Chapter 9

Two of the most interesting concepts to me in chapter 9 are pastiche and parody. According to Sturken and Cartwright, pastiche can be defined as:

"A style of plagiarizing, quoting, and borrowing from previous styles with no reference to history or a sense of rules. In architecture, a pastiche would be a mixing of classical motifs with modern elements in an aesthetic that does not reference the historical meanings of those styles" (452).

And parody is defined as:

"Cultural productions that make fun of more serious works through humor and satire while maintaining some of their elements such as plot or character" (452).

For pastiche, one of the main strategies, then, is questioning the validity of the original. The authors state though that sometimes pastiche can fall into the category of parody--they are not always completely separate.

One of the main examples in the book of parody is Simpsons episodes that play off of famous works (literature, movies, music, etc.). However, these parodies are lost on viewers if viewers are unfamiliar with the original works. Parody can only function if the viewers are engaged in both the original and the re-working of the original, and understand the difference between the two.

The authors state that in some ways, parody and pastiche are the opposite of reflexivity--reflexivity makes "viewers stand back in critical distance" while parody and pastiche "allow us to enjoy our involvement in both the old text and its parodic remake" (330).

Both reflexivity and parody/pastiche are postmodern strategies, but they are near opposites. It is interesting to me how versatile the ideology of postmodernism is--it is and can be so many things, but they can all be contradictory in and of themselves.

Artifact

In class this week, we discussed reflexivity. According to Sturken and Cartwright, reflexivity is when "...the text refers to its own means of production" and "undermines the illusion or fantasy aspects of the narrative, encouraging the viewer to be a critical thinker about the ideology conveyed by the narrative" (322).

The text also states that "Bertolt Brecht...proposed the concept of distanciation as a technique for getting viewers to extract themselves from the narrative in order to see the means through which the narrative of a cultural work (such as a play or movie) gets us to buy into a particular ideological viewpoint" (322).

These ideas reminded me of the movie portrayal of the play Death of a Salesman, by director Volker Schlondorff, that I watched in my Drama class a few semesters ago. This film is very Brechtian in that it is constantly reminding its viewers of the set and the staging by utilizing large camera pan-outs to reveal that rooms really aren't rooms, and the outdoors are really inside a studio. It is a very theatrical set-up that urges its viewers to take notice of the means of its production.

At the time, I knew this was a Brechtian strategy, based on what I learned in the course, but I knew nothing of reflexivity or the product of these strategies. I now know that this is a postmodern strategy, and I think its purpose (at least in the case of this film) is to create a product that, as the authors of the textbook say, is "tempered with humor" (322). The reflexive Brechtian strategy arguably does several things, but one of the most obvious is to slap viewers in the face, as if to say "why are you watching this?" for reflexivity makes it possible to realize that the play, movie, or photo being looked at is not authentic life, but merely a replication created with props and staging.

Though I feel this is true, I don't believe the case of Death of a Salesman should be taken nearly as lightly as the example of Cindy Sherman's photography in the textbook, which can be construed as lacking to offer viewers "any significant critical or political message beneath the reflexive joke" (322).

Artifact

Because my post this week involved framing, I wanted to look at the ways frames affect price in a less traditional sense than framed paintings. The above image is a photo of Fannie May candy in a special holiday box. As I've written about before, I work at Fannie May and am therefore very familiar with price and how prices change depending on something as simple as a box.

Candy is traditionally packed in simple white boxes at $22.99/lb. However, if a customer decides they want their candy "framed" by a decorative box such as the one in the photo above, the price of the box jumps from $22.99 to $24.99. Interestingly, we do not charge extra if we wrap boxes for customers, which frames the candy differently than a simple white box. There are probably reasons associated with payroll and labor hours for why decorative boxes are more expensive--but it is additional labor for associates to wrap boxes as well, and the price does not change. During holidays, it can be an additional cost for gift wrapping elsewhere.

Another example of a price increase due to how a product is framed is with our chocolate roses. A chocolate rose is regularly $4.49, but a chocolate rose that is wrapped in cellophane and tied with a bow is $4.99. Again, this takes little to no effort and minimal amounts of material, yet we charge extra because it is a more attractive way to "frame" the product. Again, if we did not offer roses wrapped in cellophane and tied with a ribbon and a customer happened to ask us to do that, we wouldn't even think twice about charging them, just like we don't charge extra to gift wrap for them. However, according to the corporate office, an attractive chocolate rose is worth 50 cents more than a plain one.

Again, as mentioned in the previous post, framing causes others (in this case, consumers) to interpellate and decode items differently. Something that is framed attractively is more costly than something that is not, and I've never had a customer question that fact--it is simply an accepted fact in our society.

Frames

Something that I have always taken for granted in design was framing. As the textbook states, framing is very ubiquitous. As Lupton and Phillips state on page 101:

"Frames are everywhere. A picture frame sets off a work of art from its surroundings, bringing attention to the work and lifting it apart from its setting. Shelves, pedestals, and vitrines provide stages for displaying objects. A saucer frames a tea cup, and a place mat outlines the pieces of a table setting."

These are such commonplace objects that I never even considered them to be frames. Something that we discussed in class that I found interesting was the expense of framing a painting or photograph. As we discussed in class, the intricacy and expense of a frame can speak volumes about what is being framed--it can even change the amount the framed material is worth. We discussed invaluable prints being professionally framed with hundred (even thousand) dollar frames, as well as original, expensive pieces of work being framed with cheap frames from the store. The way something is framed can change the way it is decoded entirely.

The chapter discusses interfaces as a kind of frame--buttons on a TV, toolbars on a software program, etc. The authors write on page 101:

"The buttons on a television set, the index of a book, or the toolbars of a software application exist outside the central purpose of the product, yet they are essential to our understanding of it. A hammer with no handle or a cell phone with no controls is useless."

I found this passage fascinating because I never would have considered an interface (like a hammer's handle) to be a type of frame--but now that it is brought to my attention, it makes sense completely. Even the ways an image is cropped can be considered a frame, even though there is an absence of traditional frame or border that acts as a frame, meaning that even the lack of a frame can be a frame.

Framing, in the traditional sense, not only ascribes importance to the material being framed, but it even denotes to others what that material is worth to the person that has (or does not have) the material framed. If you were a visitor in somebody's home who had several unframed paintings propped against the wall, you would either think they haven't had a chance to frame them yet, or that the paintings simply held no value to the person you were visiting. Framing denotes importance in many ways.

