Lets lets talk about affect transfer. I found an image on google that is quite simple, but I think it exemplifies this concept.
What American doesn't like the Ford Mustang? Well, to be honest, they aren't as awesome as the typical home-grown American kid thinks they are, but that's beside the point. Kind of. What is interesting about this picture is the gigantic flag in the back. I understand that Ford is an American brand, but that is not enough to explain the use of the oversized flag. I think you will agree with me that there is at least more going on with the use of the flag than that, right? I'm trusting that you are. With that said, the flag is being used to transfer the concept of patriotism to the car itself. If that didn't make sense, maybe this simpler wording will make it easier to understand: the Ford guys are using the patriotic emotion of the flag to persuade people to buy their car. Now, we all know that buying a Mustang isn't patriotic. If you want to be patriotic, buy an American made car that gets at least twenty-five mpg and help conserve American resources for the future—that won't be a Mustang.
What I'm getting at is this: realistically, the flag is out of place. In another sense, the flag is perfectly in place because the "affect transfer" is taking place. Ford's scheme is much like one of Hill's descriptions: "an insurance company may include the famous picture of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima in its promotional literature, in hope that the image and the emotion that it evokes in the viewer will be associated with the insurance company" (36). Ford is doing the same thing by draping the gigantic flag behind the Mustang. Ya, there is some correlation between the car and the flag, but not enough to explain the size of the flag. Ford isn't doing anything terrible, but I do think it is a perfect example of a company including a seemingly unrelated emotional symbol into their advertisement in order to attach the buyer to the product.
Thanks for reading.
Works Cited
Hill, Charles A. "The Psychology of Rhetorical Images."
Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 25-40
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
What Should've Been Post #2
My Embarrassing Moment
I made the mistake of trying to move in the middle of the mass amount of snow that unexpectedly came in mid-November. My wife was working night shifts at the hospital all week—lucky for her—meaning she was sleeping during the day. In her absence, I recruited my friend Dan to help with the quick move. Everything started like a piece of cake. I rented a U-Haul for the first time ever—I have never felt more like a man—, loaded everything up into two loads, situated the boxes into the new place, and was feeling pretty good about the accomplishment. I even set up the bed so my wife, who was sleeping at the old place, would be so incredibly impressed with me when she woke up and made it over to the new place to find that I had set up and made the bed. At this point I was convinced the hard work was done! Or so I thought.
Hard work brings about hunger, so Dan and I decided to hit up McDonald's on the way back to the U-haul place. We pulled into the McDonald's parking lot and of course there are no parking spots. I stopped the truck and looked around to evaluate my situation. In front of me is only thirty feet of empty space before curbing starts. On my immediate right is a building, and sitting parallel to my left is a slight dip with several cars parked. In a moment of panic—sweat rising to the surface of the skin on my arms— I decided to maneuver a u-turn; why I did not just back up, I’m not sure. But I will tell you two things: 1) The whole rear-wheel drive issue was foreign to me, and 2) Men subconsciously try to impress their friends with quick, whimsical decisions. I had almost completed the maneuver when I realized that my calculations were off by a few feet, putting me about two feet from the row of parked cars—on a slope. My first reaction was to try and back up the truck, which led to spinning tires. I'm imagining this truck slamming into the cars like a tree falling on a house during a windstorm—nothing you can do except watch it unfold. I tried that several times, but trying to back up an empty U-Haul on a slope proved to be impossible. At this point the McDonald’s crew is watching, as were the people driving by. Embarrassment and frustration was growing rapidly, the truck was inching closer to the parked cars, and de-icer wasn’t doing what it is supposed to do. I finally decided to ask the McDonald’s people if their cars happened to be the ones that the U-Haul was about to hit. Luckily the cars belonged to some of the crew and they were able to move them, allowing me to finish the maneuver without hitting anything. After thirty minutes of panic and several ounces of perspiration, I was able to enjoy a high-sodium content burger.
Last stop was the U-Haul place. I parked the truck, gathered my things, locked the doors, and headed to the after hours key drop-off. As I fumbled around for the keys it dawned on me that I had spaced grabbing the keys from the ignition—awesome. I checked the doors to see if maybe they were still unlocked, but they were not. I had officially proven to myself that I was incapable of operating a U-Haul.
And this is why you don’t do anything crazy, like moving and operating a U-Haul truck in the snow, without the presence of your wife's common sense!
Amp Thru Simp
Amplification through simplification can be dangerous because the creator of the image has the ability to break in to one’s mind and communicate on a very personal level. This is not dangerous in and of itself, but when the creator of the image desires to communicate something negative to an audience, it becomes way too easy of a task. The concept and practice is fascinating and very helpful for communication, but using it in a negative manner can lead to trouble.
