OK, so an expansive reading, and this does give me a better idea of what to do with our current assignment...but it also leaves me with specific questions in regards to the project (since I had the assignment in mind as I read this piece)..not to mention some parts of the reading reminded me of other readings as well. Anyway, questions I was left with:
1. The difference between formal and informal argument is very clear...so how much of each would be an allowable amount for our project? Where in this project should I use a formal argumentative structure, and when should I use informal? It differs from project to project, that's why I'm asking. NOTE: My chosen media will be a web comic (argument is still being determined)
2. In my chosen form of media, how would I address an opposing argument in a way that makes my comic a clearly persuasive one? Since the reading states that all arguments must address the counter, I need to be able to express both sides, while effectively supporting one and opposing the other with evidence, all within a juxtaposed, still set of pictures.
3. The reading talks about how I have to show modesty to my target audience no matter how strong my position is, lest I risk alienating them. Since I plan on making a humorous comic (that's just how I roll), how do I show this modesty in my argument, while also keeping a humorous AND an argumentative side? In other words, where should I draw the line with a web comic? It seems like with many of them, nothing is sacred, but I don't want to go too far. Then again, my target audience will be people who are interested in web comics, and probably used to reading them--they may already be desensitized to some degree, so perhaps I don't have to show as much restraint as with other forms of digital media.
4. I'm taking into consideration, also, the fact that my drawings will be reduced to stick figures...meaning the message itself will be the primary focus of the comic, since the audience certainly won't be concentrating the poorly-drawn characters themselves. How does this change my rhetorical situation? Will it make the audience more sensitive to what the characters actually say? Perhaps I SHOULD use more restraint in my message, if so. As the reading states, it is MY responsibility to make sure I respect my audience...I have to be very, very careful (while still having fun with it).
5. One of the big portions of the reading, the testing phase, also bothers me...I hang out with two main groups of people...and the one I have most access to and am closest to, would not make god test subjects for my comic once it's done. My target audience is people in the classroom who love web comics...this particular group of people I have a hard tie reaching out to. Is it safer to go outside my comfort zone and test this product on them? Should I test them on my closer group of friends? Or should I even do both to make sure I know what audience I'm truly appealing to?
I know this isn't exactly a deep analysis of the reading itself..but reading it opened up a lot of subjects for me that until now, I didn't even consider, and it has made me more wary of the assignment and what everyone's expectations are. Will I even know what I'm doing? This reading makes me feel like I'm out of my league...I can't put my finger on why. Is this good or bad? I suppose things will become clearer once I actually come up with an argument...I was considering something about a comic making fun of comics...something mild enough that the argument won't sting, but interesting enough to catch the audience's attention...that way, both in media and in argument I will be staying within the topic of digital media. Is this a good idea? I could use some pointers here, if anyone has some. I don't know if I should stick wit this, or else make a stronger argument...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Follow Up
Since my last post was long and whiny, I thought I'd follow up it up with a link that is related to what I talked about. Am I trying to come up with related stuff to fill up my blog? Yes. Yes I am.
Anyway, this is a little more on the light side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI
Did I say light? I meant stupid. As a former member of Digg (now currently moved to Reddit), I've done a LOT of web surfing and seen, consequently, a LOT of anti-piracy and copyright videos; this in mind, I have to say this is the most INEFFECTIVE ad against copyright I've ever seen. I laughed, it made me want to torrent something out of spite. "Hey hey! Let's make a catchy, FUN song about a serious situation! It'll TOTALLY work..."
What's next? Reader Rabbit Goes to Rehab? Sheesh...
Anyway, this is a little more on the light side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI
Did I say light? I meant stupid. As a former member of Digg (now currently moved to Reddit), I've done a LOT of web surfing and seen, consequently, a LOT of anti-piracy and copyright videos; this in mind, I have to say this is the most INEFFECTIVE ad against copyright I've ever seen. I laughed, it made me want to torrent something out of spite. "Hey hey! Let's make a catchy, FUN song about a serious situation! It'll TOTALLY work..."
What's next? Reader Rabbit Goes to Rehab? Sheesh...
Don't Copy This Shit.
So, now for my nice, honest rant about one of the most fallacious and erroneous policies on digital media: the laws of copyright. THIS WILL BE A LONG POST...sorry Prof, but I have strong feelings about this. Feel free to skip around if you like.
Perhaps the number one most controversial subject on digital media is the issue of copyright--with the digital age comes a whole new way of accessing media, and instead of requiring a copy machine, now you can just hit copy/paste in order to get something recorded. And with limitless methods of downloading copyrighted media for free, protection of said media is virtually impossible; whenever a counter is developed for one form of copying/downloading, a new method immediately springs up. This has given rise to an immense controversy in copyright, culminating into what could almost become a war of information ownership and protection.
Let me make something clear right now: as someone who is proud of my photography, I am all for protecting something that is your own work, and certainly wouldn't like it if someone used my photos without giving me any credit. Does that make me selfish? Maybe. That does NOT mean, however, that people can't enjoy my photos and using them for personal purposes...just don't use them for personal gain. Long story short, I DON'T MIND HAVING COPYRIGHT LAWS.