Layers, Transparency, and Hierarchy

One of the most powerful design principles that we have read about so far is layers. Photoshop uses layers, and they can be very effective design choices. It is easy to add or remove them, and the addition or removal of even a single layer can change a creative work immensely.

Something about layers that caught my attention in the reading was the following passage, found on page 142 of Graphic Design: The New Basics:


"In everyday life as well as in films and animations, multiple stories can unfold simultaneously. A person can talk on the phone while folding the laundry and hearing a song in the background. In films, characters often carry on a conversation while performing an action."

Layers, then, are a natural part of life, so no wonder they cross over into our creative measures. Transparency, another design principle, plays well with the principle of layering. With transparency, layers can overlap without full opacity, therefore adding hierarchical meaning to the images and text as well as creating a less "blocky" layer. By a "blocky" layer, I mean similar to a magazine collage, which has transparency that cannot be altered by means of computer software.

As the book states on page 147:

"Transparency and layers are related phenomena...a viewer thus perceives the transparency of one plane in relation to a second one. What is in front, and what is behind? What dominates, and what recedes?"

Again, this brings in another design principle--hierarchy. The pieces that are readily seen, larger, brighter, and more opaque generally catch the viewer's attention first, and are therefore interpellated as being more important in the image.

Artifact

In class, we chose postcards to analyze given the design principles we read for the week. My postcard was an advertisement/invitation to the Illinois Shakespeare Festival. The most noticeable part of the postcard was the woman in the center in full Shakespearean makeup. Even though she was the most evident item to a viewer of the postcard, she was not necessarily the most important, for the postcard used three of the design principles (layering, transparency, and hierarchy) which subtly stated otherwise. However, the transparency was not the most effective (nor the most obvious) design principle in use.

Besides the background (the first layer), and the model (the second layer), there was at least one more layer present. This layer featured gold text (the textual invitation) and a gold and blue layer of design in the bottom left corner. This graphic, in my opinion, was merely present to add flair and creativity to the design. The graphic featured curled lines, reminiscent of the model’s curly hair. This design covered the lower left side of the model pictured—the gold was opaque and the blue was transparent over the model’s skin. I did not see a reason for this transparency besides making the design interesting.

The layer of text also covered the model, but not much of her. Mostly, the text covered her hair, showing that this was the most forefront layer. The text was opaque, not transparent. Though the model was the focal point for the viewer, the text was the most hierarchical item of importance. Without the text, the viewer would not know what the purpose of the postcard was—it would merely be a pretty picture of a pretty model.

Also included in this layer was a small Shakespeare Festival logo in the bottom right corner. Again, this was an opaque layer that semi-covered the model, also showing its hierarchy of importance. Again, without this logo, the postcard would have no meaning—it would be an invitation, but for what? Though it is more important than the model pictured, it is much smaller than the text in the upper left corner—therefore in the design hierarchy, it is more important than the model, but less important than the actual textual invite.

This image is a similar postcard design but does not include the text or Illinois Shakespeare Festival logo. However, you can see the opaque gold graphic against the blue transparent graphic.

Artifact

While I was watching the Bears game today, a certain commercial caught my attention. It can be viewed at the following youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62PTmoFjEmQ

This commercial fits in with what we were talking about in class a couple of weeks ago--the use of sex appeal to acquire the gaze of the opposite sex, as well as the use of sex appeal for same-sex empowerment. It is obvious that, even though this is a woman's product, the marketing in this advertisement is geared toward men. Though women do watch sports on TV, it is a general assumption that the majority of the viewers are male, therefore the timing the commercial was shown at and the station it was shown on is integral to the analysis of the ad. Though everybody knows that "sex sells," and nothing really shocks me anymore, I was shocked for a brief second. Because of this ad, I don't think I would ever buy Reebok shoes. It is evident by the commercial that Reebok's interest lies in reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than producing high-quality, comfortable, versatile running shoes for women.

This advertisement sparked a rhetorical discussion with my boyfriend. I argued that this commercial might persuade husbands and boyfriends to purchase these shoes as a gift to their wives and girlfriends because the commercial may lead them to believe, "if she wears those shoes, she will look like that woman." This is obviously untrue, but the fact that the holidays are coming up is another reason why this advertisement is kairotic. As a woman, I do not feel empowered by this commercial, but rather, I feel isolated. If the commercial had mentioned other aspects about these shoes other than the ways in which they (might) tone my muscles, I would think of Reebok as a much more credible company. Instead, I am annoyed by the ad. Since when are running shoes about toning muscles? It is not the shoes that does that work, but the exercise itself.

Also interesting to look at are the comments on the youtube video--there seems to be a lot of hatred toward what some of the users dub "feminists". Several users say that the marketers are smart to use the method that helps sell their products. It may be a smart marketing strategy because it has been proven to work--but is it ethical? Just because someone rhetorically analyzes the advertisement and explores both sides doesn't necessarily make him or her a "feminist." (On the same token, the title "feminist" doesn't have to be negative.)

Design

Two of the readings on design really stood out to me, but for very different reasons. The first is Michael Rock's "Can Design be Socially Responsible?" He writes, "Perhaps the most significant environmental impact designers could instigate would be convincing their clients not to produce half the useless printed materials they are being commissioned to create" (192). In my publishing class (English 254) we have briefly touched on "green" publishing, and it occurred to me how much paper is printed, thrown away, and forgotten about. Think about the pages upon pages of proofs used in proofreading. During my internship, all three of the interns and our two supervisors each printed our own version of the proof we worked on. That's an entire magazine printed five times--and that was just one run-through of many! But this doesn't seem to be the burden of the designer, in my opinion--it is the burden of those that access the documents. If the magazine I interned for can be considered the designer, than yes, they were socially responsible for that waste--but what about the hundreds of other people that will read the magazine and make photo copies? It is the social responsibility of all people (both makers and users) of a document, in my opinion.

I also enjoyed reading Schriver's "What is Document Design?" While reading this essay, I was reminded how much I despise trying to navigate owner's manuals and instructions. Though these are not the only kinds of documents that he was discussing, I believe they are the kinds that provide the most strife to users. Whenever I have tried to assemble something on my own, I have never found the instruction manual helpful. The text may be concise but it is often meaningless without photos--and the photos are often black and white illustrated diagrams where actual photos of each step would be helpful. Going back to social responsibility, black and white diagrams are more cost efficient and require less energy and less harmful non-green supplies (like colored inks)--but if a user cannot navigate the meaning of such illustrations, does a good mark on the social responsibility factor really eclipse bad design?

