Historical, ethical, and social implications of digital rhetorics, investigating how rhetorics figure in digital contexts with special attention to digital content and programmatic form. Critical understanding of rhetorical analysis through readings, discussion, and research of contemporary issues in digital rhetorics.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Welcome to Digital Rhetorics!
Hello and Welcome to Digital Rhetorics!
Please post about your name choice and how it changes ot stays the same in the various digital spaces you inhabit.
My name is "Sara" or "Sara Schram" for all of my social media and online accounts, except the ones that require an email address. I always use this one because it's the name I was given and I want people to be able to recognize that it's me. I use just "Sara" on more public forums where I don't want my last name associated.
Hi, my name is Annette Perkowski and people usually call me Annette. In digital spaces related to school I'll usually use my first name or else alperkow, which was given to me through the tech emails. This is to keep my online identity close to my school identity. Other then that I join a few blogs that are about media I'm a fan of - certain movies and books. With those I use the username alpwolf, after my initials and my favorite animal. It's rather unoriginal because I came up with it when I was young and grew attached to it even after I came up with more clever options.
I'm not sure where to add this, so for now I'll just post it as a comment to this.
"Digital Rhetorics: Simply Too Complicated a Phenomenon" This reading was really interesting for me to read, since I wasn't quite sure what rhetoric is exactly. I've only heard it mentioned in my classes, not defined. I really like how this article explains digital rhetoric as complicated. That may sound strange, but it helps me to realize there are multiple layers. Digital rhetoric isn't just rhetoric, and the article specifically says that digital rhetoric challenges the idea of rhetoric for "renewal and reinvention". To me, this is excellent to add because many definitions aren't set in stone and are constantly evolving, such as "digital rhetoric". I also like how this author positions digital rhetoric as an idea that is mid-way point between "rhetoric" and "new media".
Of course I can't talk about this article and not mention the Google search result. The list of links generated from "digital rhetoric". This again reinforces that one word or concept can mean different things to different people. Some seem ridiculous, such as "a Roland Barthes hologram annotating images of his mother and more in a Flickr set called "Almosts"". When I think about it more though, it makes sense. Holograms, photographs, and images are all digital, and it can be argued that every photo is rhetorical. Each thing on this list is true (or so in my eyes).
I think a few that really stand out to me as being helpful or particularly memorable are "digital rhetoric is less about technological devices and more about a process". This resonates with me because the technology is required to produce the digital rhetoric, but it is not always necessary when examining the rhetoric. For example, I may take a photo of a homeless child. I had to have the camera to take the photo, but the fact that I used a camera does not mean much to the message other than to produce a photo to convey the message. Another definition I liked was "digital rhetorics is a bridging mechanism between digital consumers and producer". I am interested in marketing, and with the use of the internet, many online ads have been developed. Every ad is rhetorical and has a desired goal in mind. Many consumers are influenced unknowingly by these online ads, and many still ignore them completely. It's fascinating to me to see how online marketing stands as digital rhetoric.
I am impressed by your assessment of digital Rhetorics as a process. Many scholars make arguments about how we approach digital rhetoric as we did other forms of textual rhetoric or as a new form of delivery, but what some scholars miss is the reorganization that occurs in the digital sphere.
We will be reading Ian Bogost who poses a theory of procedural rhetoric that you may find engaging. He studies video games, a medium known for its connection with mechanics and process.
That noted, is digital rhetoric mainly for an economic marketplace as defined above, where we are producers and consumers of media or can it be used for other purposes?
I don't think that with digital rhetoric we are producers and consumers, I think it goes a step beyond that. Yes, we are producing content as well as consuming content, but the way in which we go about it (like this blog, for example, I posted, you commented, I'm commenting back) allows us to interact much more intimately with the material, which I think makes us a cross between consumers and producers. I think when persuasion enters the mix it gets a bit more confusing still. When I persuade someone to do something by posting a photo of a beaten dog in a kennel on Facebook, for example, I am not producing the picture, I am producing the message behind the picture in persuading (or attempting to persuade) my "friends" to adopt animals. They, then, aren't necessarily a consumer, but a person who was persuaded. I think the line is gray between being classified as a consumer or producer and being "regular people" who don't need to be classified.
