Delagrange, Susan H. Technologies of Wonder: Rhetorical Practice in a Digital World. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital P, 2011. ccdigitalpress.org/wonder/ Web. 12 Oct. 2014.

Delagrange encourages us to look at new media as tools to offer “new perspectives and processes that are unavailable in more traditional forms” (xi). She practices what she preaches by providing an e-book with hyperlinks of video presentations and examples, affording the reader an opportunity to interact with the text in addition to consuming it. Using examples of feminist theory, she explains how using new media may open the door for the underprivileged to take part in the rhetorical discussion of the college classroom.

One section of a chapter is devoted to remediation, which is the topic of my canonical book; her discussions helped provide another perspective about the topic, and her definitions and specific examples added to my understanding of the concept (see p. 23 specifically). Since remediation describes where many English departments find themselves right now (“How much should I incorporate new media into my composition classroom?”), she claims that now is the time to begin questioning if we have to continue doing things the same way. She challenges the comp professor to consider that the “form(less)-ness is the content” (30), and to allow students to engage in creating meaning using media other than mere words.

“Wonder_eye” by Jalal Volker Creative Commons through Wikimedia

Through a discussion of the classical rhetorical term techne’, she explains why creating (proairesis) is so powerful in the process of discovery (36-37), and in my favorite section, she discusses the importance of instilling a sense of wonder within our students. We don’t want them to just see something as a passing fancy which captures their attention for a short while before they figure it out and lose interest, nor do we want

them to find something so complicated that it becomes confusing; instead, we want to find the “sweet spot” which captures and holds their attention to the point that they want to continue uncovering nuggets of truth of their own accord (41). Incorporating new media into our classrooms and forcing students to explain their function can help foster this sense of wonder.

Ball, Cheryl E. “Designerly ≠ Readerly.” Convergence 12.4 (2006): 393-412. Shared Google Folder. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.

Like many of the other authors we have read this semester, Ball is looking for a universal criterion to apply to new media. Specifically, Ball is looking for a rubric which will “help students interpret all of the modes of communication (as well as the designerly processes) in a new media text” (394). While she does not propose such a rubric specifically – because her desire is to explain “why this other thing is needed” (394) – she does take a digital text and walk through it in such a manner as she hopes our students could one day emulate. Using a variety of criteria from her knowledge of poetry, of rhetoric, of visual literacy, of audible resources, and “gestural and spatial” analysis (408), she comes to the conclusion that her meaning-making was the result of her ability to “mentally juxtapos[e]” all those elements (409). Therein lies the problem with her desire for an all-encompassing rubric. In order for students to accurately “read” a new media text, they need to know how to accurately use all these other rubrics first and apply them all layer upon layer to create a finished product. Perhaps if she is working with graduate-level students such a feat could be accomplished, but the freshmen students I deal with on a daily basis would have enough trouble understanding and applying just one of these rubrics. If such a rubric were the ultimate goal, perhaps a multi-semester course of study would have to be put in place in which students learn to apply one rubric at a time, continually building one upon the other. For example, the first semester, students could learn to evaluate text merely using the rhetorical situation. The following semester, they would use a new rubric while also engaging with the rhetorical situation, and so on.

The New London Group’s six modes of communication which work to create meaning (394-95):

• linguistic
• audio
• spatial
• gestural
• visual
• multimodal

Three cycles designers work through (395):

• understanding available designs
• designing the text
• presenting the redesigned product

Kress and van Leeuwen’s four strata of design (395-96):

• discourse:  “socially constructed knowledge” which connects to what we already know
• design: (modes) the “ecology of code” from Brooke
• production : (material) the software available based upon the other strata
• distribution : determining how to make the design available to readers

Manovich’s qualifications of new media (399-402):

• numerical representation : must be “digital, mathematical, and algorithmically manipulated”
• modularity : assimilated pieces that together make a whole without losing their individuality
• automation : “‘creation, manipulation, and access’ process that . . . removes human intentionality from a text”
• variability : can exist in “potentially infinite versions”
• transcoding : “text must follow ‘the established conventions of the computer’s organization of data'” in order to be shareable

My responses for this week were to Canonical Book Presentations, not New Book Reading blog posts.

I was very impressed with the different styles teams used in presenting their books; I especially liked seeing different media in use. My favorite presentation was Shantal and Sherie’s book on The Rhetoric of Cool, found here and replied to here. While their presentation had the audio separate from the visual, I was able to get the audio playing in the background while I looked over the web site. They made the book sound simple, not in content, but in presentation, so that I have added it to my reading list. Who wouldn’t want to read about “cool” stuff, anyway? His book sounds like it focuses on making connections for students by providing them with something that they WANT to read/discuss/connect with, which reminds me of Ball’s “Designerly [not equal to] Readerly” and my current project Technologies of Wonder by Susan Delagrange. We are not good rhetoricians if we are not reaching our target audience: the students!