It has certainly been the case for me that a combination of words and graphics is the most useful in an instruction-based document, but again, despite having both components, many documents such as these are simply useless to a vast majority of people. As a rule, I avoid any do-it-yourself type projects where assembly is required because I hate wrestling with documents that have been poorly designed. I never realized it was necessarily the design at fault, but I now see that issues like these can be largely blamed on design.

Representation Videos

**I got my supplemental readings mixed up and somehow failed to write a blog about the supplemental videos about representation the week we were supposed to, so I am doing so now.**

In Stuart Hall's video "Representation & the Media," he discusses the origin of the verb To Represent. He suggests that the very nature of the word implies that something is being re-presented, as if something already existed before and is now being restyled in some way. Though this is a very interesting way to look at it, it is the very definition he is trying to subvert. The definition he continues with is that representation means that something "stands in" for something else--which is the way I have always looked at representation. To me, representation has always been about symbolism. A painting can represent something; Picasso's blue paintings can represent sadness; the color stands in for the emotion rather than scrawling "this is what sadness looks like" on the canvas.

Hall later clarifies that representation is, "the way in which meaning is given to the things depicted." He also states that the gap of representation is the difference between the "true meaning" of something and the "media representation" of that thing. I found this video very helpful in understanding encoding and decoding especially. It is helpful to deconstruct a word like "representation" and discover what it truly means. In a way, this video is a representation of the word representation--Hall takes the common sense definition of the word and finds that other meanings can be represented within it. I wonder if he was aware of this work that he was doing, and I am surprised he didn't mention it.

Artifact

I am doing my module 4 project on the Biore advertisements for a product line called "Skin Preservation." The tagline for these ads is: "Too old for acne? Too young for wrinkles? Your skin has been ignored--until now." These ads not only reinforce gender stereotypes that women should be flawless and should appear a certain way, but they also manipulate consumers into believing there is something wrong with them when essentially, there is not. Biore is creating a condition about the absense of a condition.

Despite this, the ads are successful because they not only manipulate consumers into believing that there is something wrong with them, but they also gain the credibility of consumers by offering scientic facts and by utilizing pathos in creating a community for "sufferers" of this skin malady to band together. If the ad campaign made women feel directly bad about themselves by telling them there was something wrong with the way they looked, they would not flock to this brand--but instead, the message that these consumers are imperfect is so discreet and so well masked with a we-mean-well attitude that consumers are actually drawn to the products rather than repelled by them. It is this manipulation that successfully gains and keeps the business of these women who really have nothing wrong with them.

One of the main features of the web site is a community that can be joined to discuss having "In Between" skin (the made-up skin condition of women who have nothing wrong with their skin). This gives women a place to discuss their skin problems as well as discuss other parts of their lives--i.e. jobs, relationships, friendships, etc. By offering a safe haven to consumers, consumers are drawn to this product because they feel as though Biore really cares about their concerns, even outside of their skin concerns. This is part of Biore's branding--compassion.

By interpellating women to believe that they are flawed, but by offering enough hope and compassion so as not to completely off-put potential consumers, the Biore brand is stronger than ever. This skincare line has been going strong for several months and has not yet faltered or been discontinued. It is amazing to me that a brand can successfully market a product designed for a condition that does not exist. This just goes to show the power of successful marketing.

Artifact

My artifact this week is actually an event that occurred today rather than a visual I saw. As I mentioned in my previous post, marketing that is directed at children can be construed as being unethical. However, since it is such a strong marketing ploy, companies continue to market their products toward children. One reason for this is that it helps the company build a loyal consumer base from an early age. A second reason for this is that children have surprising pull when it comes to the products their parents purchase--many times, as I have seen as an employee of Fannie May, gifts and toys are bought for children just to quiet them when they are being unruly. This, too, is problematic, but that is besides the point.

At a work meeting today, my manager told us that we would be giving out free pieces of candy for Trick-or-Treaters on Halloween night. She actually said to us, "Hopefully this will really get us some more business, because kids will tell their moms, 'oooh, that was yummy, let's go there again!'" She didn't even realize the implications of what she had said, because it is so widely accepted in our culture to market to children.

On a similar note, it is somewhat shocking the amount of parents that come into the store with very young children who point to what candy they want, knowing exactly what it is they like and want, and having no problem whatsoever receiving it. I also have a regular customer who comes in any time she's at the mall to buy a milk chocolate lollipop, and every time I see her, she tells me the story of how her mother always would buy her one when they were at the mall when she was a kid, so now she has to come in any time she sees the store because it's "just like old times." Again, this is a case of a lasting and loyal consumer relationship with the brand.

I still believe that marketing to children is unethical, but I can understand how it works and why companies continue to do it. Marketing isn't all done by the companies themselves--sometimes, children market to other children. This fits in with marketing of "belonging." For example, when I was young, all my friends had barbie dolls. I didn't really like playing with dolls, but I asked for them as a Christmas gift because that was a socially acceptable toy to play with. If I owned and played with them, I "belonged" to the group of socially normal young girls. From a young age, we are spoon fed expectations and norms, and it is my opinion that we reinforce them until we are old enough to know better--and even still, some of us continue to reinforce those norms because we are comfortable fitting in and belonging.

Pharmaceuticals, School Advertising

One of the most interesting parts of our supplemental reading for this week was the video entitled, "Big Bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease & Pushing Drugs." It is a topic that most everyone is familiar with, because as the video points out, as consumers we are bombarded with drug ads all day long. It seems that a commercial break doesn't pass without at least one drug commercial that states, "To find out if ___ is right for you, talk to your doctor." I now wonder how many patients schedule appointments and ask if such-and-such medication is something they should take.

Especially deceptive is the commercial that the video featured for Adult ADD. The commercial tries to simulate the brain and thoughts of a patient that suffers from ADD, but the ways in which ADD is represented, it seems as if any busy human being could suffer from the disease. All that is truly represented by the commercial is that being busy and being stressed can equal disease--which is not the case. How many over-worked, over-stressed adults are convinced that they have adult ADD just based on that commercial? Should we really be running to our doctors to stock up on pills we don't need?

I have always been skeptical of medications, but now I am even more so. Typically, the possible side effects sound worse than the effects of the disease itself.

