetorical velocity recomposses a textual object while also looking at the format that it was remixed in and how it altered the message. They spend some considerable time looking at Negative Appropriation with photographer David Hume Kennerly and his family photo session with Dick Cheney. This discussion reveals that the creator of the product does not have rhetorical control over how the construct is remixed, sampled, or interpreted. This discussion was very interesting involving its assessment into the kairotic moment - which could be beneficial or offer a hinderance politically.

Chapter Five discusses how kairos can function in the writing classroom and how it can engage and expand current traditional writing practices that engage students. Delivery of writing products can engage and expand from just the traditional walls of the classroom and expand in a way that can be linked to “public-sphere participation...ethical and political...circulate ideas, information, opinions…[to] deliberate on the issues of the day” (109). The chart that compares classroom and public texts on page 111 exposes the purpose of writing assignments and how they match up in the traditional manner for a teacher-based audience who reads student writing versus a pubic-based audience that is familiar with the content of the work.

Chapters 6,7, and 8 are interesting in that they reference the pedagogy of multimodality and look at public rhetorical moves that are interesting for the composition classroom. While these were insightful chapters, I did not find them completely relevant to the overall argument being made by the scholars.

In Chapter 9, (like in Chapter 4) - Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel argue for an activist mode of rhetorical analysis that gets students involved - meaning that it is not good enough to be aware, but that they must be willing to get engaged with the public and work out the knowledge that has been attained.

Question: What are the ethical/moral implications in teaching the political avenues of kairos and its influence from the point of view of a rhetor to a student body? Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel assert that a rhetor should “make time” if there is not an opportune moment to persuade - but what message might that be sending? How can the avenues and methods of rhetorical velocity with a political slant be taught for ethical means?

In reading about the public spheres of kairos - I am intrigued by how this research can be implemented into the core curriculum at a high school. While not just appropriate for an English class, this seems important for a Humanities based class - maybe even History, Art, or Science in the sense that it is asking for awareness as well as action that evokes an audience.

Blog Post 10 / For Week 11

While reading Safiya Umoja Noble’s book Algorithms Of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, I took note specifically of her thesis and desired outcome through her writing. She articulates that “algorithmically driven data failures that are specific to people of color and women...are fundamental to what [she has] coined algorithmic oppression” (4). She then discusses as one aspect of her thesis for the book being to investigate the corporate structures and “willful neglect...profit...that makes money from racism and sexism” (5). While Noble dives deeper into the racist structures of Google search engine and coding structures, she utilizes the text as a platform to discuss and peel away the layers that make up the hegemonic structures of online content and culture.

In Chapter One, A Society, Searching - Noble reveals that the public masses that use the internet need “algorithmic literacy” - they must be able to critique computer coding programs and have a tool box for understanding how they work. She also argues for users to be critical of results that pop up on search engines since misrepresentation is bound to happen online. In Chapter One Noble touches upon topics of A.I and the lack of human agency, sexualized key words (which is expanded upon later in the book), and problematic search results that aid a racist anti-black agenda. She also moves into aspects of the monopoly of Google and advertisements that dominate search engines.

In Chapter Two, Searching For Black Girls, Noble begins to dissect the question as to who is responsible for the hateful and racist search results in Google. She articulates the question, “If Google software engineers are not responsible for the design of their algorithms, then who is?” (66). Her notion that a search of “black girls” brings up searches for “sex” and “porn” drives her study to reveal that people of color are underemployed at the tech giants: “Not only are African Americans underemployed at Google, Facebook, Snapchat...but jobs that could employ the expertise of people who understand the ramifications of racist and sexist stereotyping and misrepresentation...are nonexistent” (70). Noble looks into the stereotyping of women in online search engines and reveals the bias and racist notions that fuel online search content. She displays the male gaze of online content with the “understanding” that the top search results are of public opinion.

In Chapter Three, Searching for People and Communities, Noble looks to the 2015 attack of Dylann Roof on unsuspecting African American Christian Worshipers at a Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. She uses this attack to reveal the bias that Roof discovered online about “black on white crime” and how biased the news was that he discovered. Noble reveals that more accessibility to accurate news should have depicted that “white on white crime as well as black on black crime” was more prevalent then what he found.

Chapter Four, Searching for Protections From Search Engines, Noble reveals the immortality of content and searches on the internet. She makes the notion that revenge porn as well as blackmail content destructively prohibits women from furthering their careers if private content is released online. Noble asks the question “What does it mean that one’s past is always determining one’s future because the internet never forgets?” She reveals that the public is more concerned with taking down information than celebrity or public figures.  A startling statistic that she produces mentions that “less than 5%...of 220,000 requests made to Google to remove links to online information concern....high profile public figures...95% of requests come from everyday members of public” (130). She incorporates this argument into digitization and contextualization awareness to promote a future of privacy and equality.

