THE end.

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due
Philip Mudd has been a huge asset to my learning this semester, in both the worlds of CSS and Rhetoric. I didn't know the guy before this class, but I quickly warmed up to him—most of class, if not all, would probably say the same thing. He knows his CSS really well, and there were plenty of times that he went out of his way to help me understand it. I owe a lot of my CSS knowledge to him. He also exemplified great rhetoric as he talked in class. For example, he owned the "Funny Bone" pitch. His use of pathos and ethos to persuade the class to vote for the word was brilliant. In short, Mudd is a bright guy, and he is definitely going to do some cool things in the future.

A Text I Might Pick Up
I pretty much enjoyed every part of this class. Dreamweaver and Photoshop were enjoyable and intriguing; Comiclife was not my favorite, to say the least. With that said, as I look back on what I picked up on the quickest, I would say it was Photoshop. Who doesn't like taking a normal old picture and turning it into something cool? Maybe not everyone, but I definitely do. I found a book written by the renown photographer Jim Zuckerman titled "Be a Photoshop Guru - Unlocking the Hidden Genius Behind Photoshop's Tools", and I think I would like to pick it up and learn more about the possibilities with Photoshop. I only scratched the surface in the few weeks we tackled Photoshop—this book would take me far beyond what I currently know.

Documentary.

After the discussion in class a few weeks ago, I am a little hesitant to apply a definition to "Documentary". It seems that there is so much bleed over between non-documentary films and documentaries that to set them apart from each other with a narrow definition is somewhat trivial. For instance, I searched freedictionary.com for a definition of documentary, and here is what I found: "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film". There are at least two problems with this definition. First of all, a documentaries loyalty to true, objective facts is subjective in its nature. My take on a factual event may be different from someones else's take on the event. The two displays of "factual events" set against one will definitely differ in some ways. Secondly, are there not some films that do not fall under the "documentary" umbrella that present facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter? Definitely. In short, that definition doesn't suffice.

With that said, I have come up with a brief definition for "documentary" that I think sets it slightly apart from "film". The definition is this: a progression of images and sounds that take a stand on an issue and work as visual argument. (slightly changed from Hampe pg 4). Other films can be this, but I might argue that that film is a documentary. The definition might be vague, but I think it suits its purpose. What sets a documentary apart from other film is its intent to act as an argumentative media. A blockbuster film about Batman has a different premise and intent than a Michael Moore documentary. The former is to entertain and maybe to show the fight between good and evil, whereas the latter is to stir up controversy and to argue a side of the story. Both might entertain and both might engage. Most of the time, documentaries differ from other films because of their intent to persuade and argue, hence the definition. I expect that this definition won't but it, but it's worth a shot.

IMAGE

Top three take-away in order.

GIFs, not like the peanut butter brand Jiff.
Why all the riffraff? Why can’t images just be images? As I learned from the reading, different file types have different purposes. For example, GIFs are great for web design because they allow for one color to be transparent, which is a big deal if you want your website to look good (188). Who wants big white backgrounds in their images? Nobody. As I approach web-design, I want to know how to create quality images that aren’t cheesy looking—unintentional white backgrounds are just that. When in doubt, use a GIF.

Anti-alias
It’s actually the preferred choice for the author when it comes to graphics. There is no need to surrender anti-alias in order to get a smaller graphic: “there are other ways to reduce the file size that don’t compromise the quality of the image” (192). How does this snippet of knowledge help me with web-design? That’s easy, I didn’t know there was such a thing as anti-alias prior to the reading. That should say enough. If there is a way to maintain quality graphics while tweaking sizes, I want to know how to do it—anti-alias seems to be the answer.

JPEGs anyone?
Photographs, or anything that even slightly resembles—looks like, smells like, feels like, tastes like—a photograph should be saved as a jpeg (202). This is good to know! I hate to admit it, but in the past I always applied some arbitrary file name to an image, hoping that it didn’t really matter. Now I know it does. As I approach web-design in the future, I will know the proper way to save photograph-esque images.


Williams, Robin, and John Tollett. The Non-designer's Web Book: an Easy Guide to Creating, Designing, and Posting Your Own Web Site. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit, 2000. Print.

At and Through | CBS--not ideal.

Looking at is when only the eyes are used to interpret things like novels, paintings, music, etc. The art form is taken for its face value, and the there isn't much investigation to deeper meaning and interpretation. This style of reading is limiting. Looking through m however, is when you "Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way" (149). The act of looking through allows the piece to do something to you. I think the reason that this style of reading is less popular is because it takes more work! Allowing yourself to get away, and then motivating yourself to explore the broader meaning of a piece, takes more time and motivation. When I read something that is extremely engaging to my interest, I try hard to your through the text, exploring the deeper and broader meaning. When I read something that doesn't interest me, I tend to fall into the habit of just looking at the text, uninterested in pulling our any other meaning than what pops out to me initially.

The C-B-S model is an interesting theory, and it seems that it would be ideal if we were all robots without any since of persuasive zest or emotional side in our communication. With that said, it would be extremely interesting if this theory played itself out in reality—it reminds me of the movie Liar Liar. I know for myself that it would be impossible to try and communicate within this model. I Like the way the author puts it:"It is a wonderful theory to avow but less useful in practice. Imagine what would happen if you lived your life according to such precepts, stripping away the rhetorical mask...of ordinary life...after a day or two of this you'd lose your job and your family, and the next day your mind, too" (140). We are communicative beings, and on top of that we are given some measure of sensitivity and persuasive skills to enhance our communication skills; limiting communication to the C-B-S model, at least from what I can see, is impossible.