Another interesting point brought up in "Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom" is how invasive, perverse, and unethical it is to market toward children. I didn't realize how bad it was until I watched the video and saw the montage of brands and logos in the school hallways of the school featured in the video. It reminded me instantly of middle school because we were required to use book covers on our textbooks, and the covers given to us were sponsored by Got Milk? An especially disturbing ad showed a teenage girl with a tagline to the effect of, "If so-and-so keeps drinking her milk, it won't be just her milk mustache the boys will be staring at."

In a 6th grade classroom, that is obscene. If Got Milk? was sponsoring or providing any kind of funding for any program, at least their contributions should have been age-appropriate. Marketing in the classroom is clearly a problem. A school should be a safe place for kids and not a place where their wants and needs are exploited and taken advantage of.

Representation

Because we are discussing representation, and because one of the examples in Chapter 7 was an iPod ad, I decided to dig up other similar iPod ads. The one I found was this:

"iPod: If you don't have one, you're a loser."

I don't think this is a true Apple ad, but rather a play on the message Apple ads convey. However, I am going to analyze it as if it were a true Apple advertisement.

This ad ties in with the discourse about "coolness" in ads on page 293. This ad is very blatant: if you don't have an iPod, you're not cool. Because the iPod (the only non-silhouetted object that the silhouette dons) is worn and used by a very particular person, this statement states more than iPod = coolness. It is also stating that:

Men are cool
Musicians are cool
People that listen to music are cool
People that play guitar are cool
People that play acoustic guitar are cool

These statements make other statements, like:

It's possible that women aren't cool
People that don't listen to music are uncool
People that aren't musicians are uncool
People that favor an instrument over acoustic guitar are uncool


The ad aims to target a specific type of audience: men that like music and play musical instruments. If there is a member of this group that doesn't own an iPod, Apple hopes to persuade him that he should--otherwise, he is a "loser." Normally, I would say that targeting such a narrow audience is a bad idea--but because Apple released a series of ads to appeal to several gender and cultural groups, this ad was probably very successful. Nobody wants to be seen as uncool, so why risk it?--go buy an iPod!

PL 7

One passage in chapter 7 that really rang true to me was:

"Lawyers refer to the way that trademarks become part of public culture as genericide. The owner of the mark loses rights to the name if it takes on a meaning for the generic type in the market, rather than for the particular branded product" (292).

The examples the authors cite are "Kleenex" and "Coke," which I found to be very fitting examples because the only two examples of genericide in my own life are those. I rarely call tissue anything besides "Kleenex," and every soft drink to me is "Coke," even if it's a competing brand like Pepsi. I had never thought of it as being anything other than a case of, "you say tomato, I say tom-ah-to," but now I realize the cultural implications of what we choose to name things in our speech and writing.

Another portion of the chapter that I found interesting was page 276, where it is written that:

"We can say, then, that advertising asks us not to consume products but to consume signs in the semiotic meanings of the term...Ads set up particular relationships between the signifier (the product) and the signified (its meaning) to create signs in order to sell not simply products but the connotations we attach to those products."

I find this to be absolutely true. The first example I thought of was skincare commercials that advertise younger, more vibrant skin. When we make the choice to purchase that product, it's not because of the actual chemical potion, but the promise that we will look better, feel better, and be better versions of ourselves if we use that product. As the text says, it is the signified, not the signifier, that we are after.

Artifact: PL 5

While I was reading the chapter on reproductions of art, I recalled visiting Paris and witnessing the sight of the "true", original Mona Lisa. Spectators were asked not to take flash photos of the artwork, both to preserve the copy as well as to be courteous to other guests of the museum. What I found interesting was the ways in which people reacted to the sight of the original Mona Lisa. Despite the rule against flash photography, nearly everybody took photos, even if it got them kicked out of the museum. It got me thinking about the purpose of taking the photo of the painting--a photo of the painting is, essentially, a reprint of the work, and it is probably no better than the quality of a cheap reprint one can buy in the museum souvenir shop. In fact, it is probably worse quality, especially considering that this was 2005 and digital cameras were not nearly as high-tech as they are now.

Even though guards were kicking people out left and right of the exhibit due to their breaking of the rules, it didn't stop anybody that really wanted a photo of the "true" Mona Lisa. It also reminded me that many people take the museum's word for granted. They could have falsely advertised the "true" Mona Lisa and displayed a reprint, and many of the guests would have been fooled. Though true art scholars may not have been, it seemed that many of the guests were not art scholars and probably wouldn't have noticed a difference. There is obviously a fixation with original pieces of art--as seen by the mad museum crowds and the prices of original art pieces--even if the reprint is more accessible. For example, in my house, my parents only display original artwork from their favorite folk artists. They have followed the artist Will Moses all around the state to purchase his original artwork and to have his picture books signed.

I wonder if we like original artwork because it makes us feel richer and more elite, or if we prefer it simply because we're told we should. There is a similar phenomenon with "fake" and "real" purses. Some people would say, "a purse is a purse," but others would admit that it's all about the label. I have to admit, I'd prefer the label--but I'm trying to rhetorically analyze why that is, and I'm coming up short.

PL 4-5

Something that really stood out to me in chapter 5 was the following passage:

"Benjamin argued that the result of mechanical reproduction was a profound change in the function of art. He stated, 'Instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice--politics.'...It is central to the concept that reproduction allows images to circulate with political meaning and that mechanically or electronically reproduced images can be in many places simultaneously and can be combined with text or other images or reworked. These capabilities have greatly increased the ability to captivate and persuade" (199).

Given this passage, it seems that Benjamin (and if not Benjamin himself, then many others) were against reproduction capability because it polluted the world and spread propaganda--but I believe the opposite. Though original art works are more costly, more difficult to obtain, and more precious than reprints, I believe the world would be a much different place without access to artwork. One of the central purposes of art is to provide the world with a looking glass and a perspective, and without wide availability of said artwork, art would be even more of an elitist field.

There are several works of art that are easily recognizable to most people. One of these is "Starry Night." Though the majority of the world has probably not seen the original piece, it is widely recognizable because of the reproductions of the work. Reproducing the work gives scholars the opportunity to teach the work to students in a medium that can be studied. In my opinion, these are all positive "consequences" to reproducible art. The comment that Benjamin makes that reproducibility offers the opportunity for artwork to "captivate and persuade" is a very truthful statement, but this technology is much more positive and deserves much more credit than he gives it. Passing art over into the realm of politics is one of the many facets of the discipline.