Chapters Five and Six, The Future of Knowledge in the Public, and The Future of Information Culture -  Noble looks at “problems in classifying people” through an occurrence at Dartmouth/ She maintains that the public needs “search engine alternatives, united with public-interest journalism...to ensure the public has access to the highest quality of information…” (152). In Chapter Six, public policy is utilized to showcase how algorithms may change in the future, especially as demographic of the Silicon Valley do not change in any type of diverse ways.

The two chapters that I find most poignant are Chapters 1 and 2 -Noble creates the crux of her argument in the stance that if Google can do nothing to fix the racist culture in it’s search engines (42), then who will? Who will redirect the searches to portray socially conscious results that are not click bait?  She also asks the question “cui bono” - meaning “who benefits”? If the internet is a tool for advancement and technology, who holds the power to shape it?

My Question: (From Chapters 1 and 2)

What does society do when the hegemonic “powers that be” are the code writers of our algorithms? How do we combat a  digital racist agenda that promotes bigotry and hate speech?

While students are the digital natives using technology and creating content as they see fit, they are also the ones who are going to be passing down their “expertise” to the next generation of coders. As Noble describes, search engines are the equivalent to the wild wild west - no barriers or structures exist. Since Google has constructed itself as a monopoly, we must entrust coders who are able to fight against the destructive culture that shapes online communities.

Reflective Post # 2

 




After viewing the syllabus and looking closer at my blog posts/notes, it seems that the second half of this semester has definitely been more integrated to the workings and functions of what digital rhetoric “is made of” - and what I mean by that is what digital constructs do in the realm of rhetoric.

After Serafini’s Reading the Visual, the aspect of interfaces, digital manipulation, and technology crafted in a medium to be altered really began to fascinate me (I’ll speak to this more for my final project). What does boggle my mind is rhetorical moves and notions in networks and software. While I understand the concepts, the idea of rhetoric in code and the shifting of dynamic online content (Remixing digital cultures) is somewhat vast for me to fully grapple with. For example, the readings for weeks 8 and 9 are large and abstract in nature (Chun, Haas, Wood & Smith), which reminds me why I did not go into engineering.



But what I am curious about is the aspect of altering digital content that has systematically been created for purposes of manipulation.  I am intrigued by Ridolfo and Devoss concept of rhetorical velocity and how it dispatches new media content from constructs that already exist. With this in mind, I have to reference the impact of analogue technologies on digital components and how those have shaped our understanding of online interfaces. My ability to interact with the physical interfaces that exist in society has positioned me to comprehend the digital spheres that I experience online - and each construct/interface builds upon the one that came before it.




With this in mind, for my final project I want to look at rhetorical velocity in online culture, either in images or music - and discuss the aspect of future 3rd parties that participate in reconstruction/re-comprehension (remix culture) through digital means. As a fan of music on vinyl records, a part of me wants to unearth and dig deep into influential jazz musicians who unknowingly birthed soundscapes - that today have become the foundation for rap and hip hop. These soundtracks that were originally recorded on acetate have become digital mp3 files that now influence the club scene, are remixed into dj culture, and are “chopped” up for new uses and interpretation for the next generation of musicians. While this is just the brainstorm of my initial ideas for my project, I looked into some alterations that have digital roots for inspiration. Below I have two links. One is of the original dial up sound from the AOL system. The next link is that same sound, but placed at a reduced speed, giving it a chilling effect for a haunted house. It is with this concept of manipulation that I want to place my project around.

DIAL UP INTERNET: Audio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSRG0TqxLWc


DIAL UP INTERNET Reduced Speed Audio:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2v32xCD0Y

Blog Post 9 For Week 10

I read this weeks articles a bit out of order, but focused on Danielle Nicole Devoss’ work first. I looked at English Studies and Intellectual Property: Copyright, Creativity, and the Commons first which utilized the idea that intellectual property poses on copyright laws in the US. Devoss articulates her thesis as analyzing  “[...] copyright issues in a world where most writing happens digitally, and more and more writing requires composers to draw on multiple media[...]” (204). She discusses the ethical dilemma of teaching students how to they situate themselves in the “copyright system” where authorship, fair use, and remixing as well as piracy exist on mutliple levels. Her questions that she poses mainly confront digital authorship and its involvement after being accessed through the classroom.

It seemed like the next logical  article was the digital script Devoss did with Ridolfo - Composing For Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity And Delivery. This is an interesting concept in the light that “rhetorical velocity” is particular to creating media (text, webtext, sound, image, word, ect) that “anticipate[s] and strategizes[s] future third-party remixing…” - this notion immediately brings to my mind the concept of the analog vinyl record. While in the late 1960’s the funk and soul records were scratched and used as  break-beats for hip hop in the Bronx of New York, it became a second as well as third party tool for “remixing” and sampling  - essentially becoming the foundation for what rap music is today. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, record companies intentionally released “scratch” records that were made so that they could be remixed (re-appropriated) on purpose - giving the dj intent to remix the sound clips. The definitions that fit into Devoss’ and Ridolfo’s framework seem to occupy this idea as well. 

