In today's reading, Charles Hill makes a claim that visual rhetoric is an important component of writing classrooms. What does he base this claim on? For one thing, in the first page, he mentions the multitude of texts (particularly visual texts) we are bombarded with each day. It's hard to argue with that...especially when advertising and consumerism seem to be creeping into every aspect of our lives. Indeed, even when I'm running around virtually soldiering, virtual billboards sell real world products in the background.
Hill argues that although we are inundated by such advertising, we get little educational focus put on learning to analyze visual texts. He writes "as a result, Americans tend to act as passive consumers rather than as critics or analysts of visual messages" (108). This claim is a little more dubious. Do you agree or disagree with it? How might we begin to support Hill's claim with reasons or evidence, the hallmarks of logos?
To push further at Hill's claims, even if we believe that what he says is true...that visual images are an important part of our modern lives, that we haven't had enough training in their analysis, and that such training can offer us more agency in terms of the decisions we make in our lives...the question still remains...is this the domain of the writing class? Do you think this material relates to the "job" of a writing class? Why or why not? How might other people see it?
Hill argues that although we are inundated by such advertising, we get little educational focus put on learning to analyze visual texts. He writes "as a result, Americans tend to act as passive consumers rather than as critics or analysts of visual messages" (108). This claim is a little more dubious. Do you agree or disagree with it? How might we begin to support Hill's claim with reasons or evidence, the hallmarks of logos?
To push further at Hill's claims, even if we believe that what he says is true...that visual images are an important part of our modern lives, that we haven't had enough training in their analysis, and that such training can offer us more agency in terms of the decisions we make in our lives...the question still remains...is this the domain of the writing class? Do you think this material relates to the "job" of a writing class? Why or why not? How might other people see it?
5 comments:
I think that the claims made by Hill in this article could be possible true. He claims that rhetoric and composition in general do very little to produce good sense of visual expression. I believe this to be true in todays class. In high school the english classes were for the most point a non visual experience. Since todays world is rapidly increasing with hypermedia, I feel that it is extremely important to help kids be able to form appropriate knowledge of visual media, and be able to interpret it in a correct manner. The world is not going to change from this, so it is up to the schools to help provide for the transition into the new era.
I agree with Hills argument that schools focus too much on verbal text and not enough on visuals. Especially because people are different than others. We all have our learning preferences and our own talents and skills. Some people might love to read and can understand words better than most but when they start to look at pictures they cant see the message or are easily persuaded by a picture without even analyzing it. Visual learning is important to buying things because you can see somethings that you would not see if you had no backround in visuals.
There are certain things that Hill says that I agree with and certain things that I don’t agree with. One thing I don’t agree with is when Hill says “Americans tend to act as passive consumers rather than as critics or analyst of visual message” (108). The reason I don’t agree with this because mostly everybody buys things because of the packaging and how the label looks. For example if a person was going to buy jelly, they are going to pick the jelly that looks the best on the label, they look what brand it is, if it looks like it is homemade, if it has certain ingredients in it, and so on, but they don’t actually look through the jar to see what the jelly looks like. Or if somebody was flipping through a magazine and saw an add for ice tea that had a cheerful women outside on a sunny day somebody would think alright this looks good maybe I should try it. I think marketing the product has everything to do with it selling and whether people realize it or not they buy something because of the label.
I think visual rhetoric needs and should be taught in a writing class room. Looking at, understanding and visually interpreting a picture or a picture with little word is something an English teacher should teach. It is very similar to interpreting a short story or poem.
I agree with Hill that visuals do need to be used more. Visuals are a good way to learn because people have something to go along with when there following the material. I personally would like to use visuals because having a diagram or picture makes learning a lot easier. I think however that visual images should be taught to students as a positive thing and students should see what good visual images are in the media and also in advertising and I think that advertising products should not be used in schools.
I think the reason he says we as Americans have become passive consumers is because we are not taught how to analyze visual texts. We are just spoon fed the visuals and not explained to that we need to look closer or we might not understand the whole picture. I think it is important for one to use visual texts because they are a great way to convey a message, but to understand that like text they need to be scrutinized and looked over.
Post a Comment