PL Chapter 3

The chapter entitled Modernity: Spectatorship, Power, and Knowledge was extremely interesting to me because it expanded on concepts I have learned in my sociology and post-modern courses. Something new that I learned was the concept of the panopticon. It is written on page 107:

"This concept of seeing without being seen and of imagining oneself being seen when in fact no human subject is looking is what Bentham had in mind when he described this as a plan for gaining power of mind over mind. Because prisoners would come to imagine themselves being seen by the guard, there was no need for an actual guard to be present to keep the community of prisoners under control."

Later, it is written that, "There were 4.2 million...cameras in Great Britan in 2006, approximately one for every fourteen people" (107). These concepts really got me thinking about the ways that we act in accordance to those that we perceive are watching. I remembered seeing at the gas station a few days ago, "Smile! You're on camera!" with a warning that stealing fuel is punishable by up to one year in prison. Surely, this persuades me against stealing, as I'm sure it does to everyone, even if there is no camera in actuality.

Additionally, when I used to work for the pharmacy/drug section of a grocery store, we had a problem with people stealing razor blades. The managers imposed a system with locked windows, but they weren't actually locked--but once the door was lifted up, an slow alarm would sound. If the door was open too long, the alarm would get louder and faster, and as employees, we were supposed to go and assess the situation to see if anybody was stealing. This, too, is like a surveillance camera, but it is a different iteration. Over time, the employees ignored the alarm, but customers still felt as though their actions were closely monitored, and the theft diminished.

It is unsettling to imagine the amounts of security cameras that are present in our every day lives. Most stores have them, and they are a great safety and security measure--but this makes me think of all the movies that poke fun at the security guards in the camera room that sit with their legs propped up on the counter eating donuts. Is their attention to detail unnecessary because the mere thought of a camera watching people monitors these people's actions more direct discipline? At my store, we had several cameras, but nobody ever monitored them unless an issue had already occurred. Nobody was monitoring the cameras in real time.

According to Foucault's panopticon theory, the absense of monitoring is the whole point. Actually, according to Foucault, not only is the monitoring unnecessary--but so are the actual cameras. As people, the thought that we are being watched is enough to keep our actions in check. Being watched is unsettling for most people, and getting caught is even worse. However, this theory works better in real life scenarios (outside of prisons), in my opinion. It seems to be, though this is strictly opinion, that criminals have less of a desire to "play by the rules" and stay out of trouble than non-criminals.

Color Presentations

I found several of the presentations on color very interesting. One of them was the presentation on green meaning "passion"--I have always considered green to be the color of greed, illness, or envy, but never passion. Several of the quotes that Ardis quoted from Old English texts, I would have interpreted completely differently had I not known what she taught us. It was a very fascinating subject because it is an iteration of the color completely unexpected to me.

Another surprise was that pink used to be a "boy" color. The logic does make sense--red means strength and courage and therefore is a "man's color," yet a baby boy is a small man, so pink (a very light red) would be his color. It is fascinating how deeply embedded within ourselves our notions of pink are in America. When the trend first broke for men to incorporate more pink into their outfits, I know that several people were shocked, and many men did not want anything to do with the trend. It's funny how a simple color can bring out such threats and insecurities in people.

The last thing I learned that was extremely interesting to me was the use of orange in weight loss campaigns. As was said, the color stimulates the appetite, which seems like a cruel marketing ploy--but at the same time, the color denotes ambition and success as well. It is interesting that the "hunger monster" in the Weight Watchers ads (AKA the "bad guy") is the same color as the color that signifies ambition and success. When I think of orange, the only food that comes to mind is oranges (or products made of orange flavoring, like orange sherbet, dreamsicles, etcetera)--and suddenly, without fail, I find myself hungry! I do have to wonder, though, if it has an affect on my appetite only because I was told that it's supposed to.

Color

I really enjoyed the readings on color in Lutpon and Phillip's book. The most interesting feature about color to me is the science behind it. I never thought about it before reading about color, but the decision of which colors complement each other and which are analagous is completely scientific (based on placement on the color wheel). Because of this, color choice should be completely foolproof--as long as one has the knowledge and the tools.

Something else I find very interesting is the difference between RGB and CMYK. I never gave it much thought, but I did find it peculiar in the past that printer ink cartridges contained cyan, pink, and yellow as opposed to the primary colors that I had always been taught can create any color. Again, though I found this peculiar, I never put too much thought into it--I just accepted it for what it was. Now I have a better understanding of why this technology is successful.

In class, we discussed the 216 web friendly colors, and though that is a lot of colors, it really isn't that impressive. There are so many slight variations of colors that it is almost surprising that (not all) computers have the technology to display the differences. I think computers that had the ability to process and display these colors would be truly revolutionizing--but I wonder if that attention to detail on the computer screen might be harmful to our eyes.

Color

When I took the color code test at www.colorcode.com/free_personality_test, I was analyzed as being a "blue." According to the site, blues:

...have distinct preferences and have the most controlling personality. Their personal code of ethics is remarkably strong and they expect others to live honest, committed lives as well. They enjoy sharing meaningful moments in conversation as well as paying close attention to special life events (e.g. birthdays and anniversaries). Blues are dependable, thoughtful, and analytical; but can also be self-righteous, worry-prone, and moody. They are "sainted pit-bulls" who never let go of something or someone once they are committed. When you deal with a BLUE, be sincere and make a genuine effort to understand and appreciate them.

I was surprised at how accurate I find this to be. I did not expect it to give an accurate depiction of who I am whatsoever, but many of the points raised here are fairly accurate. However, blue is not the color I ever would have used to describe these personality traits. When I think of "stubborn," I think red, and I don't know what color I'd use to describe a "controlling" personality--but it's not blue. To me, blue is peaceful and tranquil.

When I took the color aura test at www.testcafe.com/color, my results were that I had a purple aura. This site did not explain what a purple aura was, but the site www.divinelight.biz explained a purple aura as:

Magical, original, tends to be unconventional, often has psychic abilities, unusual charisma and charm, the uncommon ability to make their dreams come true, or manifest their desires in the material world, wish to charm and delight others and can easily connect with higher planes of consciousness. Playful, non-judgemental, tolerant of others' eccentricities. Sensitive and compassionate. "Purples" appreciate tenderness and kindness in others. Not especially practical, they tend to prefer to live in a dream world of their own creation. You'll find many "violet or purple" entertainers, movie stars, free thinkers, visionaries, revolutionaries, and otherwise singular and magnetic individuals. Dark violet could indicate a need to take charge of their life, or perhaps, that the person needs time to spiritually ground him/herself.

