Perceptive Rhetors

     The articles by Wysocki and Jamieson got me thinking a lot about just how influential one's station is on individual perception.  We've read and talked a bunch about the communicative abilities of rhetors and how diverse understanding of a text or subject can be.  Wysocki and Jamieson give us some pretty specific instances of what goes into these various interpretations, each stemming from a specific social platform.
     Applying some of the concepts scattered about The Sticky Embrace of Beauty was a little difficult at first, but there were a few points I found interesting.  Wysocki breaks down the power of the center and unites her readers with their root of understanding.  In reference to Arnheim and in response to his statement this idea is egocentric, Wysocki writes, "anyone who regards the world visually (through a sight that is 'spontaneous') makes sense of the world and of human artifacts primarily by 'reserv[ing] to the self the largest possible share of the power to organize the surroundings around itself at the center'" (157).  One's perception is born as a product and in response to their surroundings.  In a social context, people's own environments are individualized based on this relationship.  Future comprehension, decision, application, etc. are thus largely influenced by such anterior factors.  Of course there are other factors to consider, though the entire nature vs. nurture debate, for example, could fall under this center argument.  How a person is raised is a part of their environment.  Their beliefs, ideals, lifestyle choices, and plain functional abilities are but natural responses.  I feel like a lot of what Wysocki implies could be easily contested due to its vague nature, but I like the idea that people literally see the world through their own eyes.  Though it may be relatable to others, my perception is my own.
     Jamieson applies these ideas of individual perception to different parts of the social realm, focusing primarily on gender differentiation.  Whether they are so different seems to be the recurring discussion throughout.  Modern politics is always a fun subject to throw into a debate, so Jamieson does just that. I was happy to see the author refuting the idea women are too emotional for politics, additionally putting a positive spin on the value of impassioned candidates.  The author writes, "[e]ven in campaigns in which issue distinctions are clear, men and women alike consider personal evaluations of candidates as important or more important than their stands on issues" (809).  These people present themselves as worthy enough to represent the whole of society so they should look the part.  Personality, physical presentation and speaking ability are essential factors in winning votes no matter what their actual views are.  How a candidate is perceived is everything.  The hard part is satisfying those perceptions that make up the majority of the voting public.  Jamieson's article helps to prove just enough flare can win elections and what was once deemed as irrational public discourse is actually playing quite a role in conquering audiences.
     Below is a link to an article discussing audience reaction to political advertisements for both male and female candidates in consideration of their specific presentation to voters and how appearance is everything.
http://crx.sagepub.com.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/content/22/4/430.full.pdf+html

Page to Screen

     This week's readings by Johnson-Eilola and Kohl brought up a number of interesting points, but more specifically focused on an idea we have been following since the beginning of the semester.  The idea being the evolution of writing in our society and the overall shift in the paradigm.  I noticed these articles tended to lean more towards the negative aspects of writing's progressive move from page to screen.  The author's were less excited about the effects of the digital revolution and more worried about the status of lone authorship and intellectual property.  I couldn't help but agree with a lot of what was pointed out, but I can't help but prefer the modern forms of writing that have presented themselves in the last few decades and continue to develop.  On that note, a couple of engaging ideas really piqued my interest.
     In their analysis of collaborative media and inclusion of the Wiki examples, Kohl and his associates stated "texts on the internet no longer appear static, but rather as dynamic forms of writing, [...] they must be understood and analyzed as writing processes and less as final works." (171).  If we think about the abundance of public forums found online, we can see just how often this collaborative writing style is in effect at nearly every turn in hyperspace.  Wikipedia is the most obvious example, but it is also probably the most widely used.  Users can actually go in and edit text, even html, to alter the appearance of each page without the consent of the previous author.  Wikipedia is by no means the most legitimate source of information, but it is a quick reference that almost everyone uses for some reason.  Edited information can be quickly flagged, but it can also go unnoticed.  Web forums like these have the ability to alter information, putting falsities into the cyber universe that many people have the option to call upon.  Using Wikipedia is a bit of a catch-22 because it isn't a valid source, but people still log on to get what they think is correct information on a subject.  It's on my favorites bar between Gmail and MSU.  I am guilty of believing what I read without proper source checking, as so many are.  Online databases through academic and professional institutions have helped this issue by including detailed references with the texts they make available.  Johnson-Eilola, in his discussion legislation regarding online databases, suggests amendments of these bills "point toward a society in which writing as we know it is no longer the premier textuality" (209).  I for one am glad we are going digital, regardless of the problems that arise with the transfer.  Maybe I'm just a lazy college student who doesn't like to carry around large volumes and hates waiting in line at the library to print.  I think the positives of the shift from paper to screen outweighs its negatives.

