Ok I cheated a little bit and found this add off a google search for examples of visual rhetoric. But it's an interesting example, especially for me. When I was a kid I used to collect the milk ads because I liked all the pictures of celebrities and other famous figures. I never thought it was strange the dairy industry was pushing the purchase of milk. As a kid I thought milk was good for you so these advertizements weren't bad. In fact, they were promoting something so healthy and good, which was obviously the reason why all these famous people wanted to be a part of the movement.
Now, after learnin about some of the negative affects of milk on the body, that there are other ways to get your calcium (isn't it strange that we are the ONLY species that drink the milk of a different species?? Odd) I see that the dairy industry is just trying to promote their product...like anyone else.
So this ad in particular...the Hulk...a popular figure in our current mainstreem media. I assume this ad came out around the same time as the most recent version of the Hulk came out. So the advertizers are definitely paying attention to their audience. Even if you haven't seen the hulk, almost every American can recognize this face and most young (or maybe I should say a lot of) Americans think he's pretty cool. He's cool--> drinking milk is cool. Even a superhero needs to drink milk to strengthen his bones. Don't you want to be strong like the hulk? Well get over to your fridge and poor yourself a glass of cold milk then, God Damnit!
G Bonsiepe - Ulm: Journal of the Ulm School of Design, 14/15, 1965 - asomatic.com
That link may or may not work. It should automatically open up a pdf file. I found this piece off google scholar. The author, Gui Bonsiepe writes about advertizement and visual rhetoric. He states that the message of the advertiser is the "rhetoric of modern age." I don't fully agree with him there. I think there are other forms of visual rhetoric, where people are trying to send a message that isn't attempting to sell a product. I still agree that advertizement is a major component of modern rhetoric.
Here's just a few notes I collected that I think can be used towards a definition:
First he talks about classical rhetoric and how it has been broken up into legal, political, and religious sections. He now says marketing is one more section in modern rhetoric. He says, "where force rules there is no need for rhetoric." He talks about how consumers are free to make their own decisions and therefore rhetoric is necessary to convince people to purchase a particular product.
He says that classical rhetoric is no longer adequate for describing and analyzing rhetorical phenomena in which verbal and visual signs are allied. so basically visual rhetoric brings a whole other aspect to the once simple verbal rhetoric. The 5 main sections of classical rhetoric (which he doesn't define, but I think it's very similar to the sections we have been working on) can be reduced to just the third, which covers linguistic and stylistic formulation of the material.
He goes on to discuss the different kinds of figures. He loses me a bit here with his definition of synatic and sematic and how they apply to visual rhetoric. He says a figure is synatic when it operates through the shape of the sign, while it is sematic when it operates through the referent. I don't quite understand what he's getting at here.
He finishes off with several photographs that combine verbal and visual rhetoric. He classifies each photo into a certain kind of figure including how it conveys its message and what it tries to accomplish.
First off, I'd like to say that I appreciate the ease of which both these more recent articles read. So organized! Wayyyyy less confusing than Aristotle. I thought Keith Grant-Davie's essay in particular was helpful, well organized, and gave rhetoric a better explanation than empty words used by those who want to manipulate their audience - which is what I've gathered is a main reason that people these days distance themselves from politics and rhetoric.
So anyway, I decided to go to my e-mail inbox to look for a piece of rhetoric. Several times during my college years, I foolishly added myself to an e-mail list. Now I pay for it by spending time each day deleting pieces of rhetoric that I have no interest in reading. In the previous election, I added myself to some Obama e-mail campaign list and so I receive these obnoxious e-mails. Many times the subject headings include my name--wow! so personal! And the e-mails are from Michelle or Barack Obama! Oh my god they're talking to me directly! I haven't taken myself off the e-mail list (too lazy) so I had one from Michelle herself right before the second debate. I retrieved it from my trash (so I guess that explains how I responded to it) to take a look at what she had to say...
Madeline --
When you watch the results come in on Election Night, you probably won't be thinking back to today.
We can win this the right way, but it's going to take every single one of us getting on board and pitching in what we can, when we can -- whether that's time, energy, or a few hard-earned dollars.