I tend to not take this interpretation very seriously, and I doubt this is a very scientific interpretation. Interestingly, though, purple is my favorite color.

The most interesting results came from the test at www.colorquiz.com. I did not expect this test to be very accurate, either, because it was simply choosing colors by order of preference (twice). The results seemed very in tune with my personality, however. I don't know how scientifically accurate a test like this is, but I know I was shocked at two out of three of these tests surprising me with their accuracy!

Despite my own experience with these color tests, I don't think they are very credible sources. I think they could be wildly incorrect. One of them asked questions based on how one acted as a child, and though certain qualities may be intrinsic to oneself, I don't think everybody is as related to the ways they were as a child as others may be. The aura test is not based on anything credible, in my opinion--it was a list of preferences that are supposed to define one's "aura," which is an astrological attribute, if my understanding is accurate. I don't know how one liking to dance and one not liking to dance would define the separate colors they exude.

One thing that I do think these tests are good for is detecting mood--but depending on how we associate colors. In the Western world, there are some tried-and-true definitions of what it is to feel "blue," and other color associations, but just because the mass majority associates blue with depression doesn't mean that the individual does. When choosing colors by preference, they may choose blue for a totally different reason, but it may be interpreted as the most common analysis of the color. With that said, I think it's as close as one can get to an analysis of this magnitude without making an appointment to visit with a psychologist.

Module 2

For my module 2 project, I did a portion of a song by Bright Eyes called, "Bowl of Oranges." The first half of the song is a story, and the second half is basically the author's analysis of the story he just told. The portion I am working with is the analysis. The text I'm working with is:

So, that is how I learned the lesson that everyone is alone
and your eyes must do some raining if you're ever going to grow
but when crying don't help and you can't compose yourself
it's best to compose a poem;
an honest verse of longing or a simple song of hope
that is why I'm singing, baby don't worry 'cause now I got your back
and every time you feel like crying,
I'm going to try and make you laugh
and if I can't, if it just hurts too bad,
then we will wait for it to pass
and I will keep your company
through those days so long and black
and we'll keep working on the problem that we know we'll never solve
of love's uneven remainders, our lives are fractions of a whole
but if the world could remain within a frame like a painting on a wall
then I think we would see the beauty
then we would stand in awe
at our still lives posed
like a bowl of oranges
like a story told
by the fault lines and the soil.

I really enjoyed working with this text because it was so interesting to play up certain words with fonts and colors. I thought I would struggle to convey the way I decoded the text without being able to use images--but I found that font and color substitutes for images surprisingly nicely. I was able to employ imagery in my text, too, by drawing out the word "long" and by turning the line, "could remain within a frame like a painting on a wall," into a square-like frame. I also turned the two lines, "at our still lives posed/like a bowl of oranges" into a bowl-shaped text. Originally, this was the only color I used in the whole piece--I made this text orange, so that both the imagery of the oranges and the bowl was in tact within the text. Later, I changed the colors on other words, too, because it seemed fitting.

My favorite fonts I used were the broken-up and distorted fonts I used for the phrases "uneven remainders" and "fractions." I wanted to really express that these were uneven, broken, and not full--as opposed to the bold and full text of "whole" in the words, "fractions of a whole." The font I used later on for "fault lines" was similar, but slightly different. I wanted my audience to decode all of these words as being unsteady.

As I revise this draft, I will play more with creating shapes out of my words. Some of my classmates really employed this technique, and it worked very nicely. I hope to incorporate some of that method into my final copy.

Reading Response: Williams

I always knew I was annoyed when People Capitalized Words for No Reason in the Middle of Sentences.

I also knew that I hated when people WROTE ME E-MAILS IN ALL CAPS.

But I never knew why I disliked these things; I assumed it was because it was simply obnoxious--now, however, I realize that it's more than me thinking those are annoying things to do. I dislike them because they are more difficult to read. There is a science behind it!

What I gathered from the readings on readability and legibility are that things are intrinsically more readable and legible due to the font face, the size, and the spacing. The reason that CAPS are difficult to read is because we recognize words by their shapes--and a word in all CAPS has a shape of a rectangle. Therefore, we have to comb through each word, letter-by-letter, until we recognize it and can move in. This adds time to our reading process.

A similar thing happens when we read sentences written in Title Case, because our brains are not accustomed to reading in that manner.

I was also surprised to learn that this font, Courier, is less legible (and less readable). This font looks very reminiscent of the font used on old fashioned typewriters. Typewriters were used for several years, so I wonder why the standard type would be one that is now criticized for its legibility and readability.

It is fascinating the things we learn about how our brains absorb information by studying typefaces. I always figured these things were simply preference--some people like these types of fonts, other likes these. Now I know there is much more to it. I have already started noticing the difference between headlines and body text, sans serif and serif. Studying this is quite scientific and quite psychological!

Political Cartoon

I found this political cartoon on the website for the Committee for Countering Military Recruitment (http://www.countermilitary.org/WhoWeAre/index.html). They are a site that aims to educate America's youth and the reality of military recruitment because they feel that students are often undereducated by military recruiters--especially in low-income and rural areas. This committee aims to advocate against joining the military, and pursuing other options like attending college directly after high school.

In this cartoon, the person on the left dressed in military garb is speaking to the graduate, saying, "I figure it's easier to find a war than a job these days." The cartoon is a clear retaliation not only to the military in general, but specifically to the message military recruiters are sending to America's youth. As a viewer of the cartoon, my assumption is that recruiters are sending the message that joining the army is the best option for recent graduates, especially due to the current state of the economy, where job insecurity prevails. How this cartoon is decoded clearly depends on one's personal beliefs about the current war. As a person who is against the current war, I decode the image as depressing that anybody is receiving this message about the military and choosing to go to war over getting an education because they feel that is their only option--and considering the web site I found this cartoon on, I believe that to be the way the message was encoded.

However, if someone is pro-war, or has a close friend or family member going to war or choosing this option, they may not see the message in the way it was meant to be decoded. They may see it as the truth--that it is easier to find a war than a job, and that it is the most viable option for young people. After all, the degree-holding graduate on the right is the silent person in the cartoon, even looking sheepish in his cap and gown. It is the military man who has a gun, is active in the cartoon, and looks as if he has a plan. He, too, is holding a degree after all. Despite what I believe to be the aim of the cartoon, it is reasonable that it would be interpreted differently by someone with a differing political stance than myself.