But let's face it, the existing laws suck. They are vague, confusing in many places, and over-generalized to the point where we don't know where to draw the line....the problem is, digital media itself is so dynamic, we really NEED to know where the line is drawn. A good example of this is academic integrity--perhaps the copyright policy I have the biggest problem with is academic integrity policies. Why?
Let me give an example. Here's a true story: my brother is a FANTASTIC writer. Like me, writing is in that man's blood. After turning in a very well-written, thought-out essay in his Perspective on Inquiry class, my brother got accused of plagiarism. The teacher's explanation? He claimed that the writing was so damn amazing, that he was convinced there was no possible way my brother could have done it all on his own. So instead of finding stuff that was plagiarized, looking online, or even just submitting it into ArticleChecker or any similar program, he just assumed and accused without any basis or proof. In the end, my brother was able to prove his innocence--quite easily--but the fact remains, current copyright policies in schools require only the mere SUSPICION from teachers that plagiarism is in effect, and that is completely inappropriate.
It seems that, no matter how much we students are warned of the consequences of copyright infringement, and no matter how many times we are encouraged to avoid it, it still inevitably happens to the best of us. Why? Are we really that stupid, or is it simply because we don't know WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE? What counts as plagiarism? What counts as infringement? In one of the readings we went through, it was quoted as saying: "It is important to know what is allowed and what is not when utilizing the information obtained."(Copyright) But it doesn't outline what those allowances are. Hell, did I even cite this right? Quotes, in-text citation, is that enough? For SOME teachers it is...and for some, it isn't...you see, I don't even know how to quote this copyright information without violating copyright (and now I'm ****ing CONFUSED), because there is no universal set of rules for this practice. Sure, there are a handful on this website I just mentioned, and yes they are pretty straightforward...but there are a lot of holes that still need patching. And if Teachers don't know where to draw the line with copyright (refer to story above), and can we as students be expected to understand then any better?
What is wrong
Perhaps the number one most controversial subject on digital media is the issue of copyright--with the digital age comes a whole new way of accessing media, and instead of requiring a copy machine, now you can just hit copy/paste in order to get something recorded. And with limitless methods of downloading copyrighted media for free, protection of said media is virtually impossible; whenever a counter is developed for one form of copying/downloading, a new method immediately springs up. This has given rise to an immense controversy in copyright, culminating into what could almost become a war of information ownership and protection.
Let me make something clear right now: as someone who is proud of my photography, I am all for protecting something that is your own work, and certainly wouldn't like it if someone used my photos without giving me any credit. Does that make me selfish? Maybe. That does NOT mean, however, that people can't enjoy my photos and using them for personal purposes...just don't use them for personal gain. Long story short, I DON'T MIND HAVING COPYRIGHT LAWS.
But let's face it, the existing laws suck. They are vague, confusing in many places, and over-generalized to the point where we don't know where to draw the line....the problem is, digital media itself is so dynamic, we really NEED to know where the line is drawn. A good example of this is academic integrity--perhaps the copyright policy I have the biggest problem with is academic integrity policies. Why?
Let me give an example. Here's a true story: my brother is a FANTASTIC writer. Like me, writing is in that man's blood. After turning in a very well-written, thought-out essay in his Perspective on Inquiry class, my brother got accused of plagiarism. The teacher's explanation? He claimed that the writing was so damn amazing, that he was convinced there was no possible way my brother could have done it all on his own. So instead of finding stuff that was plagiarized, looking online, or even just submitting it into ArticleChecker or any similar program, he just assumed and accused without any basis or proof. In the end, my brother was able to prove his innocence--quite easily--but the fact remains, current copyright policies in schools require only the mere SUSPICION from teachers that plagiarism is in effect, and that is completely inappropriate.
It seems that, no matter how much we students are warned of the consequences of copyright infringement, and no matter how many times we are encouraged to avoid it, it still inevitably happens to the best of us. Why? Are we really that stupid, or is it simply because we don't know WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE? What counts as plagiarism? What counts as infringement? In one of the readings we went through, it was quoted as saying: "It is important to know what is allowed and what is not when utilizing the information obtained."(Copyright) But it doesn't outline what those allowances are. Hell, did I even cite this right? Quotes, in-text citation, is that enough? For SOME teachers it is...and for some, it isn't...you see, I don't even know how to quote this copyright information without violating copyright (and now I'm ****ing CONFUSED), because there is no universal set of rules for this practice. Sure, there are a handful on this website I just mentioned, and yes they are pretty straightforward...but there are a lot of holes that still need patching. And if Teachers don't know where to draw the line with copyright (refer to story above), and can we as students be expected to understand then any better?
What is wrong
Thursday, October 14, 2010
I've Been Down this Road Before
I remember reading this same article by Bitzter last year in my professor's class..."The Rhetorical Situation," it was called. One of the author's claims about the rhetorical situation was that all rhetoric is persuasive.
