Multimodality, Oh My

Like Bruce, Kress had me looking at ordinary examples of design in more detail, though I guess the same could be said for our discussions of the vernacular. In particular, I really enjoyed the way in which Kress made use of the everyday to illustrate his points, showing that his framework is as applicable to ordinary writing as it is to scholarly and professional artifacts. But, now I'm thinking: what does this add to my understanding of visual rhetoric? Well, in many ways, Kress reminded me of the embodiedness of experience, when he talks about how each sign is made anew whenever it is used. In that way, we draw upon the specific instances of our utterances and how they are informed by the entire scheme of sensory perceptions we bring to bear.

In the later chapters, I think Kress ties his theory to concepts we've discussed when he brings up the concept of framing. Comparing it to photographers and directors, he writes "In this, the frame provides unity, relation and coherent what is framed, for all elements inside the frame. Without a frame we cannot know what to put together with what, what to read in relation to what" (149). But more importantly, I think looking at visual pieces purely as visual is a kind of simplification. Looking at the texts we have created and analyzed throughout the semester, our interpretations of the visual have been extreme to say the least, and not consisting of singular modes. Words, gesture, facial expression, and countless other modes have been the object of our analysis and critique, and so we find ourselves looking more at what affordances each mode allows us.

In short, Kress really provides a kind of synthesis (though a convoluted and sometimes overdeveloped synthesis) for much of what we've studied this semester. He examines the affordances of different modes and how their logics affect meaning. His comparison of the alphabetic word with the spatial awareness of maps highlights how different modes can accomplish the same task--describing a process--while emphasizing and creating meanings with different nuances and understanding. And in short, I think it really highlights the importance of avoiding modal fixing so that we do not naturalize one method of representation above another.

I guess in the end, his work makes me want to take a broader stance in terms of what constitutes visual rhetoric. Instead of focusing entirely upon "visual" elements, or photographic elements, I feel as though we need to take into account the ways that different modes establish meaning among the audiences a piece is intended for.

Market Trends for the Visual Suggest Rapid Growth!

After reading Kress' Multimodality, I was left with lots to think about in regard to visual rhetoric.  Honestly, Kress' book had me paying attention to traffic signs everywhere, analyzing websites for no particular reason, trying to notice the sound during horror/suspense movies, etc.  The concept of modal ensembles really added something to the way I view the visual--I had always been prone to view various modes distinctly without necessarily paying attention to how they worked together (at least on a conscious level).  But, overall, Kress' argument against language being the most dominant form of communication was the most substantial addition to my thinking about visual rhetoric.

 Obviously I did not believe the visual was a minor factor.  However, I found myself pausing for a while when Kress noted that “…’language’ has to be seen in a new light:  no longer as central and dominant, fully capable of expressing all meanings, but as one means among others for making meaning, each of them specific” (79).  Reflecting on the current state of society, I started to wonder how much of a backseat language has taken to the visual.  I know this is a contentious topic and that it can be debated that the visual has always been prominent.  Yet, I tend to think the technological innovations of the last 20-30 years have shifted the balance of power, so to speak, especially with the rise of the World Wide Web.  Regardless of whether there has actually been a major shift, the predominance of the visual cannot be ignored.

I also became fascinated with Kress' discussions about design.  This particular passage especially caught my attention:

“A rhetorical approach draws on the resources both of competence and of critique and utilizes them in the process of design.  Given the presence of modal choice in representation in a multimodal world of communication and a social world where choice is demanded and the instability of the environment of communication, a rhetorical approach is essential.  Design meets the interests of the rhetor (most usually the same person) in full awareness of the communicational potentials of the resources which are available in the environment and needed for the implementation of the rhetor’s interests.  Design gives shape to the interests of both rhetor and designer in their world.” (26-27)

I remembered working on my first project for this class and all of the various design choices I made throughout, all specifically tailored to my ultimate rhetorical purpose.  As the semester has progressed, this awareness of the rhetorical power of design has grown for me.  Even my 2nd and 3rd projects, which didn't involve creating in the same way, still were influenced heavily by design.  I played with where I would place the different pictures of the artifacts I wanted to discuss, oftentimes shifting the images around multiple times before I was happy.  

Before this class, I had always viewed design as either aesthetic or efficiency based.  Design could make something look nicer or allow for better production, performance, allocation of space, etc.  Yet I had never thought of it functioning as rhetorical.  Now, as this semester draws to a close, I see design as a crucial element in visual rhetoric.  This development has been a process, but Kress, in a way, made it more transparent for me.  Ironically, after a semester of analyzing various visuals (photographs, cartoons, paintings, vernacular objects, etc.), it was the written word that finally clarified this for me.  But that still doesn't make it any more significant than other forms of communication.  

 

What's It All About, Gunther?

Given your perspective on visual rhetoric, what does Kress add to the mix?

Obama and Michelle

Regarding our discussion Tuesday night, I thought this article (and the visual it references) appropriate. Whatever your politics, it's interesting visual rhetoric.

Helvetica gift idea for Christmas...

Just in case you're starting your Christmas shopping early...

http://fab.com/sale/9355/product/14201/

Two Visuals re NYC

So one of these depicts how Manhattan looked, the other how it might look to prevent the first one from happening again. Interestingly, it's also the case that the future one, through the use of visuals, helps us imagine a future.

The Value of a System

So at the end of class, I raised the issue about whether a unified system didn't repress the local in a way that's, well, repressive ;) Interestingly, one of things I hadn't thought of but that is pretty obvious now is what we need when ordinary conditions don't prevail, like now for NYC. What you see here is the visual on the NYT page to help potential subway riders learn what's running and what's not. And of course when you place this next to the map I posted earlier this week, you have another "picture" of exclusion. These are, of course, different visuals; do they make a collage or palimpsest?