Chocolate

Because I have a part time job at Fannie May, I chose to analyze one of their images for this week's artifact. When I'm at work, I am surrounded by images, advertisements, and packaging that is meant to be decoded by consumers as "gourmet," "indulgent," "sinful," "delicious," and the last goes on. A pound of chocolate in-store is $22.99, and on the website is $24.99--this is not a cheap treat, so the price must be justified to customers, especially customers unfamiliar with the chocolate. Besides being part of my job description to "talk up" the candy and its quality, there is visual evidence all over the store (and website) trying to paint the candy in a way that makes it irresistible--as a gift and for a treat to oneself.

I chose an image of truffles because truffles are the most expensive chocolate Fannie May carries. Whereas a regular pound of chocolate is $22.99 (and depending on the candy, this is usually about 22 pieces--so around a dollar per piece), the price for 10.7 ounces of truffles (16 ounces being a pound) is $17.99. The cause for this price difference is that truffles are handcrafted--but to someone unfamiliar with the process, they would be put off by the increased price of this candy compared to others. So why would they buy it?

The first thing to notice is that the truffles are boxed in packaging that is red and gold. Red, as I mentioned in my last post, is a color that is used to get one's attention. A regular box of Fannie May is white, so immediately this is different. The gold text gives the box an extra embellishment--gold is coveted, gold is expensive, and gold is one of the colors that signifies royalty--therefore the mere packaging of this product gives the impression that it is fancy, pricey, and special. Even the font has an artistic, cursive "T" followed by all caps, which are meant to get our attention.

This image continues to play up the colors of gold and red. The truffles are lying on a red napkin upon a gold tray. When I see a gold tray, the first thing that comes to my mind is that whatever is on the tray is fit for a king. I have never known anyone to eat off of a gold tray, but it is what I imagine would be the dishes of choice of kings and queens. This may be decoded differently by others, but my decoding tells me that whatever is upon this tray is extremely pricey. Even the white cushion the truffles are placed upon looks royal--as if someone (a butler or maybe even a servant) has brought the food to someone who is perhaps eating them in bed.

For all these reasons, the truffles may appeal to a customer who doesn't mind spending a little extra for something that appears to be worth it. For people that won't only the best when they purchase a gift, or even a treat for themselves, they may spring for this more expensive option simply because of how they decode the colors, text, and imagery. However, the cynics may decode the advertisement as being excessive or maybe too showy or too extravagant, and may prefer to spend less on a candy that is more suited to them. Perhaps the extravagance of the truffles makes them feel uncomfortable and they'd rather have an "average" box of candy.

Paper Towels

In class, we briefly discussed the packaging of three well-known brands of paper towels. I wanted to further that discussion by offering my analysis here.

The brand that stands out to me most is Scott. Bounty and Brawny have several similarities, which I will get to later, but Scott is the most unique of the three. Its lettering is white rather than dark--and the font is "fancier" than the font for Bounty and Brawny. As was brought up in class, it looks more feminine than the others--which genderizes not only the paper towels themselves, but the act of cleaning. Paper towels are most commonly used for cleaning, especially in kitchens--and it is some people's school of thought that the kitchen is part of the women's "sphere." With all this said, if I were buying paper towels, I would not go for this brand. It may have a better aesthetic, and it may look prettier or even "frilly"--but paper towels should look strong and durable, and those are two adjectives I would not use to describe Scott brand paper towels given this packaging.

This brings us to Bounty and Brawny, both of which have strong, dark font that does paint the paper towels to look durable. Similar to Scott, Brawny uses a red background. What I know about the color red is that it is used to bring attention to something--therefore, both Scott and Brawny stand out because of the red. However, I am put off by what appears to me a lumberjack. It seems that this brand is marketed toward men, and because I am not a man, I might not spring for this brand given this packaging. When I see this packaging, the first thing I think of, as far as audience goes, is that this brand is aimed toward single men, perhaps divorcees, who want to feel as if they, too, can clean effectively even if they are not women. A stereotype that stems from the stereotype of women having to do the household cleaning is the stereotype that men are not efficient or effective at cleaning. The Brawny packaging reinforces to its target audience that men, too, can clean. If I were a single man, maybe this packaging would appeal to me.

The most effective packaging though, in my opinion, is Bounty. Though the font makes it seem strong and durable, the packaging is fairly gender neutral. The font may not be ultra feminine, but the remainder of the packaging is void of other gender markers. Some may view green and blue as a masculine color--but it is complemented with orange, which is a pretty gender neutral color in my opinion. As a consumer, I am not put off by any images (like Brawny) and I am not untrusting of the brand due to the font or color choice (like Scott). The font size is the largest on this brand and covers the most space--it really pops out at the consumer. Though isolating an audience is a good marketing ploy because it isolates about 50% of people, I would be weary of any product that has a "manly man" or a "girly girl" trying to "sell" the product to me--but to others, this may be successful. As always, it depends on how the consumer decodes the color scheme, text, and images.

Reading Response: Thinking with Type

I found the sections on text extremely interesting. I have never formally studied text and font, and I was surprised to learn that many of the fonts that I know by name are named after calligraphers and printers from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries--the "humanist" fonts. I never considered fonts to be a form of art, especially relatively simple fonts like Times New Roman. I am beginning to look at text much differently.

Another point the authors make is that italic type is, "not simply a slanted version of the roman; it incorporates the curves, angles, and narrower proportions associated with cursive forms" (15). I took a careful look at italic Times New Roman after reading that passage, and I took notice to things that I otherwise may never have noticed. For one, the letter "a" looks different in italic type ("a"). It does not look like that in the italic version of every font, but it is something that I either never noticed, or something that I always overlooked.

I think I also enjoyed reading these sections because I enjoy learning about the history of the Early Modern world, and much of the readings were about the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and how fonts have evolved throughout history. However, when the authors started getting into the technical terms--x-height, line weight, leading, etc--I lost focus. I am not very familiar with this jargon, and it was difficult for me to comprehend because I don't have any prior knowledge of the subject.

An interesting point that was brought up was the redundancy of paragraphs (94). Paragraphs are traditionally marked by both a line break and an indent--and besides that, paragraphs are wholly invented by the literary world and do not occur in nature. I had never thought of this before, but it is true--it is an essential part of how we make sense of communication. Similarly, in my opinion, true sentences do not occur naturally either. When people speak, it is often simply a very long run-on, littered with "um"s and "uhh"s that take place for proper punctuation. It is interesting, though, that it is acceptable for the redundancy of paragraphs, but verbal redundancy is frowned upon ("past history," etc). I wonder why redundancy in design and organization is more acceptable.

