Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Revisiting Our Theories of Composing
Think back to the "theories of composing" you have been constructing; what role, if any, did design/visual rhetoric play? Has your theory of composing changed--in what ways yes, in what ways no? What scholars are now informing your theories of composing? Do you see visual rhetoric/visual composition in your daily lives, and if so, in what ways?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Looking back at my last blog about the theory of composing, I never included anything about how visual rhetoric influences the way a piece of writing is composed. Visual rhetoric is important to composing because it adds more to the effect of writing from a picture. Pictures can bring in a type of audience because they help with the context of the writing in more than one way. Images signify many things including, color, context, gender and symbolism. All these examples are added into theory of composition making your paper more in depth, letting your audience capture a better understand of the writing.
ReplyDeleteIn some instances, my theory of composing has changed only because I know more about the concept. We have talked about it in depth since last week, so I just understand more about it. For instance, complexity of composing can get broken down into so many genres from a paper. I still like Vanderberg’s quote to sum up theory of composing for me. “An accepted, imposed, or expected way of writing that is shared by both reader and writer.” Theory of composing is what you make of it and how you pertain to an audience with your stylistic devices.
Other scholars that have influenced me in learning more about the theory of composing are McCloud because his comic showed how theory of composition dealt heavily with visual rhetoric. Reading his comic made me really dig into realizing how visual rhetoric is shown through a picture and can capture people more that way. You can see theory of composing everyday in our lives from listening to music. Songs are writings composed into lyrics that give you your own visual rhetoric in your mind or when you watch the music video.
When referencing back to my original theory on composing, I realize that it was really written from an academic standpoint and is fairly brief in explanation. I wrote from more of a creative aspect, addressing the importance of voice and style. I did not take into account the other necessary steps needed to be taken when creating a work of value. I left out visual rhetoric all together when first writing about my theory on composition. Reading Mccloud helped me to understand the technical and psychological aspects of visual rhetoric while Faigley, who was a bit more confusing, provided a graph that labeled the effectiveness of a rhetorical situation medium, labeling visual situations the highest. This broke it down in a simple way for me to understand the weight of the mediums. The exercises we have done in class have allowed me to thoroughly think through the steps in the process of composing. Mccloud talks about the six steps necessary to create something of value and this helped as well to define why the steps are crucial for reaching the full potential of the composition. I think my view on composing has not changed with this new knowledge but it has simply grown. While I still think style is important, I now value the more technical steps that go into composition as well. This includes invention, arrangement and delivery. I certainly see rhetorical/visual rhetoric in my daily life. It shows up in forms as simple as an ad or as complicated a miscommunication and the issues go along with that. Now, I’m just able to recognize and identify those situations unlike I was before.
ReplyDeleteIn the original draft of my theory of composition, the impact of the visual played a non-existent role. Although at the time I wrote my first theory, or a week ago, I would have said it was the best concept I could have come up with, in just seven days my theory of composition has undergone a definite makeover. Though there are still a few components that stood the test of a week in WEPO, most of my theory would change to encompass more of the visual element of composition. Audience would remain the same along with collaboration and style, though I would take out the parts about arrangement, and coherence. They are still important and pertain to establishing a successful composition, yet there are other theories that hold greater value. This week, I believe that vividness, genre, and both analytical and non-analytical responses. In my original theory, I hadn’t known the power of the visual and its relationship to audience appeal. Now that I think of theory without the visual, it seems like such a ridiculous thing to suggest because it makes entire sense now that it has been brought to the surface. For some reason, genre hadn’t been in my previous draft. This is one of the top three important characteristics of composition. In choosing the genre, it determines who your audience is, how you respond to a given situation, and the way which one views their work. All theories are just as important as the next, since composition is such a subjective mess.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I despise them, the readings have been instrumental in helping grasp the material and all its concepts. At first I found myself not knowing anything about an article once I was done, but only after two weeks, everything that I am reading I am able to pull out the central ideas and theories that are being discussed. As far as the scholars that did the most for me, Vanderburg, McCloud, Covino and Joliffe, Hill, and as much as I hate to admit it even Bitzer was key in my understanding of even the most basic areas of rhetoric to which I had no previous knowledge of before enrolling in this course.
Visual rhetoric and composition are evident in tons of shapes in forms in our everyday lives. Everything that involves communication through sight such as the news, newspaper, talking to somebody face-to-face, billboards, and pictures in a magazine are types of visual composition and visual rhetoric. In a world where seeing is believing, the ever evolving theory of composition has to take this into consideration, now encompassing a shared amount of textual and visual rhetoric. Though by next week, I am sure I will have an entirely different theory of composition!
