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.
No comments:
Post a Comment