Visual Argument On The Word Part

http://www.box.net/shared/hfuok2n9x5

            The existence of a visual argument is difficult to prove, however this was my goal when I created a project on a visual argument for the word part. In the project I attempted to argue the idea that everything is a part of something bigger. How I went about doing this was by first showing images that were purely isolated parts such as a slice of pizza, a car wheel, or one skyscraper in a skyline. These were my parts however I needed to show that they were all part of something bigger. To accomplish this I then took the pictures of the isolated parts and had the whole of the picture fade in around the, such as the pizza slice turning into a pizza, the wheel turning into the whole car, and the one skyscraper joined by others to make a city skyline.

            For an argument to exist it must be able to be rejected or accepted. In this project, the argument is that everything is a part of something bigger. In J. Anthony Blair’s article he expresses that “claims and reasons have to be propositional” meaning that you cannot simply present facts as an argument. In my project I believe that you can argue that the first set of pictures, what I call the parts, are not parts but whole things themselves although the presentation is trying to show that they are still a part of something bigger. For instance, it can be said that the example in the presentation of a lone skyscraper in a city skyline is simply that, a lone skyscraper. The presentation later shows that, the same skyscraper, is only one building out of many in the same picture. This is showing that although the argument exists that the first skyscraper is just a skyscraper it is also part of a bigger collection of buildings. So in the presentation there are two views that can be taken on each example, however the presentation is trying to make one of those views apparent as well as argue that view. I think that in this way my presentation meets Blair’s standards for an argument.

            One requirement for a visual argument is the argument itself and that it can be expressed. The argument in my project is that everything is a part of something bigger. The way that the project goes about showing this is that it takes the parts introduced in the first set of pictures, and in the second set of pictures transforms the one part into a whole of something else. The project clearly expresses this in the transformation of one part into the bigger picture. When the part transforms into the bigger picture it is showing how it contributes to the whole, and that that one part in needed. This is how the argument of everything being a part of a bigger picture is presented in the project.

            The project was not set up to be predictable, but rather to lead you to its point step by step, picture by picture. However once the viewer understands the pattern of how each part transformed into the whole picture it was taken out of then it becomes predictable. At this point you stop seeing each picture as just one part, but what it is part of. Once the viewer starts predicting the part as what it is part of then they are agreeing with the argument that everything is a part of something else, and they are now looking for what the images are a part of. The final transition of images is from a picture of a woman to a picture of earth, implying that each person is part of the earth. This final transition is attempting to bring the viewer to recognize a common idea that we are all part of a global community, so that the viewer see’s themselves as a part, as well as see what they are a part of. In doing this, the presentation feeds on the common idea that most are familiar with to personalize its point.

            In setting up my project, the organization of the pictures was crucial to my method of argument. As Gunther Kress said “Meaning… is attached ‘being first’ and to ‘being last’” which is something that held very true in the presentation of my argument. My project was structured to show isolated parts at first, and then show each of these parts fading into a whole of something bigger. However if I were to reverse the order in which I showed these two things, the whole picture fading into one part, the message that would become more prevalent is that every whole can be broken up into parts, as opposed to everything is a part of a bigger whole. This shows how important the arrangement of images is in a visual argument, the same pictures could be present but in a different order and that would change the message a viewer would get.

            The visual arguments that were presented in class all presented each respective point well. The combination of the pictures in each presentation as well as how they were set up helped to lead the audience to the point as well as provide evidence to it. However without the multiple pictures and structure of the presentations I do not believe that the arguments could have been present without a verbal explanation. So although a visual argument is not as powerful as a verbal argument, in which you can outline your exact points, the visual argument can still present evidence to lead the viewer to a conclusion in an argument. However even though a visual argument may not be able to pinpoint an exact argument, it can transfer a way of thinking, emotion, or felling that may not be present in black and white words on a page. A visual argument is a unique way of presenting a point however the clearest method of argument is still verbally, but if you put the two methods together than the argument can truly be powerful.

