First, saw this front and center on CNN. Pretty interesting, considering our discussion on controversial video games...pay attention that this game appears to be retaliating against prior games that focused on Middle-Easterner hunts. The problem is that in essentializing a group like Al Quaeda or the Taliban (or focusing on Sadam, even), the producers of the media utilize stereotypes that dehumanize all Muslims or Middle Easterners. Here's an example of an American produced machinima (a genre in which video games are used to create movies) movie of Taliban hunting. I warn you that it's pretty offensive and offends a lot of people not even connected to the Taliban. Media that creates Americans as having this view of Middle Easterners contributes to the creation of games like those mentioned in the first link and that Palistinian first-person shooter game I mentioned in class, it also, probably, contributes to an ill sentiment or even violence towards Americans overseas or serving in the armed forces. But, we're at war, and it might be easier to attack games like Super Columbine RPG (without checking them out, analysing them, and making an informed critique), rather than focusing on these kinds of representations in video games...
Ok...So, that isn't really connected to the readings...I'll write that now.
Was the guy who wrote the visual rhetoric thing named Hill? What did you think of his arguments concerning the importance of being competent in terms of visual rhetoric as a part of a class on rhetoric and composition? What does he think the job of a rhetoric class is? Do you agree or disagree? Why does he say this might be a hard sell to students?
What did you think about McCloud's piece? Was it convincing? Is there really a split between words and images as he describes? Why is that relevant to media study? Do we ever devalue media because of their reliance on visual imagery?
That's it. I look forward to your responses.
1 comment:
Yeah, the guy who wrote the article was named Hill, but he really didint' do so much of the writing himself. Much of it was pulled from other publishers and he kinda of just gave and opinion here and there, either agreeing or disagreeeing with them.
And I would have to agree with the viual rhetoric statement - that the images being constantly pushed to us, be them true or not, eventually become a reality to us from viewing them over and over agagin.
Now to comment on the show and tell topic. I had to agrre with what was being told. But I really never realized the split between the two. As far as it has to do with media study, perhaps I could use aol instant messenger for example. when you are trying to have a conversation with someone over the web, they are only seeing your words, they're not getting a visual " picture" of how you are really feeling, so they may take what you have spoken into a different text than what was originally meant. So not to sound like a child, but I believe it to be nice, even at my age, to have a few pictures here and there in my readings to helpmyslef visualize what is being told.
Post a Comment