After one year, I still disagree. I disagree that all rhetoric is persuasive, in the sense that there is rhetoric out there that exists solely to inform, to harm, or to heal. These three aspects are not persuasive aspects, per say, but simple, inevitable physical reactions of the human condition. What would be the persuasive intent of insulting someone, for instance? Calling someone a horrible name is often used simply to hurt them, or to make you feel better about yourself...neither of these things are persuasive. Hurting someone is not persuasive--while it can lead them to do things in response, those things are not necessarily the intended outcome of your action---in order for it (or anything else to qualify as persuasion, for that matter), I still believe that persuasion must be the underlying intent in order for the rhetoric to be persuasive. Does that make insulting or verbally hurting someone any less a rhetorical situation? Of course not! By Bitzer's standards, a rhetorical situation changes a reality, which is still accomplished by insulting someone...so it still follows Bitzer's standards.
After one year, I still disagree. I disagree that all rhetoric is persuasive, in the sense that there is rhetoric out there that exists solely to inform, to harm, or to heal. These three aspects are not persuasive aspects, per say, but simple, inevitable physical reactions of the human condition. What would be the persuasive intent of insulting someone, for instance? Calling someone a horrible name is often used simply to hurt them, or to make you feel better about yourself...neither of these things are persuasive. Hurting someone is not persuasive--while it can lead them to do things in response, those things are not necessarily the intended outcome of your action---in order for it (or anything else to qualify as persuasion, for that matter), I still believe that persuasion must be the underlying intent in order for the rhetoric to be persuasive. Does that make insulting or verbally hurting someone any less a rhetorical situation? Of course not! By Bitzer's standards, a rhetorical situation changes a reality, which is still accomplished by insulting someone...so it still follows Bitzer's standards.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
OK, I couldn't help it....
To follow up on my previous post, I just had to get this in as one final hurrah on the subject.
When it comes to viral marketing and copyright infringement on YouTube, I think this video speaks for itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ
When it comes to viral marketing and copyright infringement on YouTube, I think this video speaks for itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ
Here's an interesting article
OK, since I have to post stuff beyond the assigned readings, here's one I found while conducting a boredom surf.
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/05/01/analysis-what-is-the-role-of-the-artist-in-a-digital-age
I think this article raises some interesting issues and provides a very good perspective of how an artist should treat this digital age. I especially liked the bit about how viral marketing provides a great way of getting your name out into the artists' field. I think this author is right...instead of complaining about the limitations the internet has put on music sales, artists should focus on the new possibilities the Web presents. I completely believe that there is a way to use free music downloads to your advantage, and I'm glad the author here sees that.
I'm one of those people who really gets excited every time she sees a new way of exploiting and using the internet. Viral marketing, for instance, is a fantastic marketing concept and it's responsible for the success of many independent artists and films. District 9 got so many viewers due to the simple viral method of putting up NO ALIENS ALLOWED posters...and another film, Downfall (a film about Hitler's last days), has become well-known only after so many gags revolving around a memorable scene were posted on YouTube. One of those gags can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eERaG5NXTQ
Tell me: why can't musicians and other artists exploit the internet in the same way? To anyone who is familiar with deviantArt.com, a good example would be the cartoonist known as Rufftoon--as a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender (the CARTOON, NOT the sucky-ass movie), I have grown to love her fancomics about the show. Apparently, the Avatar producers found her comics as well, and now she works for them as a storyboard artist. Yet another great example of how digital media can really benefit an artist.
I think artists still have a lot to learn about the possibilities of digital media and the internet...if they can't, I can honestly assume that they simply didn't bother trying.
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/05/01/analysis-what-is-the-role-of-the-artist-in-a-digital-age
I think this article raises some interesting issues and provides a very good perspective of how an artist should treat this digital age. I especially liked the bit about how viral marketing provides a great way of getting your name out into the artists' field. I think this author is right...instead of complaining about the limitations the internet has put on music sales, artists should focus on the new possibilities the Web presents. I completely believe that there is a way to use free music downloads to your advantage, and I'm glad the author here sees that.
I'm one of those people who really gets excited every time she sees a new way of exploiting and using the internet. Viral marketing, for instance, is a fantastic marketing concept and it's responsible for the success of many independent artists and films. District 9 got so many viewers due to the simple viral method of putting up NO ALIENS ALLOWED posters...and another film, Downfall (a film about Hitler's last days), has become well-known only after so many gags revolving around a memorable scene were posted on YouTube. One of those gags can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eERaG5NXTQ
Tell me: why can't musicians and other artists exploit the internet in the same way? To anyone who is familiar with deviantArt.com, a good example would be the cartoonist known as Rufftoon--as a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender (the CARTOON, NOT the sucky-ass movie), I have grown to love her fancomics about the show. Apparently, the Avatar producers found her comics as well, and now she works for them as a storyboard artist. Yet another great example of how digital media can really benefit an artist.
I think artists still have a lot to learn about the possibilities of digital media and the internet...if they can't, I can honestly assume that they simply didn't bother trying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)