I then read Devoss’ article with Porter: Why Napster Matters to Writing: File Sharing as a New Ethic of Digital Delivery. They both argue for writing teachers to look at the “Napster moment” as an economic as well as  a rhetorical example for digital publishing. They also urge for teachers to think about digital composition pedagogies that align with digital file sharing practices (delivery) that reveal a new ethic/discussion on plagarism. Porter and Devoss’ example of the copyright war exposed the two different ideologies that separated the the big business from the user/creator. The “contrasting political philosophies” reveal that future teachers must teach a “positive ethic of sharing” (202) - and that this must be implemented into users who share content online. Fines and monetary consequences will not educate the masses, but the rhetorical ques of audience and purpose will.

In Devoss’ article with Jim Ridolfo, Remixing and Reconsidering Rhetorical Velocity, both scholars look at remixing from where they left off in 2009. They look at it through four perspectives: “technological, cultural, legal, and research in scholarship” (61). They look to the future of remixing - specifically as an “act, an object, a methodology, a disruptor, and a vehicle…” by updating where remixing has moved from and to since 2004. Their example of “fake news,” making the cycle of rhetorical velocity tricky is interesting - but they expose the process as to how a meme is proliferated is equal to what rhetorical velocity is trying to accomplish. By looking at timestamps as to how it is constructed, shared, re-tweeted, and posted is a strong example of how images produce involvement from 3rd parties, many times intentionally/deliberately.

In Jenny Edbauer’s Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies, she argues for “public rhetorics/a rhetoric’s publicness” to shift the lines of focus the rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies - which ultimately creates rhetoric as a public creation. She begins to breakdown the notion of place: “The contact between two people on a busy street is never simply a matter of those two bodies...the two bodies carry[...] culture[...] social histories” (10). She articulates the rhetorical situation in Austin as a changing character that is moving over to corporate control and climate, while also trying to hold onto its “weirdness.” By looking at all of the “weird” rhetoric that was shaping the community, the rhetorical ecologies expands with every new sign, slogan, or phrase (19) that is added to the phrase. She emphasizes the power of public rhetoric though that which involves engagement and interaction with a local society - which maximizes inclusion and discussion. 

Dustin Edwards’ article, On Circulatory Encounters: The Case for Tactical Rhetorics,  argues for political and dynamic flows of circulation that navigate public discourse and culture. In looking at how circulation studies contains “metis” - or cunning/wily modes through art, that give purpose and allow for discussions on ethics.

Mathieu and George construct Not Going It Alone: Public Writing, Independent Media, and the Circulation of Homeless Advocacy. They ask the forward thinking question: how do we teach, promote, and educate students on creating/circulating meaningful acts of public rhetoric? The examples of the filmed movie Bumfights and coerced manipulation is an engaging framework to view this through, as well as the writing projects in the classroom that engage in discussion about the homeless in the the community. 

My Question:

While I was reading the three articles constructed by Devoss, Ridolfo, and Porter, I began to think about what an ethical lesson for students on constructing their own media content (via-remixing/sampling/interacting as a 3rd party) in the realm of copyright laws might look like. Porter and Devoss do a stellar job opening up the dialogue in our “post-napster” era, but with rhetorical velocity, what message is being sent to students when they convert the meaning of “file sharing” to being interpreted as “ownership” - and is that ok? What do teachers consider when digital plagiarism occurs and the root of finding the source material becomes muddy?

Constructing My Simple Website

Constructing my website was frustrating to say the least. It had its challenges and drawbacks, but I think it works for a simple purpose. After class last week I used the links and used some Google searches and w3schools on how to connect the files and link back and forth between index->page2 and from page2-> index. I also used that to create the css file. I really didn’t understand what that file was doing until I saw that it was specifying the style of page background, the header, and the paragraph to connect both pages together (to look the same). I understood the first page (index) working as a MAIN source for where I wanted my image and link. Getting the link to connect to the second text editor file was confusing, and linking the outside IMDB pages was difficult on the first attempt, but once I figured in class that my original script for the outer link worked, I copied that for the IMDB links on my page2. So I went back to this each time: Click <a href="page2.html"> HERE </a> for my Top 5 Scary Movies! This script allowed me to think about the format for the links that I wanted to connect with each of the pages, but it took a little trial and error before I realized that I’m just changing what is in between the quotation marks to make my link for this work. Then each item ended up connecting. <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"> Halloween </a> <br> As for the images, the spider web image I found in class I wanted to use, but I could not find where that first image came from, or if it had a copyright on it. I had to locate another image that was available for common use. I did the same with the picture from the cabin in the woods. Overall I’m satisfied with my experience, and have a large amount of respect for html and coding. I don’t think I will be making another website though!