Here's an interesting article on why Wikipedia ain't so bad.  Reading this, I still don't feel comfortable using it as a source, but accept it to be at least a little more legitimate.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40503515.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

Infographic - The Sum of All Fears

#Punctuation

     Although this week's reading was minimal, Solomon's discussion of the importance of punctuation and font ties in a lot of themes from the previous readings--as I'm sure it is meant to.  In my last blog post, I wondered why Times New Roman somehow became the standard font across multiple platform in and outside the walls of academia.  While Solomon didn't exactly answer this question for me, he did reassure to me the fact font, as well as punctuation, have their purpose within printed composition.  Being able to write and type for so many years now, it was interesting to read about the utilities of such basic symbols we use every time we pick up a pen or get on Microsoft Word.  The main point of Solomon's article came with his closing assertion, "[w]hether prominent or subtle, punctuation marks are the heartbeat of typography, moving words along in proper timing and with proper emphasis" (289).  When we compose certain texts, we want to be able to set the pace and have some sense of control over how the content is to be perceived.  Every author has his or her individual style that elucidates this fact, often setting them apart from comparable writers.  For instance, when I write a paper for a class, or even short responses, I like to use dashes to include additional thoughts complimentary to the main subject of the sentence.  The reason I rarely use the dash in blogger is because I can't figure out how to do it.  Word does it automatically for me, where most online forums do not.  And why is it automatic on Word and nowhere else?  Who is making these decisions?  It's actually quite maddening.  I've never been a fan of using commas in this instance, because it just doesn't feel like the point is really being driven home.  I also can't stand using semi-colons.  They're ugly to me on page and screen.  This may seem ridiculous to every other person in this class, but this is the preference and stylistic deviation I am talking about.  We all have them, even though we probably never think about it.  I feel like Solomon's article starts many discussions of similar grandeur.  They might not seem so essential, but have the ability to educate the author and reader on the role of punctuation and about what makes his or her voices unique in such a broad field.

     Surfing the web, I found an article in regard to the history of some of our most famous punctuation marks.  It's interesting to see the development of these symbols from their origins to how they are being used now.  I really liked the part about the pound sign or hash tag (#).  Who knew the internationally recognized symbol for Twitter used to designate a pound weight in ancient Rome?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/09/origins-of-hashtag-manicule-diple-pilcrow-ampersand-explained.html

The Rhetoric of Presentation

     This week's readings got me thinking a lot about presentation and how it has a significant affect on how the content of the actual writing is perceived by different audiences.  Someone could compose a profound piece of literature in even partially illegible handwriting and a reader would consider it rubbish.  The same goes with job applications where a candidate is perfectly qualified, but they don't get the opportunity of an interview because they turned in a crumpled, food-stained resume.  Presentation is key, and those of us who have ever attended MSU know that students lose credit for turning in unedited or poorly formatted work. One of the easiest ways to lose credit on a research paper, at least in my experience, is to type in Impact or Calligraphy fonts.  Now, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I have turned in papers in other fonts because the came out bigger on screen and I would have to do that much less writing.  In the end, it is always better to just type with the standard Times New Roman.  In her article on Multiple Media Texts, Wysocki talked about how early Greek and Roman texts were not even similar to those we call standard these days (130). That makes me question why Times New Roman became the standard.  Because it is the easiest to read while still allowing writers to adequately describe their subjects in print?  Times New Roman couldn't have been created around standard requirements of papers assigned within the walls of academia.  Why did this become the standard?
     The other interesting discussion I stumbled upon came during my reading of Bernhardt's article on Seeing the Text.  During the section where he uses the example of the Wetlands proposal, the author brings up the idea members of different discourse communities see topics through their own lens.  An author needs to be aware people will not understand the same subject in the same way.  This is where imagery and the use of icons and formatting come into play.  The Wetlands Proposal is an accumulation of information, all very general but still important (69-70).  The promoters of this legislation know a very minute amount of people would sift through all the paperwork to figure out what this initiative is all about.  Hell, even legislators rely on abstracted information.  Presenting the information in bullet form with shortened sentences and an emphasis on punctuation helps the audience understand the importance of the issue without having to sift through stacks of pages.  Such a display would more likely allow the success of this promotion because the information presented is valid to more than just those directly affected.  This brought up Kress' idea of mixed genres and how they too are presented (44).  The Wetlands Proposal fused moral societal issues with studies to support how in fact an issue existed.  Applying the visual aspect really drew the point home.  This information can be read by more than humanist or scientific personalities.  The information ties multiple factions of society together with common issues.  This would not be possible without the appropriate presentation.
     Surfing the web, I found an interesting study on the affect font has on our ability to process words.  Who knew all those options on Microsoft Word have such an influence!  The article is a decent example of a mixed genre.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1423197.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

