Week 1 (didn't post?)

Calendar Forums Blog Week 1 (didn't post?)


Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #198
    Michael Bentkowski

    <div>Understanding Rhetoric, what a fantastic read! I don’t know if it was because it used relatable examples or if it was the visual aids, wow. Regardless of my opinion, this passage by Losh, Alexander, K. Cannon, and Z. Cannon was one about how Rhetoric came to be and how it is incorporated in our lives today. It describes Rhetoric as a way of thinking about how we talk. It’s about the spaces in which we write, converse, debate and share ideas. However, it isn’t all roses, Plato believed Rhetoric instructed students on how to deceive others. An example used in the text is that violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto leads to the player becoming a criminal in real life. It was intended to hide flaws and not encourage self-improvement.</div>
    <div>Another Greek philosopher who had a strong opinion towards rhetoric was Aristotle. He believed rhetoric was the foundation of education. “To be an effective communicator you must take into consideration ethics, empathy and logic.” If you were to speak with someone effectively, you have to be wary of all those things.</div>
    <div>Somehow all of this skipped over to social media and how it can establish or destroy your credibility. Which is the part I found most relatable as I use social media. We can see the best of everyone’s life or see them for who they are. That is quite harsh. However, it’s what you make yourself out to be I guess.</div>
    <div>Understanding Visual Rhetoric by Hocks wasn’t as engaging a read as the previous passage was. The beginning of the passage starts off by describing digital rhetoric as the rhetorical paideia by making explicit oral and visual rhetorical concerns that are wired into the last two centuries print culture, yawn. The passage did focus on how the new media required a complex relationship between verbal and visual meanings. In a way, it almost sounds like it’s describing marketing, especially when you look at how the three tools are used to create compelling media. Those three tools are audience stance, transparency, and hybricity. Bolded to reflect the true nature of the article. Audience stance is when the audience is invited to participate in online documents and the way in which the author creates an ethos that requires, encourages or even discourages different kinds of interactivity for that audience. Transparency is how the outline documents relate to established conventions. Hybricity is when online documents combine and construct and verbal designs. The reason for these definitions is because the article repeats them multiple times throughout the piece.</div>
    <div>The article then goes into how design projects can help students grow as there are a real audience and sense of accomplishment in using the three tools to write articles published online. In the end, it seems that the article was trying to convey how to present expert material in an engagingly verbal and visual fashion to capture the audience’s attention to why the presenter is right. Deception explained, or is it?</div>
    <div class=”yj6qo”></div>

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Need help with the Commons? Visit our
help page
Send us a message
Skip to toolbar