Blog 6 for Week 7

I’m going to go in a somewhat random order here as I read each article differently from how I printed them out (which was in the order they were posted in the syllabus).

I first dove into Gallagher’s The Rhetorical Template which focuses on Web 2.0 and its uses in creating the rhetorical situation through “content” and “form” online. Gallagher positions his article to ask the following questions: “Does the rhetorical situation derive from the situation itself or the rhetor?” He also follows up this question with the perspective of the writer/template creating the “rhetorical discourse” on the web. His look into templates, specifically Facebook’s focus on the profile picture with the use of the overall larger image creates a rhetorical scenario that he unpacks with genre theory and his focused questions he articulates to his students.

I then began to read Arola’s article, The Design of Web 2.0: The Rise of the Template, The Fall of Design (which I realize would have been supportive to read before Gallagher’s article). Arola is arguing for a new process in which Web 2.0 is engaged with by both teachers and students at a design level. She utilizes Myspace and Facebook as key examples of coding and seamless technology, like “the post” - web authorship, and active engagement use of the interface. She inserts her fear, similar to Gallagher, that the interface will become invisible and not questioned in social media circles.

To continue the concept of Interfaces, Selfe & Selfe Jr.’s article The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones establishes the argument that computer use without questioning ties into domination and colonialism - therefore teachers need to expose the relationships between education and technology. They tap into practices of class privilege as well as marginalized voices/demographics that use computers - but are left out of opportunities that uplift communities or create actual engaging/academic experiences that lead to change. They too ask for critical readings of Interfaces as borders - places that leave languages, voices, and experiences behind.

Drucker’s article, Reading Interface, explores Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) as interfaces on the web, but also establishes the metaphor of what is on the screen. She asserts that “As we make a text, we are produced by it as its subject” - concluding that the interface must be manipulated, but that it also alters our experience with the digital content it is interacting with.

Carnegie’s article, Interface as Exordium: The Rhetoric of Interactivity breaks down this concept into three arenas to explore: multi-directionality, manipulability, and presence. Multi-directionality establishes interactivity, very similar to Instant Messaging and social media communication or even Google chat in an email interface. Manipulability focuses on “gadgets” that emphasize manipulating content, forms, and design on a web page with access to deeper levels of online engineering. Presence is associated with the timing and moment of being “present” with another user, or lack of presence that exits with a system or user online.

Buck’s article on The Invisible Interface: MS Word in the Writing Center seemed a bit from the outside of this conversation as it was a case study of a writing tutor with two different students using a digital approach to working on a paper. The case study itself was interesting, as well as the transcribed discussion between tutor and student, but the overall findings did not reveal an emphasis on further implications. With Google docs and sharing docs with other users, this case study may be improved to look at how users can manipulate one doc with two computers.

Wysocki and Jasken write What Should Be an Unforgettable Face...to discuss the aspects of Interface and allowing more accessible interfaces for students and teachers alike.  The invisible interface is made visible - or at least discussed and broken down in this article to expose users, designers, and audience - all in discussion with form and content.

The three articles that I’m going to look at more closely together are Selfe/Selfe Jr., Carnegie, and Arola. These three articles did not apply perfect arguments towards each other, but they do cross-over in the rhetorical discussion about online activity and communities that use that space. While Carnegie breaks down the three primary modes of interactivity, it seems the most effective, or at least skill oriented is Manipulability. She argues that it is defined as “the degree to which users can influence or manipulate the form and content of new media communication…[it is limited to] intellectual engagement…” (168). The engineering aspect of interactivity is similar to what Selfe and Selfe Jr. argue for in the borders that are created through tech literacy. Skill sets are needed, therefore the educational background and teaching is needed to promote avenues for tech literacy.

My question is:

If computers are “learning environments” and areas of “Educational Space” - then the skill sets and process that are needed to manipulate Web 2.0 (design skill sets to manipulate interfaces) must be explicit in the academic setting. How can we create a “technological class” of students that understand code as well as reading interface as a visible medium to interact with?

SELF PORTRAIT

I was talking to my wife about this project. She is currently collaborating with the art teacher at her school on a Humanities Curriculum taking place at the Huntington Library. She discussed with me that they were instructing students to perform contour drawings on each other while writing narratives about the process. She asked if I would like one, while I drew hers. I’m not going to include my drawing of hers here (because it’s pretty horrible…) but this is what she came up with. I like that we both had to keep serious faces for such a silly product - but upon first look at what she drew, I somehow really identified with the white background and the dark lines all connected to showcase my visage. It’s eerily like my face and it’s also completely not.

I thought of cropping her contour line drawing side by side with my favorite comic hero - but I couldn’t get it to work in photoshop - pretty upsetting actually!