"Digital Rhetoric" This article, while very short, had a lot of good ideas. I really liked how it gave examples of the genres of digital media. It listed: email, electronic slides, webpages, blogs, wikis, and video games as new genres. For me, it always helps to see examples when I'm trying to learn a new concept that is foreign to me. I also like how the author mentions those who have not learned the technology and argues that they now pay the price in wealth. In today's society, so much of the wealth is centered around technology. Think of how many jobs use computers alone. Then add in all the special software, then move into other technology such as cameras, video game consoles, machine equipment and more. Society today is teaching us that the more technology we know, the better it may be to get a job.
This article also talks about electronic miscommunication and the "digital divide", which takes me back to the concept of those who don't know technology well. Miscommunication can occur very often in rhetoric, and especially digital rhetoric, since it can be taken out of context very easily. Sarcasm, for example, is something that can't easily be picked up on in, say, a Facebook post, or an email. The reader may think the writer is saying something different than what they mean. The digital divide, I think, helps contribute to this. An example I can think of is "texting language". When a teenager writes out "lol" or "lmao", an adult may look at that and have no idea what it means. This relates to digital rhetoric in my eyes because there are so many things online (memes for example) that only make sense if you know and are used to technology.
I also found the excerpt from the author to be very thought provoking. It reads that a typical view of some digital communication highlights "the computer rather than the theories behind it's continuing development". This is very important because it's like that with many technologies. When a new site (Facebook for example) comes out, a lot of people are concerned with how does it work, what are the functions I can do on the site? Not many people ask why did this come about, or how can I contribute change through this medium. That, I think, is what we should be asking ourselves sometimes. I don't want to get lost in a sea of technology without questioning it.
Two questions: -what have people rhetorically developed within the digital sphere to help convey tone or emotion? -what can give us information about how a space functions so we can critically assess our participation in it?
I think lots of things can be developed rhetorically to convey tone or emotion. Like we discussed in class, sarcasm doesn't come across in a digital sphere, but when paired with emoticons it is easier to convey your tone. I think color also helps, since colors have different association. Capitalization too. If I post the words "ANSWER YOUR PHONE", in all caps and in red, my tone might be conveyed as angry or urgent. If I post the words "answer your phone" in all lower case and regular black color, I may be perceived as more annoyed or wondering if maybe the person's phone wasn't working.
I'm not sure what can give us information about the functions of a space... maybe how you are able to add content? If, in a blog setting for example, you can comment at your will with whatever you want, then that tells you you can be a limited participant. If you're invited to post on the blog, you would know you're a full participant, and perhaps the main participant. If it's a closed blog and you can only read, then you know you can only participate by observation.
My name is "Pamela Landrum" for almost all of my online accounts and this is no exception. The web is accessible by anyone now and with my career so close in the horizon, I feel that it is best to keep anything I have online as professional (or appropriate) as possible. Except, however, for my Twitter. In that case, I use the name Chaotic Ducky, because I think it's exactly the type of person that I am. I am completely crazy at times, but can also be very shy (or delicate - like a duck is).
I'll be keeping my username as- to keep it simple, my name, Samantha Manderfield. I agree with Pamela that it's important we keep our online presence as professional as possible, especially being so close to the start of our careers. Although, in the future I plan on changing my online presence "name" (which may not even be remotely close to my real name, possibly more along the lines of a title) into something short and simple, in a way I will begin "branding" myself and my presence online. For instance, like most of us do with our social media/networking sites including twitter, instagram, etc., we shorten our names or use our nicknames. I've been using variations of my first and middle name (original- I know), like Sammy_Faithh and Samantha_Faith, but for this site and my LinkedIn I plan on using good ol' faithful, Samantha Manderfield.