Blog #6

I'm a little bit frustrated with this read. I understand how hyperreading hypertexts is a valuable skill while reading online. The way in which hypertexts use tropes as a rhetorical strategy also makes sense, and I am intrigued by the fact that I have never thought of it in that way before, yet have spent a lot of time reading on the World Wide Web. The reason I find myself frustrated is because I am confused about how links conceal and reveal. Maybe I am just getting caught up on the words. With that said, here is my shot at explaining it. Links, "conceal as they reveal" (120 Burbles) in that the link reveals the rhetorical decision—the linked page—but at the same time is concealing possible rhetorical strategies that aren't explicit but are instead to be carefully considered like, "the dog that does not bark" (119). A good hyperreader explores the possibility that there is more being communicated than just the revelation of the link. At least that is what I gathered from Burbles.

Example #1 - Foxnews.com

This article is claiming that President Obama ordered secret reports on political unrest in Egypt this past summer. There are tons of hyperlink strewn about this article. One in particular stood out to me as a type of metaphor. At the end of the article the word "United", which precedes the word "States" is a link. What's funny is that it's linked to United Airlines and an Australian Petroleum company. Is there any correlation to President Obama? Not that I can figure out. If the link is clicked, it will take you to one of the websites mentioned. Now this is extremely far-fetched, and maybe not even worth chasing down, but I muse at the possibility that the petroleum linkage has an underlying meaning. If it were an article about George Bush then I would be more certain (ha!), but I'm not sure with Obama. Anwyay, this link, when thought about as information "concealed", it might be a possibility that Fox News is a sell out and is hyper-linking their posts to companies as a way to make money. A long shot, but maybe there is truth to it.

Example #2 - New York Times

This article is about Planned Parenthood funding feud, hence the title. What I found odd was the fact that there was a link to a Valentine's day page with roses and articles about the lovely Valentine's day. This link was placed on the word "Valentine's" which was one word out of the following sentence: In an e-mailed Valentine's appeal. This e-mail had nothing to do with the literal Valentines Day and its true meaning but was merely an e-mail written on Valentines day. An interesting connection? Yes. One reason for this link might be that the Valentine's Day page puts people in a happy mood when they're reading the article—or maybe that's a terrible assumption. This could be the revealed information.

That's all I've got.

TEXTING. Is that even a legit word?

Man, there are a few different ideas that came to mind when I was thinking about chapters that could be added to Kalmbach's article. A ton of new writing technology has come out since the invention of xeroxogrpahy, the last technology listed in this article. I decided to focus this discussion on the invention of text messaging--quite possibly the most used writing technology today. Maybe. I like to make up my own statistics, so be aware that the incredible numbers you are about to see are completely arbitrary, but I think they at least will prove a point. 90% of kids these days (kids meaning 8+) know how to text message on a phone. From what I've seen, an 8 year old typically teaches the adult how to operate a phone. 95% of teens and young adults would rather communicate over text message than talking on the phone, emailing, or using the postal service to deliver a message that takes two days minimum. Not only would 95% rather communicate over text, but 95% do communicate over text. I don't want to be obnoxious so I'll stop with the statistics. But do you at least agree with me that text messaging is the preferred communication these days for young people?

I found this particular quote found in Kalmbach's article to be quite fitting: "[typewriting] requires no especial skill in it's manipulation. A child knowing its letter may use it after an hour's instruction, and indeed any one, after short practice, can easily become able to write from 60 to 80 words per minute (quotes in Blanchard, 1981, p. E-26)." This totally relates to text messaging as well. People can learn it quickly and will be texting their fingers off in no time--probably while operating a vehicle, or maybe even walking across the cross-walk. Their is no hiding the fact that people these days communicate written language through the text messaging medium. There is no need for print, no need for good hand writing, no need for the postal service, and no need for grammatical skill. All you need is enough money to pay At&t $125 bucks for a basic cell-phone plan--what a steal.

The downside? People's writing and communication skills are declining! There is little attention paid to sentence structure, punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. People use emoticons like they are vowels. And most irritatingly, people just plain out don't pay attention to whether or not their text even makes sense. Don't get me wrong, texting is great. I'm just not convinced that it is the best for maintaining good habits in written language.

FOUR!

My team presented our rhetoric card yesterday, so this is my extended by one day blog post.

What can capital letters do?
Capital letters can be very helpful at times. When you want to scream at someone over text message, simply use all-caps, and nine times out of ten the receiving end will act wounded and wonder why you are yelling at them. What really used to annoy me was when my high school science teachers would use all caps for any piece of writing he or she did. A) It was hard to read, and B) I didn't like the fact that it looked like the teacher was screaming at me. It's almost like all-caps takes the place of the exclamation mark.

Do I think any punctuation marks should be made?
I had never thought of this until class yesterday. Who ever takes the liberty to say, "we need more punctuation marks?" Well we did in class, and I was intrigued with the amount of ideas that came to my mind! There are so many times that I wish there was a specific punctuation mark to express what I am trying to convey in that moment. Sometimes confusion, maybe another time tiredness. Solomon drops the following definition for punctuation: "The use of standard marks and signs in writing and printing to separate works into sentences, clauses, and phrases in order to clarify meaning" (Solomon). Notice that I bolded the last two words. In an era where sarcasm is normal in everyday language, a punctuation mark that could clarify when a smart remark or sarcastic reply is being communicated would be awesome. A question mark tells the reader that the words are forming a question. All caps communicates—sometimes—screaming. Exclamation mark conveys excitement. A semi-colon—that is when it is used correctly—communicates, "Hey, I'm a good writer". We need a punctuation mark to let the reader know that sarcasm is taking place. I suggest the funny bone (which I can't seem to type on this blog) as the said punctuation mark, as well as the winner of the 10 extra credit points.

Thanks for stopping by.


Solomon, Martin. "The Power of Punctuation." Design Issues Spring VI.2 (1990): 28-32. Print.