Module 1

I had a lot of fun creating and sharing our Module 1 projects in class. It was very interesting to see how different everybody's map of themselves was. There was a very wide variety of types of visual maps, and it was interesting the choices people made to represent certain symbols. Some people only used text, and people, like me, only used images.

When I was making my map, I realized that a prevailing theme for everything I was including on it was the idea of education or using one's mind to its fullest potential. The top half of my map was things that I was born into and had no say in (being burn in a suburban town, and being born female)--and though these were things I couldn't change, I also had symbols to represent that I challenged those parts of me in order to become the person I am. Critical thinking is the key of my life--careful analyzation is paramount.

Because I had so many symbols on my map to represent critical thought, I made my button to say, "Think Outside the Sphere" with an image of a globe in the center. Obviously, this is a play on the saying, "Think Outside the Box," but to me, the 'box' represents man-made constraints that we create to give meaning to life, but there is so much more to this life than that. It is also a play on the symbols of my map representing environmentalism and animal rights--the environment and animal life are huge components of Planet Earth whose interests can easily be forgotten or ignored--thus, thinking outside the "sphere" means thinking about the planet and its interests as a whole.

I wasn't conscious of it at the time, but I realized in class that my map follows the model of a decentralized network. Many people had their maps completely connected like a series of events, and others had themselves in the center and a centralized network expanding outward. Mine, though, had three larger images (these would be the "hubs") and smaller symbols pointing outward from those parts of the network. In the end, everything is inter-related, but I could have expressed this better had I used more arrows. If I could change anything about my project, it would be creating more of a defined network. It is difficult to decode my map without explanation because of the lack of text present. I have several symbols that can be decoded in a number of ways, depending on who is doing the decoding.

Response to Graphic Design, Diagrams Chapter

The diagrams chapter in Lupton and Phillips' book, Graphic Design: The New Basics blew me away. When I think of diagrams, graphs, and charts, I think of simple pie graphs, bar graphs, and even line graphs that depict numbers (money, amounts of people, etc.). I never thought that topics such as these could be so effectively diagrammed, and though some of the diagrams are extremely complex, none of them are impossible to analyze and comprehend. One of the most interesting diagrams in the chapter, to me, is the example on page 208 that, "visualizes complex relationships surrounding worldwide terrorist groups."

I have spent so much time learning about utilizing text to support my opinions, views, and arguments, that I never spent any time thinking about ways that visuals can be used to achieve the same means. In the past, I have skipped over side bars and graphs in newspapers and magazines, but I am going to pay a lot more attention to those visual aids now. I am starting to see just how important visuals are in aiding our comprehension, and the differences between reading something versus seeing it. For example, if a student told me he/she does all of the activities listed on the diagram on page 204 every day, I would be surprised--but seeing the chaos and the sheer volume within the graph illustrates the point much better than telling me orally would.

Additionally, some of these diagrams don't even strike me as being a diagram. For example, the diagrams on page 198, 205, and 210-11 look, at first glance, to be merely works of art. If I passed by them while browsing a magazine, I may have regarded them as such and not taken the time to analyze the intricate diagram within the image. Seeing this type of diagram will certainly make me more aware in the future to keep an eye out for graphic representations of this nature.

Response to Chapter 2, Practices of Looking

According to Sturken and Cartwright in chapter 2 of Practices of Looking, interpellation is a term that describes, "the way that images and media texts seem to call out to us, catching our attention" (50). The authors go on to say that, for this interpellation to be effective, "the viewer must implicitly understand himself or herself as being a member of a social group that shares codes and conventions through which the image becomes meaningful...to be interpellated by an image, then, is to know that the image is meant for me to understand, even if I feel my understanding is unique or goes against the grain of a meaning that seems to have been intended" (50).

When reading about interpellation, the first thing that came to mind was a project I did in my Rhetorical Theory and Applications course. I found several ads for food products in women's beauty magazines and compared them to one another, and one of the most intriguing was an ad for chewing gum as a meal substitute. As a woman, I was interpellated by this ad--it immediately affected me and spoke to me, but not in the way the marketers had hoped it would. Being a "woman" means belonging to a culture, and the stereotypical roles of this culture include: being desirable, being prized for our beauty over our intellect, being thin, and being health-conscious. These are all roles that society has taught women to try to abide by, so seeing an ad where next to nothing is advertised as a meal, the thought the advertisers wanted me to think was, "Great! Where can I buy some?" but instead I was disgusted that such a thing would be suggested to me. A stick of 5 calorie chewing gum should not be a meal substitute, so instead of wanting to buy this product, I was interpellated not to buy this product.

The visual shows an unrealistically attractive woman in an office setting, dressed in flashy clothes that are not work friendly, attacking a giant donut with a chair. The ad's text says, "survive a snack attack," and, "fight back with Trident Splash." This all implies that women will be more attractive, thinner, better dressed, and thus more desirable, if they choose to chew Trident rather than eat a meal. It also implies that women should not and cannot eat donuts, or anything similar. Other viewers of this ad may have been interpellated to buy the gum because they may have thought, when seeing the fierce female model in the ad, "That could be me!" However, I was interpellated in a completely different way. This is an example of the many ways someone can be interpellated by one advertisement, even though I would put myself and someone who was interpellated in another way in the same group, or "culture," as myself.

What Is Visible Rhetoric?

What is Visible Rhetoric?

I have taken rhetoric courses in the past, and my understanding of rhetoric is that its main component is analysis. In my Rhetorical Theory and Applications course, we analyzed several aspects of the media, including TV commercials, print ads, memos, newsletters, and newspaper articles, among other things. We focused mainly on textual analysis, but I realize now the importance of the visual component--even in something as simple as a newspaper article, the layout can change the ways we think and perceive. Even in my course on technical writing, visuals were brought to the forefront, and we were taught to have a critical eye of the societal expectations implied via the visuals our brains absorb daily. 

In Visible Rhetoric, I am hoping to gain a better understanding of the ways visuals enhance our perception of our surroundings. I hope to delve into topics such as gender studies, and I hope to learn about visible rhetoric in video games and TV commercials. Though these are my major interests in visible rhetoric, I am open to expanding my knowledge of what fits under the umbrella of "Visible Rhetoric." There are probably several aspects that haven't even crossed my mind just yet. This is a course I am very interested in, and one that I know will provide knowledge to carry to other courses and eventually, my career.