  

Bibliography

Blair, J. Anthony. “Argumentation and Advocacy”. River Falls: 1996

Kress, Gunther. “Literacy In The New Media Age”. New York: Routledge, 2003

Faster Than A Speeding Book

            The combination of the computer and the Internet has definitely changed the way in which we receive and create writing in many ways. However perhaps the greatest way that this combination has changed writing is the speed in which it can be distributed. Thanks to the Internet we can post a piece of writing and it will be available for viewing in only a matter of seconds by an enormous audience. In the case of printed or handwritten writing you only have one copy of the work and must find a way to distribute it to a large audience and then have it shipped out, a process that may take days, or months just to distribute the material. However with the Internet I can upload this post tonight and my mother, who is around three hundred miles away, can read it a few seconds later. Distribution of the written piece is not the only thing that the Internet speeds up however. Although things such as letters to the editor have existed for some time comments and criticism have never been able to be viewed so quickly as they are by using the Internet. The Internet allows for comments to be put up almost instantly. The speed of the Internet is a great improvement over the speed of printed text, allowing for ideas to be distributed faster, and for feedback to be received faster.

Chapter Two of Writing Spaces

            In Bolter’s Chapter on writing as technology he argues that every instance of writing in history has been technological. Bolter first builds his argument on the idea that the word technology comes from the Greek word techne, which means an art or craft. In this I believe Bolter is completely correct seeing as writing is not something that we are born to do, but a skill that we learn. However even past this idea Bolter uses the point that even a modern day pen is technology, making writing with pen and paper, something that we see as traditional, writing with technology. The pen is not a natural thing, but rather a mechanized device that we have created to make writing easier. The word processor can be seen in the same light of the pen, it is not natural; it is something that we as humans created to make writing simpler for ourselves. So in this sense it is not writing with technology that is new to us, but rather the form that the writing is in is the change, such as being on paper, or on a screen. The computer and Internet create a new medium in which we can receive and create writings, however the technological aspect of writing is nothing new to the history of the written word.

Don't Worry Billy, I'll Answer

In the last three stanzas, what motivated you to turn the speaker’s attention to him/herself?

            I think that turning the attention to the speaker was an effort at ridiculousness. In doing this it just discredits the style of this type of poetry and makes it laughable. By bringing the attention to the speaker Collins is further discrediting this style of writing that he is trying to put down.

Do you have something against metaphor or simply the over-the-top or ludicrous metaphor?

            I don not believe that Billy Collins has anything against metaphors as a hole, but that he has something against this style of using metaphors. Collins is targeting this one ideal for metaphors, comparing a beloved to something otherwise random. This style is something that when truly analyzed does not have much meaning when it comes down to the picture of metaphors and I think that is what Collins is saying.

Do you always read poems critically; if so why?

            I think that Billy Collins, as a poet, would read most poetry rather critically, both so that he may find errors and so that he can find ideas. I think in reading anything critically you don’t only find things you don’t like but also things you wouldn’t change and you can learn from what you think is good as well as get an idea because of someone else’s ideas. However I think it must also be important to find mistakes so that when writing your own pieces you do not make the same mistakes.

Sample U

            In sample u, part four it says that the predictability of images is key to a visual argument. However I disagree, I believe you may be able to get an even stronger point across if the audience is left confused at first. In presenting the argument through predictable pictures you are telling your audience your point, no different then writing the phrase down and giving it to them. If you first confuse the audience on the other hand, when your point does become clear it allows them to have arrived to it on their own, creating a kind of “oh” factor. I believe that this “oh” factor creates a greater understanding and agreement from the audience that cannot be produced by pure predictability.

Hubris at Zunzal, and Meaning at Nowhere

            I believe it is in the second stanza that Jones rejects language as expressing meaning. In the second stanza we are thrown images however not given anything to connect them with. The images are placed into our mind however we are not able to have an “oh” moment where we understand what the message is. The language paints us the picture however without something else there is no meaning in each image.

I Think I Know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNIBV87wV4

http://www.taylormali.com/index.cfm?webid=9

           In these two presentations of Taylor Mali’s “like you know”, both offer a form of performance that enhances the words being used. The actual performance by Mali gave the poem much more meaning with his actions and expressions. However I found it very interesting how if you follow how the words appear on the screen in the “textual” representation it offers up its own performance. The words on the screen convey emotion with the pause, or position, or size in which they appear. I think both these forms enhance the original writing and both offer their own form of expression of the writing.

Falling Apart At The Seams: A Response To Shelley Jackson's Stitch Bitch

http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/jackson.html

Body Not Whole

            In this section of the text Jackson states that we are not one body, but hundreds of things that only appear from a distance as one body. Ok, fine, yes that is correct. However every one little thing works together in a harmony of sorts. In our body if our lungs are not attached you our throat, well I quite frankly just would not work the same, would it? Even though each separate part works on it’s own if you were to move it’s location it may not work the same, or at all. I think the same is true for writing, yes everything can stand on its own, but order is still very much important and can help to make a stronger point. Even in Jackson’s writing, how she proves her point is by not having an order, however it is meant to not have a true order and if you gave it one it would not have the same affect.