I used photoseed to play around with colors, images and frames, but it all seemed bland. I then tried the ‘double exposure’ feature and was really surprised by the results. It seems more fulfilling to me thinking about the misty image of Superman inside of the line contour. While Superman represents a lot of things to me that I won’t mention here - my main reasoning for including is my dad. I must have been in 2nd grade when my dad bought me “The Death of Superman” comic - I remember waking up sick in bed, and having to stay home from school having nothing to do. I woke up, and next to my bed - there was this comic. I’ve followed illustrators, writers, and comic editors since that point of origin in reading comic books. Jim Lee, the illustrator of Superman above, is hands down my favorite pencilier in the graphic novel medium. So while the self portrait might be just two images, the emotional/situational relations create more of an impact for me.

Blog Post: Week 5!

It seems that Douglas Eyman in Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice is arguing for the present and future molds of rhetoric in all its virtual concepts to be embraced and thought about creatively. He not only inserts a variety of definitions that exist in the digital sphere, but reveals how even coding can be rhetorical in nature. In Chapter 1: Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric, Eyman opens up with the 5 Canons of rhetoric, leading into purpose, text, HyperRhetoric, ethos and source material, as well as interactivity. I will focus more on Chapter one in my essential reading below.
Chapter 2: Digital Rhetoric - Theory updates the 5 Canons in a digitally rhetorical manner with classic definitions as well as digital practice (75). This is helpful and supportive in looking back at Chapter 1, especially in terms as to how media is referenced inside the Canon structure, which I felt was extremely helpful. Chapter 2 looks at Network Rhetorics as well as Network Methods to consider. I discovered the definition of the Rhetorical Situation to be illuminating - honing in on audience, exigence, and constraints that displayed the variety of established argument in digital spaces. The aspect of Digital Identity was interesting as well in a sense that it speaks to postmodern ideas about technology use and the body. Killingsworth establishes the cyberhuman aspect of this when he says, “Becoming users of the body rather than a body itself, we are prone to overuse or even abuse the body” (78). This initial concept is intriguing from a social network/interactive point of view that is outlined in the next chapter. The idea of communicating or interacting with individuals but also lineating interactivity with “bots” seems conflicting and challenging to navigate - as Killingsworth discusses.

Chapter 3: Digital Rhetoric - Method emphasizes Network analysis, Server/Log Analysis, as well as Social Network Analysis (SNA). The SNA seemed most important here, especially since the digital natives that are utilizing current app structures are modifying/changing how interactions are conducted in that specific space.

Chapter 4: Digital Rhetoric - Practice seems most beneficial here in its discussion of practice, publication, and rhetoric in action in the digital form. It seemed like this section of the text could have been expanded upon since it was applicable and informative in nature. The discussion of Arroyo’s syllabus and class, along with Hawk’s and the author’s classes gave an outline that seems to mirror our own in this course. The aspects of scholarship and digital examples provide a framework for the whole project, which is well received - but also seems like an expansion can be given.
Chapter 1 seemed most vital in terms of breaking down the definitions and concepts of digitalized rhetoric. The first component that seemed most helpful was Digital Multiliteracies - these are defined as “...multiple linguistic, audio, and symbolic visual graphics of hypertext...software driven-meanings” (48). This term encompasses an entire platform of “things” that are utilized in digital media, networks, and interactions on a daily basis - meaning that multiliteracy is necessary for analysis, critique, and fundamental usage for anyone interacting in a digital manner.

Chapter 1 also decodes the 5 Principles of New Media which is very interesting. While 2 different sets of definitions are provided, one focuses on function: Numerical Representation, Modularity, Automation, Variability, and Transcoding. The second list focuses on observable features: Integration, Interactivity, Hypermedia, Immersion, and Narrativity. This set seemed vital for expanding the horizons as to how New Media is being altered and embraced by user and designer.

Chapter 4 focused on the physical application of Digital Rhetoric, specifically in terms of digital rhetoric being used as a means of persuasion. Two items struck me as interesting and moved me to pursue for further analysis. Wright’s Propaganda Remix Project is very interesting and already has me thinking of lesson plans for further use. Sean Tevis’ comic strip for his Kansas State Representative Campaign also moved me to consider digital rhetoric in the scope of politics.

After reading Eyman’s text, I comprehended the rationale of the project and the intention to describe what Digital Rhetoric is. The conjunction of terms, theory, methodology, and practice seemed immersed in various avenue’s for producing meaning and aiding in discussion of applicable terms. My issue (as well as question) with the project was the brief intersection of practice in relation to theory and definition. While all parts of the text seemed to be in unison to answer the thesis, the practicality of applying digital rhetoric from a teacher’s perspective may need more scaffolding and specific structures for application.

LoLz CaT

Kostia Semytskyi

Reflection # 1

In week five here - I have come across a couple conclusions about what has been surprising, confusing, and insightful as well. I’ll speak to the interesting factors and the noteworthy ideas in a little bit.