I made the mistake of trying to move in the middle of the mass amount of snow that unexpectedly came in mid-November. My wife was working night shifts at the hospital all week—lucky for her—meaning she was sleeping during the day. In her absence, I recruited my friend Dan to help with the quick move. Everything started like a piece of cake. I rented a U-Haul for the first time ever—I have never felt more like a man—, loaded everything up into two loads, situated the boxes into the new place, and was feeling pretty good about the accomplishment. I even set up the bed so my wife, who was sleeping at the old place, would be so incredibly impressed with me when she woke up and made it over to the new place to find that I had set up and made the bed. At this point I was convinced the hard work was done! Or so I thought.
Hard work brings about hunger, so Dan and I decided to hit up McDonald's on the way back to the U-haul place. We pulled into the McDonald's parking lot and of course there are no parking spots. I stopped the truck and looked around to evaluate my situation. In front of me is only thirty feet of empty space before curbing starts. On my immediate right is a building, and sitting parallel to my left is a slight dip with several cars parked. In a moment of panic—sweat rising to the surface of the skin on my arms— I decided to maneuver a u-turn; why I did not just back up, I’m not sure. But I will tell you two things: 1) The whole rear-wheel drive issue was foreign to me, and 2) Men subconsciously try to impress their friends with quick, whimsical decisions. I had almost completed the maneuver when I realized that my calculations were off by a few feet, putting me about two feet from the row of parked cars—on a slope. My first reaction was to try and back up the truck, which led to spinning tires. I'm imagining this truck slamming into the cars like a tree falling on a house during a windstorm—nothing you can do except watch it unfold. I tried that several times, but trying to back up an empty U-Haul on a slope proved to be impossible. At this point the McDonald’s crew is watching, as were the people driving by. Embarrassment and frustration was growing rapidly, the truck was inching closer to the parked cars, and de-icer wasn’t doing what it is supposed to do. I finally decided to ask the McDonald’s people if their cars happened to be the ones that the U-Haul was about to hit. Luckily the cars belonged to some of the crew and they were able to move them, allowing me to finish the maneuver without hitting anything. After thirty minutes of panic and several ounces of perspiration, I was able to enjoy a high-sodium content burger.
Last stop was the U-Haul place. I parked the truck, gathered my things, locked the doors, and headed to the after hours key drop-off. As I fumbled around for the keys it dawned on me that I had spaced grabbing the keys from the ignition—awesome. I checked the doors to see if maybe they were still unlocked, but they were not. I had officially proven to myself that I was incapable of operating a U-Haul.
And this is why you don’t do anything crazy, like moving and operating a U-Haul truck in the snow, without the presence of your wife's common sense!
Amp Thru Simp
Amplification through simplification can be dangerous because the creator of the image has the ability to break in to one’s mind and communicate on a very personal level. This is not dangerous in and of itself, but when the creator of the image desires to communicate something negative to an audience, it becomes way too easy of a task. The concept and practice is fascinating and very helpful for communication, but using it in a negative manner can lead to trouble.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Round 2: Visual Argument
The single thing I want to touch on in this blog entry is the reading from Birdsell and Groarke. I definitely did not find myself totally immersed in the reading, anxious to flip to the next page, but I did enjoy the argument that was being laid out. I immediately was in disagreement with David Flemming, the guy who says, "visual images cannot...be arguments". His opinion seems foolish, especially after the authors lay out two visual images that surely state a point and pose an argument. The cigarette-smoking fish that is about to get "hooked" is without a doubt an image targeted at warning people that smoking is addictive. Another anti-smoking ad that came to mind—one that without a doubt proves an argument without any words having to be displayed—and it argues something a bit different than the fish. I am positive anyone can decipher the purpose and meaning of this ad:
This visual image is hilarious. To me, the image throws an abrupt statement in a smoker's face: you are what you smoke. Maybe a lame one-liner, but is that not what the visual image is arguing? A person that smokes for a long time better bet that their lungs are deteriorating—maybe not turning into literal cigarrettes—and are going to waste—or burning away, as the image communicates. I think Flemming is totally wrong; visual images CAN be arguments. Words can definitely express an argument, but I would argue that words are sometimes less instrumental than an image. Take this image for example:
It is likely that a caricature like this will carry the point across to just as many or more people than if a an opposing politician were to come right out and call Bush an ass.
I did not intend to waste blog time on this Flemming guy, but I couldn't help it. I agree with Birdsell and Groarke that visual images can in fact be arguments.
That is all.
From:Argumentation, Article. "Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.(Essay) - Argumentation and Advocacy | HighBeam Research - FREE Trial." Research - Articles - Journals | Find Research Fast at HighBeam Research. Web. 19 Jan. 2011..
This visual image is hilarious. To me, the image throws an abrupt statement in a smoker's face: you are what you smoke. Maybe a lame one-liner, but is that not what the visual image is arguing? A person that smokes for a long time better bet that their lungs are deteriorating—maybe not turning into literal cigarrettes—and are going to waste—or burning away, as the image communicates. I think Flemming is totally wrong; visual images CAN be arguments. Words can definitely express an argument, but I would argue that words are sometimes less instrumental than an image. Take this image for example:
It is likely that a caricature like this will carry the point across to just as many or more people than if a an opposing politician were to come right out and call Bush an ass.