My name is "Sara" or "Sara Schram" for all of my social media and online accounts, except the ones that require an email address. I always use this one because it's the name I was given and I want people to be able to recognize that it's me. I use just "Sara" on more public forums where I don't want my last name associated.
ReplyDeleteHi, my name is Annette Perkowski and people usually call me Annette. In digital spaces related to school I'll usually use my first name or else alperkow, which was given to me through the tech emails. This is to keep my online identity close to my school identity. Other then that I join a few blogs that are about media I'm a fan of - certain movies and books. With those I use the username alpwolf, after my initials and my favorite animal. It's rather unoriginal because I came up with it when I was young and grew attached to it even after I came up with more clever options.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where to add this, so for now I'll just post it as a comment to this.
ReplyDelete"Digital Rhetorics: Simply Too Complicated a Phenomenon"
This reading was really interesting for me to read, since I wasn't quite sure what rhetoric is exactly. I've only heard it mentioned in my classes, not defined. I really like how this article explains digital rhetoric as complicated. That may sound strange, but it helps me to realize there are multiple layers. Digital rhetoric isn't just rhetoric, and the article specifically says that digital rhetoric challenges the idea of rhetoric for "renewal and reinvention". To me, this is excellent to add because many definitions aren't set in stone and are constantly evolving, such as "digital rhetoric". I also like how this author positions digital rhetoric as an idea that is mid-way point between "rhetoric" and "new media".
Of course I can't talk about this article and not mention the Google search result. The list of links generated from "digital rhetoric". This again reinforces that one word or concept can mean different things to different people. Some seem ridiculous, such as "a Roland Barthes hologram annotating images of his mother and more in a Flickr set called "Almosts"". When I think about it more though, it makes sense. Holograms, photographs, and images are all digital, and it can be argued that every photo is rhetorical. Each thing on this list is true (or so in my eyes).
I think a few that really stand out to me as being helpful or particularly memorable are "digital rhetoric is less about technological devices and more about a process". This resonates with me because the technology is required to produce the digital rhetoric, but it is not always necessary when examining the rhetoric. For example, I may take a photo of a homeless child. I had to have the camera to take the photo, but the fact that I used a camera does not mean much to the message other than to produce a photo to convey the message. Another definition I liked was "digital rhetorics is a bridging mechanism between digital consumers and producer". I am interested in marketing, and with the use of the internet, many online ads have been developed. Every ad is rhetorical and has a desired goal in mind. Many consumers are influenced unknowingly by these online ads, and many still ignore them completely. It's fascinating to me to see how online marketing stands as digital rhetoric.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am impressed by your assessment of digital Rhetorics as a process. Many scholars make arguments about how we approach digital rhetoric as we did other forms of textual rhetoric or as a new form of delivery, but what some scholars miss is the reorganization that occurs in the digital sphere.
DeleteWe will be reading Ian Bogost who poses a theory of procedural rhetoric that you may find engaging. He studies video games, a medium known for its connection with mechanics and process.
That noted, is digital rhetoric mainly for an economic marketplace as defined above, where we are producers and consumers of media or can it be used for other purposes?
I don't think that with digital rhetoric we are producers and consumers, I think it goes a step beyond that. Yes, we are producing content as well as consuming content, but the way in which we go about it (like this blog, for example, I posted, you commented, I'm commenting back) allows us to interact much more intimately with the material, which I think makes us a cross between consumers and producers. I think when persuasion enters the mix it gets a bit more confusing still. When I persuade someone to do something by posting a photo of a beaten dog in a kennel on Facebook, for example, I am not producing the picture, I am producing the message behind the picture in persuading (or attempting to persuade) my "friends" to adopt animals. They, then, aren't necessarily a consumer, but a person who was persuaded. I think the line is gray between being classified as a consumer or producer and being "regular people" who don't need to be classified.