I feel that the first week with Rodrigue et al. “Navigating the Soundscape, Composing With Audio” and the Sturken piece “The Wall, the Screen, and the Image: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial” captured my attention to the layers of rhetoric in a digital and physical sphere - these two articles I believe set up the context of the course to me, especially as it is described in the syllabus. The questions posed below reflect on the rhetorical auditory space in the Rodrigue article as well as the multimodel capacity of a memorial in Sturken:

How do rhetoric and literacy shift in a digital age? How are the digital and the multimodal intertwined? How are they different?

Each piece that we’ve glanced at so far has actually attempted to chip away at these questions - which gives me a lense and a framework to view this course more clearly with. For confusion, I do have a couple notes on that.

The Kress text, Literacy in the New Media Age -was challenging and asked quite a bit for the audience to chew on. Through that understanding of questioning ideas on what literacy means - visually and through print/the written word - allowed me to digest the theory being presented, but the text itself seems difficult to come back to as a reference point. While it does seem like an important component (since scholars continue to reference Kress), I am curious as to how an application of this text will inform our future readings.




While I am not a gamer or partaker in video games, I would like to think that I have a grasp on video game culture and insights. That being said, the Davis article - “‘Leeroy Jenkins!’ What Computer Gamers Can Teach Us about Visual Arguments” - gave me a curve ball to work with. I found it challenging in terminology and fragmented in articulation. This is also me admitting that I may have not been the particular audience that the text was being written for.

What I have found noteworthy is the variety of scholars and scholarship that access the rhetorical sphere. Just looking at what has been studied thus far in the course, there is a plethora of research and interpretation for digital rhetoric - which is exciting and also cumbersome. With the advancement of technology and access to it, one only has to look across the study hall floor at the library to see students immersed in either their phones or computers - participating in the visual culture of the internet.

I am reminded of Gillian’s article and one of my recent posts from my blog with this notion: “visual culture...the plethora of ways in which the visual is part of social life” (4). I think this definition captivates a majority of how the student body interacts with the rhetorical sphere on a daily basis - for us as students of rhetoric, it is for us to continue asking the questions the arise from the varied rhetorical situations posed from online habits/behaviors.

Some food for thought for the rest of the semester - these questions may be unanswerable or even inaccessible.

-When does digital rhetoric leave the sphere of the screen and transfer into the physical?

-What are the side/after effects of not taking “visual culture” in a serious manner?

-To what extent do signs and symbols (as Serafin, McCloud, and other illustrators utilize them) have power and influence over a culture?



These are not extensive, but I hope to do my final project in association with some of these ideas here.

Blog Week 3!

For this week’s readings, the majority of my comprehension and analytical notations focused on crossover and similarities in argument. I had to go back and re-read Kenney’s article in conjunction with Blair and Gillian, but for the most part - each scholar is in tune with one another in terms of visual literacy and the rhetorical flow of the image on an audience.


To start with, I read Birdsell and Groarke first in Toward a Theory of Visual Argument that plainly argues for “students [to have tools] for proficiency in assessing visual modes of reasoning and persuasion[.] [They need] a more adequate theory of argument which makes room for the visual” (309). Birdsell and Groarke plan out their article with clear examples as to what imagery can do in the argumentative/rhetorical fashion- but also depict examples where it is unclear or unfocused and can cause confusion to an audience.


McCloud’s The Vocabulary of Comics argues that one must read the visual closer than they might originally think. The rhetorical layers in an image, specifically that being ink on paper - reveals symbols and cultural meanings that are specified to be understood as “icons” that reveal a deeper understanding in a culture.


Gillian’s Researching Visual Materials Towards A Critical Visual Methodology speaks to the notion and terms of a visual culture: the effects of the simulacrum, multimodal literacies and the practices involved, and the layers of audience on a specific image or work that can be viewed in a serious manner.


Kenney continues this discussion in Building Visual Communication Theory by Borrowing From Rhetoric by arguing that traditional rhetoric can be used to interpret and analyze the more abstract visual elements in our society. The samples used in this article base its argument on common advertisements, billboards, and a set example {using the character of Dan] to portray community involvement and interaction as an audience. Kenney associates key rhetorical elements like depiction, genre, identification, symbolic perspective (ect.) to prove the effect of the visual on convincing arguments made to an involved audience.


Blair’s article The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments is arguing for the legitimacy of visual arguments - meaning, do they exist? The terms are made in the beginning to decide if they can be proven, what they look like if they are encountered upon, and how to associate oneself with them in the formats usually seen in society and in media.


Davis’ article, “Leeroy Jenkins!” What Computer Gamers Can Teach Us About Visual Arguments asserts itself to portray the game World of Warcraft and the video sample as a rhetorical key for writing teachers and students to decode visual culture and communities as examples that have rhetorical components with rich capitol for teaching. The examples in Davis’ argument present a digital example most likely suited for digital natives who are in the classroom.


Barthes extends this argument in the article Rhetoric of the Image where he asks the focus questions of meaning in images and the spectral analysis that confronts itself in the picture. On a basis of advertising and images that signify more in rhetorical appeals, Barthes utilizes classical rhetorical traditions to make meaning in his article.