I did not intend to waste blog time on this Flemming guy, but I couldn't help it. I agree with Birdsell and Groarke that visual images can in fact be arguments.
That is all.
From:Argumentation, Article. "Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.(Essay) - Argumentation and Advocacy | HighBeam Research - FREE Trial." Research - Articles - Journals | Find Research Fast at HighBeam Research. Web. 19 Jan. 2011.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Numero Uno | 1.10.11
How does Foss et. al define rhetoric? Describe in your own words what this means to you and offer a few examples of rhetoric in your life?
Foss and the others offer a simple definition of rhetoric: the use of symbols to communicate (1). They of course don't stop at that, but further unpack "human", "symbols", and "communicate"in such a way that paints rhetoric as a complex, yet everyday used concept. For years people have argued over the importance of rhetoric, and have adjusted it's place in society—Greek to Roman; Medieval to Renaissance; Early Modern to Modern; Modern to Contemporary—, but after roughly 2,500 years of existence, rhetoric is still in use today. Seemingly history has produced several individuals that represent the concept in different ways (i.e sophists, Aristotle, Quintilian, Ramus), but the root stays the same—rhetoric has, and still is, the use of symbols to communicate.
Personally, I agree with the authors' definition of rhetoric and see how it specifically encapsulates the four canons of rhetoric. Last semester I took a class from Professor Davis that opened my eyes to the truth and science of rhetoric—which, to my surprise, was much much more than my high school and community college teachers let on to. Up until this year I had visualized rhetoric in the exact way that the authors described in the introduction: "empty, bombastic words with no substance or trivial talk" (1). Now, I am able to see more of rhetoric in this culture, and can see its substance. For example, I work part time for a local church and spend most of my time working with and teaching the youth. When I teach, I realize the importance of invention, organization, style, and memory, causing me to understand and relate with Augustine's claim that preachers need to own these skills. Communicating to a group of people is much more than just talking. Another example of rhetoric is the way in which I communicate with my wife. I have been married for a 1.5 years now, and in that time I have learned much about mis-communication. Much like the book's example of an American plane flying over Korea, the way I say things, or the way I go about doing certain things sometimes communicates exactly the opposite than I intend. I have learned quickly that my actions and words can symbolize something much different to other people than what it symbolizes to me.
Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2002. Print.
Google Search Definitions:
Wikipedia: the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively. It involves three audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos.
Dictionary.com: the study of the effective use of language.
1)"Rhetoric." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Jan. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric>.
2)"Rhetoric | Define Rhetoric at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 10 Jan. 2011<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric
Foss and the others offer a simple definition of rhetoric: the use of symbols to communicate (1). They of course don't stop at that, but further unpack "human", "symbols", and "communicate"in such a way that paints rhetoric as a complex, yet everyday used concept. For years people have argued over the importance of rhetoric, and have adjusted it's place in society—Greek to Roman; Medieval to Renaissance; Early Modern to Modern; Modern to Contemporary—, but after roughly 2,500 years of existence, rhetoric is still in use today. Seemingly history has produced several individuals that represent the concept in different ways (i.e sophists, Aristotle, Quintilian, Ramus), but the root stays the same—rhetoric has, and still is, the use of symbols to communicate.
Personally, I agree with the authors' definition of rhetoric and see how it specifically encapsulates the four canons of rhetoric. Last semester I took a class from Professor Davis that opened my eyes to the truth and science of rhetoric—which, to my surprise, was much much more than my high school and community college teachers let on to. Up until this year I had visualized rhetoric in the exact way that the authors described in the introduction: "empty, bombastic words with no substance or trivial talk" (1). Now, I am able to see more of rhetoric in this culture, and can see its substance. For example, I work part time for a local church and spend most of my time working with and teaching the youth. When I teach, I realize the importance of invention, organization, style, and memory, causing me to understand and relate with Augustine's claim that preachers need to own these skills. Communicating to a group of people is much more than just talking. Another example of rhetoric is the way in which I communicate with my wife. I have been married for a 1.5 years now, and in that time I have learned much about mis-communication. Much like the book's example of an American plane flying over Korea, the way I say things, or the way I go about doing certain things sometimes communicates exactly the opposite than I intend. I have learned quickly that my actions and words can symbolize something much different to other people than what it symbolizes to me.
Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2002. Print.
Google Search Definitions:
Wikipedia: the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively. It involves three audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos.
Dictionary.com: the study of the effective use of language.
1)"Rhetoric." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Jan. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric>.
2)"Rhetoric | Define Rhetoric at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 10 Jan. 2011<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)