When I define visual rhetoric, I define it as following: visual rhetoric is the way in which one creates a composition in order to ensure that visuals effectively communicate with the textual aspects of the composition. In my previous theory of composing I did not mention anything about visual rhetoric. But, now that we have covered visual rhetoric and I have learned a lot about it I feel that visual rhetoric is important in composing. In my theory I talked about how I felt that one should compose about what they know compared to what they don’t know. It is easier to compose on past experiences rather than things you haven’t experienced. This part of my theory has stayed the same. Honestly, I feel the same way about my whole theory. The only thing I would add is elements about visual rhetoric. When contributing to my theory I would add that the visual elements of a composition must accompany the text. When composing the visuals should not overshadow the text, everything must flow together as one. When adding this I would also add that the composer should think about the audience and consider how they would feel about the composition. The scholars that are helping me to form my theory are Aristotle, Covino and Jolliffe, Vanderberg, Hill, and McCloud. These are some of the authors we have discussed in class that have impacted my thoughts on composition and visual rhetoric. Know that I understand what visual rhetoric is I can say I see it in everyday life. Understanding Comics” the textbook we just read is a good example of visual rhetoric that I see in my everyday life. Textbooks, newspaper, bumper stickers, billboards etc are all other forms of visual rhetoric that I see. My everyday life is surrounded by examples.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at my last theory of composition, not much of my original thoughts have changed. As a matter of fact, from what we have already gone over, my original theory is even stronger in my mind. When you look at people such as McCloud, they say that almost anything can be considered art since it does not directly relate towards the two points of life, mating and survival. Going off of McCloud’s thoughts, I don’t see why the most basic or most unique form of writing can’t be considered composition. What gives someone the right to say that the cover of a magazine is less meaningful than a ten page essay? Is a word bubble of a comic strip any less thought out than a presidential speech? Yeah one may be more important to its audience, but they are still forms of composition. Even if they don’t realize it at first, everything someone puts done has the potential to change someone else’s option of something. When you look at the most famous artists of all time, many of them didn’t even become famous until well after their deaths. You might not get the immediate recognition you are hoping for, but that doesn’t make it any less valuable.
ReplyDeleteThe only things I might want to add to my original theory are how the other sense affects someone. Pictures are just as important as text is when trying to get a point across. When you see an advertisement, more times than not, there is more visual aides in it than there are text. However, to add onto the thought of visual aides helping, we can’t forget the auditory sense we have. I’m pretty sure I have already touched on this in one of my previous blogs, but music is by far one of the oldest forms of composition there is. Just because someone tapping their pencil on a table doesn’t sound appealing to you, it is still a form of composing something.
In giving thought to whether design/visual rhetoric has perhaps influenced my developing theory of composition in any way, I do believe I have to say…in short…that I don’t think it has. Now, to be clear, with regard to all that I am learning about visual rhetoric, I feel equal parts fascinated, inspired and enlightened, both in terms of technical construct and artful influence. However, where developing an overarching theory of composition is concerned, I do strongly believe that one can exist “across the board”, without regard for genre and medium. (NOTE: further rumination is imminent…) This is where reflecting on my original ideas about composition gives me some pause. Though I am passionate about certain concepts (“less is more”, “it’s all in the detail”, “write within your world”, “the truth is always more interesting”), there are certainly many other components that I have always inherently viewed as vital, am only now, with our explorations bringing them into keen focus. Namely, the key concepts of ethos, pathos and logos, arrangement, revision, and audience.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, the constructs of visual rhetoric certainly involve unique and complex considerations that textual rhetoric, or discourse, simply do not. That said, if we’re talking good old-fashioned “composition theory” here, I’m on board with all that McCloud has to offer—most notably, the six steps he proclaims to be the crucial components to any creative work. (Side note: I think it’s brilliant/great that while McCloud—an artist who creates within the world of visual rhetoric—aims with his book to deconstruct the art and craft of comics, even he makes the distinction that said six steps occur no matter the art form. Gotta love that guy. Or at least, the cartoon version of him…) While I’m at it here, I think I shall use this moment to officially state that I’ve adopted McCloud’s six steps as a base from which I aim to articulate my own theory of composition. (For sure, I think revision, as suggested in class, is quite possibly a crucial component to composition, and must be included in any thoery.)
In terms of scholarly influence, clearly, you can conclude that McCloud tops my list as an authority whose observations, insights and ideas have impacted me. While it may be an obvious connect, speaking in terms of influence, Aristotle’s five canons of rhetoric also stand out for me as a sequence of concepts to be revered and ever considered. Ethos, pathos and logos = such a crucial trilogy of influence! Certainly the notion of “memory” is worth exploration, perhaps as a more concise/overarching component of composition into which the notions of visual rhetoric can be infused. With regard to visual rhetoric, I of course treasure so much of what all the scholars’ we’ve read thus far have outlined. I’m learning a lot and am certain that as I move forward both creatively and professionally, I will continue to reflect on and refer to the many complexities that are inherent to the visual medium—several of which are coming into greater focus with each read. (Unnecessarily verbose, tedious and toneless portions, notwithstanding...)
Out of all the scholars that I have read McCloud has seemed to have the best explanation of composing. I like his style of teaching although he specialize in comics, he know the key elements to composing any type text. His delivery was excellent. He paid close attention to his details. The way that he composed his book could be understood by anyone that is capable of reading and comprehending. He took many theories and shredded them into little pieces of information in ways that made sense to the reader by using visual rhetoric with written text to explain concepts to the audience more clear.