Sim Perception

     I found this week's readings to be an appropriate follow-up to our A/V projects--due to their discussion of data visualization, but primarily because of their emphasis on perception.  I think back to my project, starting way back at the idea stage all the way through the editing process.  I had a clear idea of what I was presenting, but it was inevitable that some if not much of this clarity was lost as viewers attempted to understand its deeper meaning.  Outside of the plain text within the piece, some might not understand the connection to the visuals as I had hoped.  According to Mishra and Wolf, this understanding is shaped by one's perception, of which are abundant.  There is a lot to be said about whether people are more perceptive to images or actual text, but I think the combination of the two can be particularly overwhelming.  That was the challenge I faced with the A/V project because I didn't want my connections to be misunderstood, but I suppose that's the beauty of perception.  People will never have an exact understanding of something, no matter how plain and simple it appears to be.  Our contexts from which we base our individual ideas of a topic are as diverse as our understandings.  That's just a reality we need to adapt to if we haven't already.
     I really enjoyed reading about the analogy in Mishra's article with the physician, mechanic, and physiologist looking at their respective subjects (144).  The author starts in on the idea that experience shapes perception, and that even those of the same intellectual realm will have a different idea of something that seems so absolute.  The parts of a car or the organs in a human body are all laid out similarly, but their relationship can be perceived in any number of ways.  It is interesting to me that if A has to connect to B in order for C to function, where is the ambiguity or space for varied perception?  It seems to find its place.
     Wolf's article was a little more difficult for me to wrap my head around because I have no mind for science and the technology of computers.  However, the talk of simulators got me thinking.  The author states "no simulated world can be free of a world view" (429).  That is an interesting thought because so often, simulators are free from the moral and political constraints of our society.  That's not to say they can't have some sort of agenda, just that they are typically used for instructional or informational purposes.  When I was reading this, I couldn't stop thinking about Sim City and the Sims that I grew up playing.  Players are given the option of a few different base landscapes in which to craft their settlement or house and essentially build day-to-day operations and/or a lifestyle from the ground up.  I liked the games because I was playing God with these powerless citizens, but I never thought about the constructs already installed in the software.  Really, our choices had already been made for us based on what aspects the game creators considered appropriate for a modern city or modern family of people.  Though the game seemed so expansive (often times I'd lose hours, days perfecting my creations), it is really quite limited to the perceptions of only a few people behind the pixels.  Granted, Sim City is built based on the goal of entertainment value, but it has a lot to say about what is socially acceptable.  When I played the Sims, I did all I could to kill off the people in the family so I could build a graveyard outside and let ghosts haunt future tenants.  The sims were quite resilient, but eventually died off.  Are my morbid inclinations being controlled by a few people's idea that this may not be okay, unless the poor sims are given a chance to plead for their lives?  I suppose its a good thing the game didn't have a God feature at the time where I could strike them down with a lightning bolt.  I haven't played in years, but wouldn't be surprised if this was recently added.  I guess my point of this rant about video games is that my entertainment was being shaped by the perceptions of a few and I'm not sure I know how I feel about that.
Here's an article on the practical application of Sim City in the real world.  (Yikes!)
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/03/simcity_2013_what_the_urban_planning_game_tells_us_about_future_cities.2.html

Food for the Information Highway