Delete"Digital Rhetoric"
ReplyDeleteThis article, while very short, had a lot of good ideas. I really liked how it gave examples of the genres of digital media. It listed: email, electronic slides, webpages, blogs, wikis, and video games as new genres. For me, it always helps to see examples when I'm trying to learn a new concept that is foreign to me. I also like how the author mentions those who have not learned the technology and argues that they now pay the price in wealth. In today's society, so much of the wealth is centered around technology. Think of how many jobs use computers alone. Then add in all the special software, then move into other technology such as cameras, video game consoles, machine equipment and more. Society today is teaching us that the more technology we know, the better it may be to get a job.
This article also talks about electronic miscommunication and the "digital divide", which takes me back to the concept of those who don't know technology well. Miscommunication can occur very often in rhetoric, and especially digital rhetoric, since it can be taken out of context very easily. Sarcasm, for example, is something that can't easily be picked up on in, say, a Facebook post, or an email. The reader may think the writer is saying something different than what they mean. The digital divide, I think, helps contribute to this. An example I can think of is "texting language". When a teenager writes out "lol" or "lmao", an adult may look at that and have no idea what it means. This relates to digital rhetoric in my eyes because there are so many things online (memes for example) that only make sense if you know and are used to technology.
I also found the excerpt from the author to be very thought provoking. It reads that a typical view of some digital communication highlights "the computer rather than the theories behind it's continuing development". This is very important because it's like that with many technologies. When a new site (Facebook for example) comes out, a lot of people are concerned with how does it work, what are the functions I can do on the site? Not many people ask why did this come about, or how can I contribute change through this medium. That, I think, is what we should be asking ourselves sometimes. I don't want to get lost in a sea of technology without questioning it.
Two questions:
Delete-what have people rhetorically developed within the digital sphere to help convey tone or emotion?
-what can give us information about how a space functions so we can critically assess our participation in it?
I think lots of things can be developed rhetorically to convey tone or emotion. Like we discussed in class, sarcasm doesn't come across in a digital sphere, but when paired with emoticons it is easier to convey your tone. I think color also helps, since colors have different association. Capitalization too. If I post the words "ANSWER YOUR PHONE", in all caps and in red, my tone might be conveyed as angry or urgent. If I post the words "answer your phone" in all lower case and regular black color, I may be perceived as more annoyed or wondering if maybe the person's phone wasn't working.
DeleteI'm not sure what can give us information about the functions of a space... maybe how you are able to add content? If, in a blog setting for example, you can comment at your will with whatever you want, then that tells you you can be a limited participant. If you're invited to post on the blog, you would know you're a full participant, and perhaps the main participant. If it's a closed blog and you can only read, then you know you can only participate by observation.
My name is "Pamela Landrum" for almost all of my online accounts and this is no exception. The web is accessible by anyone now and with my career so close in the horizon, I feel that it is best to keep anything I have online as professional (or appropriate) as possible. Except, however, for my Twitter. In that case, I use the name Chaotic Ducky, because I think it's exactly the type of person that I am. I am completely crazy at times, but can also be very shy (or delicate - like a duck is).
ReplyDeleteI'll be keeping my username as- to keep it simple, my name, Samantha Manderfield. I agree with Pamela that it's important we keep our online presence as professional as possible, especially being so close to the start of our careers. Although, in the future I plan on changing my online presence "name" (which may not even be remotely close to my real name, possibly more along the lines of a title) into something short and simple, in a way I will begin "branding" myself and my presence online. For instance, like most of us do with our social media/networking sites including twitter, instagram, etc., we shorten our names or use our nicknames. I've been using variations of my first and middle name (original- I know), like Sammy_Faithh and Samantha_Faith, but for this site and my LinkedIn I plan on using good ol' faithful, Samantha Manderfield.
ReplyDelete