Constraints & The Book

            In this section Jackson says that there is more than just our, so-called, traditional way of writing. Once more I both agree and disagree with Jackson, yes these constraints are not the only ones however it is impossible to write without constraint. We need to break the constraints that we keep because it is how we advance and learn more. However even a writing style without constraints has the constraint that you cannot introduce rules. So although fixed constraints are not necessary, constraints are unavoidable.

Stitch Bitch Ink Shed

“We might find ourselves perplexed by that miniature blackout as by any intrusive authorial device” I find this quote very insightful because it is true if you think about it. When I’m reading and turn the page sometimes I look back at the previous page because the writing was not cohesive. If I get interrupted when reading and have to start at the top of the page again without seeing the entire sentence, my thoughts often don’t make sense. The entire sentence, regardless of the page, is necessary for comprehension. Cohesiveness is key to writing and reading as well. It is frustrating when the reader gets lost in translation, it’s hard to regroup thoughts and turn back to the previous page, and you lose focus if you are interrupted.

The Cell Phone and Text as an Image

            One hand is stirring the mixture of melted butter and sugar, as the other hand is adding a mixture of eggs and vanilla extract. As I’m mixing all of my ingredients for my chocolate chip cookies, I do not have the ability to think about a conversation on the phone, and I definitely do not have the free hand needed to hold my cell phone. My solution? texting. It is much easier to take a 30 second break in between the madness that is flour, sugar and baking soda flying everywhere than to hold a phone between my head and shoulders trying to focus on everything I am doing and a conversation. Texting is an easier way to go about a conversation without taking up and hour or so of my day to hold a conversation with someone and not do anything else. With texting I am allowed to continue a conversation with the many aspects of my day.

Why Can't This and That Ever Just Get Along?

            In J. David Bolter’s book Writing Space, he cites Victor Hugo’s Notre-Dame de Paris, in the idea “this will destroy that”. Bolter uses this quote and brings it to modern times asking will print being put on computers destroy the physical book, will this destroy that.

            When it comes to this argument of printed text versus the computer and who will win, my question is why are they fighting? It is no question that these two forms of writing or publishing are different, when something is published in a physical book and distributed it is almost impossible to fix an error with it, and when something is put on the computer an error or typo can be fixed almost immediately. Beyond that the physical book creates more of a home-like feeling, being able to touch the words and turn the page, where as the computer is a brightly lit screen where the words seem t just continue without a break. So there is no arguing that the two means of writing are different, however just because they are different must we pick one? Can’t we take both methods for what they have to offer? The book for it’s home-like feeling that allows a story to come alive in your hands, and the computer for its precision and open-endedness. I believe the two can exist both separately but together so that we never have to choose the strengths of one and lose the strengths of another.

You Took The Moon, But Could You Leave The Stars?

            We’ve all heard it before, that the moon is made out of cheese. But my question is why can’t it be? Why can’t we go around hypothesizing that the moon is made of cheese, or that Marvin the Martian is flying around somewhere in space? No, instead NASA had to ruin the moon and prove that it, unfortunately, is not made of cheese. I understand that it was a great mystery that needed to be solved, reaching the moon, or whether or not aliens lived on mars, and why we wanted to find out, but I also wonder if maybe it was better when we didn’t know. Throughout history humankind has always looked to so called frontiers as a source of adventure, but they were and still are more than that. They are a source of dreams and fantasies, a place where we can escape our everyday life to visit something extraordinary. As we grow we learn that fairytales and stories from our childhood are not true, that superpowers are not real, and that prince charming did not wake snow white with a kiss. However even though we may learn that these fantasies are not real in our world, who is to say that they aren’t in another? Sometimes we as humans need this escape, to a place that, even though it may not exist, is much more spectacular than our day to day life and seeing as we have proven that it wasn’t in the new world, it wasn’t in the wild west, and it wasn’t even on the cheeseless moon, well maybe it is somewhere amongst the stars. So I understand that we all want to know the answers to life’s mysteries, but maybe the secret of these mysteries is not so much in the solution but in the mystery itself. So I ask you, as a dreamer, even though the fantasies of the moon were taken, can we keep the dreams of the stars alive?