I also commented on Summer’s presentation on Baudrillard’s books Simulacra and Simulation and The Illusion of the End. (Actually, when I went back to find my comments for linking to them, I realized that I had never uploaded them from my Word document to her web page.) Thankfully Summer “dummed down” his work for us because Baudrillard is deep! I hope Summer never takes down this blog link because I foresee the need to have access to it for many years to come! Since I have a hard time grasping his questioning of reality, I have a hard time interacting with his ideas. I understand that our perceptions can skew the way we VIEW reality, but I’m not convinced that our shifted perceptions actually alter reality itself. Still, Summer had MANY wonderful examples of the concepts and video links to support them, so I know I can reference those as I continue to wrestle with his ideas.

The following connection may stretch the concept a little, but it is still worth discussing. I was thinking of remediation one day driving in to work. While I’m not sure I want to admit this, I tend to have a Type A personality when I’m behind the wheel of a vehicle; I am focused and driven (pun intended) to get where I’m going as efficiently as possible. That personality trait can be problematic when I’m following someone who drives at a speed lower than the speed limit, especially since I prefer to view “speed limit” signs as indicators of the LOWEST speed a car should be traveling, not the highest speed. I had all sorts of negative thoughts and feelings about that car in front of me and how slow it was going, and I’m sure I verbalized some of them to myself. Finally, the slow car in front of me pulled into a turn lane, and I was forced to stop beside it when our light turned red. Of course, I would have made it through the yellow light had I not been following this slow-poke! I looked over and saw the sweetest-looking woman just sitting patiently in her car, oblivious to anyone else or the tension I felt. I instantly felt guilty for having all those negative thoughts when I was reminded of her humanity. As the light turned green and I drove away, I wondered why I had substituted the humanity of the driver with the inhumanity of the car being driven (which could perhaps be a case of metonymy), and I made the connection to remediation. How often are we guilty of replacing something real with something virtual? I distanced myself from her humanity, and lost a necessary connection that I should have had.

Facebook is the remediation of the annual Christmas card or the occasional letter, but what is lost if I use Facebook as remediation for the physical friendship I used to have with someone? Remediation may make more information available to more people more quickly, but how useful is that information if the quality of the “piece” is diminished (like Dan’s question about only being able to see a representation of The Mona Lisa)?

Perspective

On the flip side, I must also ask, “What can be gained by remediation?” In the discussion of the self, Bolter and Grusin mention that one large benefit of virtual reality is the ability to experience different perspectives. Not only can a virtual reality program facilitate how an adult would view the insides of an architectural piece of work, this program could also demonstrate what a child’s view of this same piece would look like (which of course would come in handy for someone designing a day care or elementary school). Unlike my story at the beginning of this post, the changing perspective offered by virtual reality could help me to see more humanity in others by allowing me to empathize with someone else. As Benedikt (1991, 372) says, “Assuming multiple perspectives is a powerful capacity;” it allows someone “to relate to others in an empathetic way” (qtd. in Bolter and Grusin 245).

The Non-Designers Design Book (Chapters 1-4)

Oh, a little light reading! How refreshing. The first four chapters focused on different aspects of intentionality in design under the umbrella of unity and organization. Effective organization requires the intentional grouping of information into relational parts; she calls this “Proximity.” In order to group, the white space needs to be used properly to show the eye where one group ends and another begins. But she warns against merely filling up white space; not only does randomness break up the organization of the design, it also affects the unity of the design. Proper Alignment helps to fix disunity. Hard edges (flush left, flush right) help to provide alignment which ties information together by mere glances. Another key element is Repetition, involving font styles, sizes, and images.  While the same image would probably not be utilized over and over, something consistent would work (like the same image in different poses). Another good way to demonstrate consistency is to link together different organized groups visually either with a connecting image or a piece of lettering that jumps out of its space.

While these design concepts are wonderful, some of the applications we use are limited in their scope. For example, Word Press does not allow me to manipulate my images across borders. But I can focus on other areas of consistency, organization, and unity. I look forward to practicing!

Since Camille and I are collaborating on our canonical work, I began my responses with her post. She tied in the “Remediated Self” very nicely with an amazing video that exemplifies how an overabundance of and an over-dependence on media can negatively affect the individual’s ability to connect with other individuals. Even the way the two girls in the video look at each other demonstrates their distrust of humans and human interaction. That is truly sad.  I countered, though, with some of the more positive applications that are possible through media, specifically some of the ways virtual reality could be used to help people understand one another. Just like most things in life, though, I think one of the main things to keep in mind is BALANCE.

I also commented on Shantal’s post about her book The Rhetoric of Cool: Composition Studies and New Media by Jeff Rice. While I agree that the composition classroom could use some more “cool,” I don’t see evidence of the author requiring that the foundation be laid before students are encouraged to freely express themselves. We love to see students thinking outside the box, but they do this on a daily basis already (texting lingo, selfies, snap-chats, etc.). Where many students lack is in their ability to think critically and present their thoughts logically and in order. For that reason, we focus on these “non-cool” precepts because they are important. Once students get a solid foundation, then they can build higher and broader. So “yes” to juxtaposition, commutation, and imagery, but only once the basics are laid down in stone.