To look at three articles a bit closer, I am choosing Blair, Gillian, and Kenney to conversate with one another.


In Blair’s text, the assessment of “propositional arguments” is brought up: “...their argumentative roles [and functions] are expressed visually, for example by paintings and drawings, photographs, sculpture, film or video images, cartoons, animations, or computer-designed visuals. Is it possible to express argumentation visually?” (348).


The answer to this question seems to be answered as yes, but it is not a hard or concrete “yes” - it seems to be a “yes, and…” to add a bit more depth to the paper. Gillian seems to confront a similar topic, but exposes the associated terms and vocabulary needed to confront the topic head on. The terms that most agree and become supportive here are “visual culture...the plethora of ways in which the visual is part of social life” (4) as well as the mimic appearance of the image acting as the “real” or as the “simulation” - hence the simulacrum (4).


It would seem that Gillian in some respects answers Blair in the conversation that if there are visually simulated “things” that create opinions and arguments, then Blair has the reaction necessary to close the questioning that begins the article - there is then an actual argument being constructed about “real-like” interpretations of material objects.


Kenney moves on with the discussion of magazine advertisement using a trope like a visual metaphor “...to increase the number of associations and to make [customer meaning-making] easier” (57) - which I find intriguing.  A couple other articles also speak to the visual metaphor that crosses across audiences to enhance meaning and interpretation.


Questions:


1)  Can the visual ever not be an argument? When is the visual image a static entity?

 2) Can an image be experienced in more than just a singular mode? What other modes         
            might the visual cross-over into?

Kress’ text, Literacy in the New Media Age is surprisingly compelling and absolutely thick with meaning and description on multi-model fluency in culture as well as language. If I have this in my mind correctly, it seems that he is arguing for participants in literacy to reconsider what they know is meaning, what they know is text, and how meaning making is construed from that text. In the ten chapters that Kress dives into, he divides his time between theory, modes of literacy, meaning in the world, and the changing nature of each of these issues.

Chapter One is specific to his overall approach to his argument: “[This book] is a book about literacy now, everywhere, in all its sites of appearances, in the old and the new media...literacy anywhere in this new media age” (8). Kress argues (and introduces) for a theoretical/conceptual framework that gives support tools for asking the right questions when multimodal literacy is involved.

Chapter Two is a theoretical approach with Kress asking “ what knowledge do we need to produce and what resources do we need to make available...so that issues [human literacy, human work, human stuff with human things] can be handled productively by all?” (14). Kress concerns this chapter on communication and growth - which builds a bridge from his Preface to the rest of his argument.

Chapter Three breaks down the meaning of our alphabet system and that “it truly matters what we decide to include as being part of language...what has been established for social reasons can be undone for social reasons” (31). His take on the abstract nature of meaning in the English language emphasizes his approach to encourage a thoughtful glance at meaning making.

Chapter Four focuses on communication, text, and comprehension. Kress asserts that “[In] writing and reading, meaning is the result of semiotic work” (39). He uses this to discuss audience, social context, and meaning making when presenting information to an outside audience. This supports his notion of literacy through means of abstract texts that are not usually noted as texts.

Chapter Five discusses the visual entity of literacy in that the screen contains its own grammar, principles, and aesthetic as to how it looks and is read (65). The image is a way to talk about what is “written” and how it is decoded for meaning making.

Chapter Six looks at genre and the inner workings of content inside literacy, specifically genre rules, functions in fluency inside the text, and meaningful context for meaning making (84).

Chapter Seven discusses grammar in the genre conventions (multimodal texts) and how this encourages a new look at literacy (117). I will admit that this chapter was building on top of the previous one, but the meaning was a bit tricky to decipher. From here, Kress’ argument begins to become slightly abstract in nature and focused on the movement in literacy and the mode it functions in.

Chapter Eight frames the mode of speech and writing with “three points” (like a triangle in-use): levels of the letter, the word, and the clause - as it changes in the image, the screen, and in the written text.

Chapter Nine asks the audience “to rethink notions of what reading is,” articulating that letters from a text do not only provide meaning, but all aspects of literacy, enhance and provide an accessible “reading” - like that from a video game on a screen or information about a video game in a text - which re-asserts what the screen is doing, but it is presented on the physical page. He brings up the notion that young learners are keen to habits, codes, and inference that many “readers” outside of the specific gaming culture may not be able to grasp onto.

Chapter Ten intrigued me the most in its comment on authorship and accessibility to the medium of an audience. I will explore this in my notes below:

Chapter Four highlights the mode of “communication happening as text” - which interprets the idea that a text is ‘social action’ and ‘representation’ since meaning is always taking place. This brought my reading up to speed in Chapter 10 when Kress argues that “[once] everyone [has] the status of author, authority disappears” - specifically with new media, technology, and literacy practices, communication is fundamental for survival of intelligence in the world.

