How do images argue? What is an image? How do we distinguish images from visuals? What is rhetoric? What is visual rhetoric?
Questions of this sort shape the area of scholarly inquiry known as visual rhetoric. In this course, we will explore definitions & dispositions, test them against our experience and inquiry, and play (analysis and production).
For now, ponder the title of this post. Write a reflective post. Begin with initial, "gut" impressions. Then, what does the title suggest? How does the title integrate with the 2 images to hint at a vexing question or set of complex possibilities?
Be as general or as specific as you like. Use whatever media seems to serve your needs (do cite your sources, either via link or caption). Don't overwhelm. Strive to communicate your reflection as clearly as is possible (aim for minimalism, which is harder than you might at first imagine).
Works Cited
M.P. Thakaekara and A.J. Drummond, "Standard Values for the Solar Constant and its Spectral Components." Nature. Phys. Sci. 229, 6 (1971). Rpt in Bohren, Craig F., and Alistair B. Fraser. "Colors of the Sky." The Physics Teacher, May 1985, pp. 267-272.
kyburz, bonnie lenore. "Untitled." Scrapbook Photos. Picasaweb. August 14, 2012.
the earlier Intro begins with 5 questions. they are the sort that i might write to get my own creative juices flowing, in preparing to discuss and delve into thoughts about a given context. "how do images argue?" is the first question. given the story you told in class about the presentation of your video and the subsequent arguments, the fact that images have arguing power seems to be a focus of your passion for visual rhetoric. Maybe that's just my own, amateur interpretation, but the concept of an arguing image resonates, indeed.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to carry on in what I feel is more of an impulsive draft of what you intended. There seems to be more personal consideration flowing uninhibited by concerns of structure (not that it is unstructured), presentation of information, or its likeness to something like a syllabus that could be viewed by students or professional audiences (again, not that it shouldn't be viewed by students or professional audiences- it's a great intro!). It is simply more contemplative and philosophical, to my reading, and i like that.
As for the post's title: "on the blueness of the sky..." My first impression is that the following information or visuals would be in an effort to celebrate and showcase the beauty and magnificence of the sky in its beautiful, blue form. However, the contrast between the pictures indicates a more provocative and controversial intent. With the boring, black and white graph, I imagine a similar argument I once had with my sister: "What color are polar bears?" she asked me. "White," I replied, dully. "Wrong!" She burst, triumphant. "They're black!" She proceeded to explain why polar bears are technically black, and gave evidence that I never cared to check up on. I remember feeling irritated, though. 'so what if they're ACTUALLY black in some literal, scientific way. The color I perceive them to be is white. That is the color I associate with them, and you, sister, and your dumb little skit to prove me wrong has tainted my perception.
Not that being forced into another view of thinking is bad. In fact, I quite like it. But the two pictures got me thinking along a similar vein. Some scientific graph may explain how the earth's "sky" is not actually blue, but that it is only perceived as blue by us humans from our earthly vantage point. In contrast with the beautiful nature photo, however, the latter seems to be giving a big middle finger with a simultaneous and condescending 'tut tut' to the graph. It IS fascinating to consider and be knowledgeable of the science behind what we perceive to be real... but look at the blue sky.... what an experience to feel so affected and blissfully wistful!
the later intro is engaging and playful (i love the WA color palette- i've only seen moonrise kingdom, but i'm going to change that). At the same time, though, it is thesis-driven. It provides an effective example of visual rhetoric, and breaks down multiple sides of viewing and characterizing the associated information and responses. In this way, it is distinct from the first intro in the degree of organization with which our brains consider the context of visual rhetoric. It is less philosophical; more meat and potatoes. but by whatever kind of method i am asked to think about, read about or see, new information and ideas over the course of this class, i am ready and excited. bring it on, visual rhetoric.