ReplyDeleteI know that every individual see different aspects in the same images but what I keep hearing over and over from different scholars is that I assert myself-image on to characters because they are not real and I give them life through my imagination. I am not sure if I assert myself into characters but I understand what he meant by it.
Even though I try my best to buy into the hype I still get caught up into it anyway, I find myself having to have certain items made a particular brand or else…
I learned a little bit about marketing when I was majored in business so I know the extinct businesses go through to gain customers. When composing something to be sold in the public market it needs to have appeal unless it is something that everyone needs to have for survival. McCloud better explains the discourse of the rhetorical situation that other scholars made seem more complex than they already were.
It seemed to me that McCloud captured my attention threw the appeal of animation. By watering his down to a cartoon image he was able to convey his message to a broader audience. I like how he explain the way that human are more connected to artificial than realist images and lots of business owner prey on that. It was not surprising to me to read about icons on the front page of books and magazine that is why I don’t but into the hype. I need some of the item that I but I don’t buy them because of the image that is portrayed on the packaging.
I like the way that Hills explained how the same image can be interpreted in many different ways. I think that the picture he chose was a good picture to express the different emotions felt by the on lookers. I was in Florida miles away yet I felt the impact from 9-11 even though I did know anyone that died. Pathos played a big apart in a lot of advertising.
I see rhetorical situations every day and I try to be the opposite of what society says that I am. I am thirty-one, with no kids, and I have never been married but when I look around my neighborhood I see ladies at the age the twenty with a few kids and they may have different daddies so, I don’t get mad when I see women being portrayed like that in movies. The message that I see is a role model for a good example of what not to be. I try to stay away from watching television because I know how it will “get me” if I let it. What I mean by get me is get next to my emotion be it in a good way or a bad why.
When I was younger I wanted that stuff that I saw on television and I tour me up inside to know that I was not going not get it. I felt less fortunate not (no name/off brand) items instead of items with the famous icons on them. As I got older and realize that I was only making people who don’t even know that I exist rich I try to stay neutral in that aspect but I cannot ignore the fact that I the famous icon have been imbedded into my mind through appeal of the composition. I know that with the right tool like the six steps to bringing an idea to life anyone can be persuasive enough to spark the interest of others.
So sorry - I just realized, in my post I didn't comment on whether I think visual rhetoric/composition is something we see within our daily lives... The short answer: Um, well...garsh, I suppose I'd have to go with YES, IT IS EVERYWHERE!!! As for a more poetic, thoughtful remark written quickly so as to make the deadline in submitting this blog, I shall defer to Wordsworth (my hero), as per a copy/paste of his brilliant words, as they were noted in Faigley's brilliant piece on material literacy (and as they are noted in my heart, daily...but I digress):
ReplyDeleteDISCOURSE was deemed Man's noblest attribute,
And written words the glory of his hand;
Then followed Printing with enlarged command
For thought--dominion vast and absolute
For spreading truth, and making love expand.
Now prose and verse sunk into disrepute
Must lacquey a dumb Art that best can suit
The taste of this once-intellectual Land.
A backward movement surely have we here,
From manhood--back to childhood; for the age--
Back towards caverned life's first rude career.
Avaunt this vile abuse of pictured page!
Must eyes be all in all, the tongue and ear
Nothing? Heaven keep us from a lower stage!
I feel it's very amusing that in my theory of composing, although I vaguely alluded to it and it can be implied that I think mostly this sort of way, I didn't directly address visual rhetoric to be taken into account when creating a composition. As a huge promoter of making highly visual compositions over highly textual ones, I should have addressed this part of rhetoric more directly. Just as in speechwriting and text compositions, the five canons of rhetoric must be met in order for effective message relaying to your audience. Speaking of audience, that is the first thing that should be considered as well which medium will be best for your message. After you've established that you can start brainstorming ideas (topoi)and different materials that you want your composition to be made of. When you have all the available means to start the composition, you can decide the arrangement of your piece that will best appeal to your audience as well as organize your thoughts adequately. The different styles and genres you can choose from can deliver your message differently so one must be careful when choosing this. The way in which you present or deliver your visual piece is just as crucial as the other parts of the process in that all the prior work can be done and gone to waste if the message goes over the audience's head or is not understood or taken the right way. For some reason, I did not bother to apply the five canons of rhetoric to visual arts but I definitely used to them everytime I composed a print project.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, my theory of composing was based greatly on style. A person's own style is extremely necessary when composing any kind of writing. But a persons style can sometimes be greatly effected by what kind of medium a person is using to write. Many, like Johnson and Selfe, believe that the presence of technology in writing can greatly effect a persons writing process and style. It can sometimes alter their way of writing completely.
ReplyDeleteLike Johnson and Selfe, I also feel that technology changes the way we write. When we write with a pen on paper, we carefully plan out a sentence in our head before we write it down. But with a computer, we can just blurt out anything we want onto a page and change it at our leisure. If we want to use a different word, we can click into a vast thesaurus and change our sentence completely. We can sound like a different, more educated writer. And who would not want to benefit their writing by using richer words and better sentence structure? Technology changing the way we write is inevitable.