My question is - Both of these notions (communication and authorship) seem to be considered, but did Kress miss the importance of speaking to the aspects of teaching authorship wirth new modes of communication? Chapter Ten is presented as a negative interpretation of communication and literacy, but in 2018 we are feeling the after effects of an authorship class that is begging for structure. While “gatekeeping” kept many voices from from the cultural mass, the emergence of social media is not going away.

Twitter may not be a friendly place, but the platform will most likely outlive many of its young users.

How do we become authors that are aware of new media literacy and communication practices?

What are those practices?

Blog Week 1

In the readings for this week there seemed to be some interesting overall layover in the articles as well as some lone wolf topics that touched on the hinges of rhetoric and digital concepts. I first did a close reading of Wysocki’s Chapter 5 article on The Multiple Media of Texts. It seems that the overall argument in this context was the large difference in analysis between literal text readings and screen readings and how they offer different analytical presentations when considering the format (specifically that of a webpage). Wysocki layers her response in terms of font, image, sound and interpretation, to give an enlightened experience when interacting with a web page. I then read Sturken’s article The Wall, the Screen, and the Image: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Sturken positions her argument in the concept of cultural memory and its dialogue in the “screens” of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and how it is represented and presented throughout the history of the war and its own history in Washington D.C. Faris’ article How To Be Gay with Locative Media: The Rhetorical Work of Grindr as a Platform builds on rhetorical spaces and identity through dating apps - specifically Grindr becoming more than just a dating app. On building itself as a “lifestyle platform” that engages on identity, the community at large is open to new experiences, identity creations, and physical spaces. In perusing Navigating the Soundscape, Composing with Audio the overall argument seems rooted in audio interpretations and recordings that present genres and systematic processes in sound creation for students. Hallenbeck’s article Objects, Material Commonplaces, and the Invention of the “New Woman” seems to be arguing for the rhetorical focus of objects and their impact on society, especially as it is associated with the body (human subjects) and how it has shifted. The impact of the bicycle (and tricycle) is Hallenbeck’s primary focus and how it shapes cultural identity and gender expectations in society. I then read through Hawhee’s Bodily Pedagogies: Rhetoric, Athletics, and the Sophists’ Three Rs. Her article is positioned on looking at the connection of rhetorical training in ancient Greece as well as athletic training in terms of rhythm, repetition, and response. Her focus is constituted on the rhetoric as a bodily art that encompasses the mind as well. It is with Hawhee’s article that I will look into a bit more closely first.

Hawhee intrigued my reading here in that it picked at some of the core concepts I have been thinking about in my own graduate training in this program. What first intrigued me was coming across the term melete - specifically being defined as “...the means of cultivating ethos [character]” (150). Hawhee asserts that melete is accessed through practice and training - as it is in the gym as well as in the school setting. She bridges this gap that the body and mind are in separate settings, but are used in similar manners to function at a high performance level. I was intrigued by the presence of kairos here. The concepts of rhythm, repetition, and response are accessed in a kairotic manner. Since the character is individualized, the essence of learning kairotic timing is not formal: “As Isocrates contends, no system of knowledge can teach kairotic response; rather such response emerges...different opponents, different subject matter, different times and places” (152). This emphasis on training and acknowledgment guided me through understanding how rhetoricians need experience, but that experience cannot be limited - it must be extensive and versatile. Similar in learning how to ride a bike…

Hallenbeck works to define the “new woman” of the late 1800’s in identifying through the advancement of the bicycle. She asserts that the antithesis, gradatio, and the antimetabole work to establish the difference between men and women in body structure: “...how the relations among objects/bodies are in part articulated through their relative qualities helps to track the evolution of arguments and social meanings available in a material-rhetorical world” (201). Hallenbeck uses the bicycle as a platform to discuss identity, society, place, and athleticism, similar to how Hawhee utilized the gymnasium to expose the rhetorical process in the young scholars under the tutelage of the sophists. As the bicycle and the gym are utilized as rhetorical reference points in both articles, Sturken obtains the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as the construct that gives an analytical perspective of history, art, and place. The scribed names in the wall serve as a memorial rather than as a monument - which creates a dissonance in itself in its place in Washington DC. The names themselves, “...act as surrogates for the bodies...yet the bodies of the living Vietnam veterans have not been erased of memory. Rather, they embody personal and cultural memory; their bodies are those of survivors” (132). I was struck by how the wall itself contains a piece of American history that is unable to be forgotten, and is contained in a memorial that represents that unforgettable nature. In an analytical sense, the object becomes timeless as  we move further and further from the event itself. Which poses two questions I have in mind:

Questions:

1.As time dates all material things, how do we relate to the objects that become obsolete/new and improved in our culture?

2. Does our identity become an extension of a device we use daily, or can we distinguish our identity without its seamless use? (the smartphone with images, video, and data that contains our life stories?)