#3

Often the most compelling images are the images that evoke an emotional response in us, such as the picture of the young boy crying in Wood’s Essentials of Argument (202). I had never thought of emotional response as a type of visual argument, usually because I was too busy emotionally responding to think about what my brain was processing—rhetoric. I think that we process images so quickly that we instantly choose to listen to the pathos rather than the logos in the image’s argument. Looking back at the picture of the young boy, I just feel terrible for him, even if I haven’t yet read the picture’s title and discovered the reason why he’s crying. The picture speaks directly to me and I haven’t yet looked critically at it.

I had wondered before, “why do we accept the less real over simplified icons?” In this reading, McCloud introduced the idea to me that we see ourselves as cartoons, “just a sketchy arrangement…a sense of shape…a sense of general placement” (207). By seeing ourselves as cartoons, we are attracted to the universal identification of such a simple image. This point was extremely important; often we just unconsciously take cartoons to mean the actual person, or icons to mean the actual thing being represented. We need to remember the perspectives we view human faces in our culture, as it is represented by so many images or our eyes instantly see the human face in everything. McCloud was clever to note the differences in how we view other people’s faces versus our own, as our own faces (in our minds) resemble the cartoon.

#2

When I think of argument, the first image that comes to mind is a couple of politicians yelling at each other, almost to the point of calling each other names. But Nancy Wood explains in Essentials of Argument that argument is exactly not a shouting contest, which gets people nowhere. Her definition of argument is described as “making a claim (expressing a point of view on an issue that is communicated by the arguer) and supporting it with reasons and evidence to convince an audience to change the way it thinks about the issue” (4-5) Wood is doing just that—trying to convince me to change my perception of argument—and admittedly, she does that quite well. While I always looked at advertisements and brand names as some sort of propaganda or marketing tool, I didn’t really think of them as argument. Wood explains that argument is found nearly everywhere, wherever there is an issue or a product to sell, and that there are different types of argument, including public debate, courtroom argument, single-perspective argument, academic inquiry, dialectic, and not just one-on-one everyday argument.

I chose the September issue of Wired for my magazine to analyze in class, partly because it looked genuinely interesting to read, partly because its highlighter orange color beckoned me to buy it (there’s argument!), and partly because it seemed like something I should be reading, as a Digital Technology and Culture major. Actually, when I was browsing magazines I didn’t sit there and think of the reasons why I should buy Wired. I processed that I needed to buy Wired so automatically and unconsciously that before long I was standing in the checkout line.

#1

I used to ask my parents the proverbial "are we there yet?" on long car trips. In my dad's definition, this could be called a rhetorical question, since the questions I asked when idle and bored were often unanswerable or sought no realistic answer. And so this idea of rhetoric has stuck with me since then, despite how inaccurate this perception may be.

These Foss writers in Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric seem to think that rhetoric isn’t necessarily argument, but simply the “art and discipline that facilitates our understanding of the nature and function of symbols in our lives.” Rhetoric is using symbols to communicate and express obviously intangible ideas, to get our point across, to make a record, and to persuade.

I think that rhetoric isn’t limited to words as symbols (and I’ve heard a bit of what I should say about rhetoric from what Master Muhlhauser thinks it is, admittedly), but also gestures and visuals and sensations. If I lacked the ability to speak I could probably, with awkward flapping motions, convincingly imply the idea of “chicken.” In another realm, excelling at the game of Pictionary doesn’t necessarily depend on artistic merit, but rather on the quickness to believably reproduce and identifiable idea. This is sad news for someone like me, who likes to spend a lot of time drawing, since a few shabby lines can elicit a leaping response almost instantly. And I was just rendering the final buttons on the straitjacket…

If nothing else, apparently a lot of old dead white (generally) guys wrote about rhetoric and how to use it, and it seems like something interesting and important that should make my ears (or eyes) perk up and listen too—because old dead white guys are important and interesting.

from dictionary.com:

rhet·o·ric /ˈrɛtərɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ret-er-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

2.	the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.

3.	the study of the effective use of language.

4.	the ability to use language effectively.

5.	the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.

6.	the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

7.	(in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.

8.	(in older use) a work on rhetoric.

from http://dict.die.net/rhetoric/

rhetoric
    n 1: using language effectively to please or persuade
    2: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation
       [syn: grandiosity, magniloquence, grandiloquence]
    3: loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric" [syn: palaver,
        hot air, empty words, empty talk]
    4: study of the technique and rules for using language
       effectively (especially in public speaking)