I know Barack is going to be out there fighting hard up until the very end -- taking his case straight to the American people, talking with voters all across the country.
We can't afford to come up short, so today, hours before our final FEC deadline, I'm asking you to take the next step in your support for this campaign.
Chip in $5 or more right now -- please don't wait any longer:
So as the heading states, this is a very simple piece of rhetoric, but a piece all the same. It has elements of exigence, audience, rhetor, and constraint.
Exigence - what is the urgent situation needing change? I think there are a few 1. Barack Obama needs to win this election 2. We need more money! Audience - those who can help solve the exigence (I'd say this is audience invoked) so all of us who have joined the e-mail list are assumed to be Obama supporters who can solve this situation with our pocket books and our votes Rhetor - the different roles, who is the rhetor?? So the rhetor here is actually many different people. Michelle is one rhetor acting as the speaker to the audience, but the rhetors also include, whoever wrote this e-mail (it could be Michelle - or it could be someone else), the democratic party, and members of the obama campaign. Michelle also has different roles here as a wife, first lady, and mother Constraints - factors... -the upcoming election -the results of the first debate and how Obama came off looking weak (so they need more money, to campaign more, to make him look better!)
So I guess my response to this piece, as an audience member, is to delete the e-mail, not give money, and make my decision on November 6th...I bet that the Obama campaign expects this from a certain percentage of those on the e-mail list, but I'd say that even though they expect some people not to pay, they still hope to negotiate the outcome of the election...
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Ok, so I noticed that Obama was more aggressive and did seem more confident than the first debate. This debate was a bit more juicy than the first, but I still felt like they both made fools of themselves a bit. "This great country..." shut up please...
I feel like many times neither candidate actually answered the questions being asked. They skirted around direct answers and gave more vague solutions. That's what people refer to as rhetoric...empty words...Romney even used it against Obama at first.
I'm glad the moderator tried a bit harder to move the debaters along...
I reviewed two political campaign advertisements. I picked one video from
each presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. For the first analysis
assignment we completed a few weeks ago I chose a Romney ad so I felt a switch
to the other candidate would make for an interesting topic. But once I began
viewing different videos I decided I would have more fun comparing tactics
rather than just focus on one party.
The advertisement in favor of Barack Obama came out on September 26th
and is called “To Us.” The video is roughly thirty seconds long and discusses
Romney’s past as a business executive at Bain Capital, an investment company he
cofounded. It states how his business tactics negatively affected American
workers and warns that he will do the same if elected to the Oval Office. The
speaker in the video also describes parts of Romney’s economic plan that will
harm the poor and middle class. The advertisement ends with a maxim calling
Romney the problem and not the solution.
Mitt Romney’s ad appeared the following day, September 27th
and is called, “Too Many Americans.” Romney speaks directly to the audience in
a minute long video that also discusses the economy as well as job creation. He
begins by talking about the current employment situation in America. He refers
to the growing number of people living in worse conditions since Obama’s
election. He defines compassion in regards to welfare and then discusses how
his economic plan will help the poor and middle class. He finishes with a maxim
stating that America cannot afford four more years like the last four.
The Obama advertisement employs topics of blame and attempts to build
distrust, anger and even fear from viewers towards Romney. I believe the aim
here is to make the audience see Romney as a wrongdoer, an unjust person and a
poor leader. I think the targeted audience consists of members of the poor and
middle class, especially blue collar workers who do not have job security. During
this election season Romney has included his business experience as a reason he
would be a superior president to Obama. This video directly attacks that
statement.
In the text, Aristotle talks about the characteristics of a wrongdoer and
an unjust person. He says a wrongdoer commits a deed knowing that he can get
away with it(92). Then, “(U)njust…actions are matters of being unjust and doing
justly…” (97). When the narrator discusses Romney’s past - his fortune made
from Bain Capital and his potential tax brakes to millionaires - he suggests
that Romney did something wrong and thought he got away with it. So he is
therefore and unjust person. I think the paradigm here is, “Tax breaks for
millionaires is wrong. Making a fortune when your worker’s are suffering is
wrong. Therefore Mitt Romney is a wrong doer and an unjust person. You don’t
want an unjust person running this country. If you vote for Obama, he will not
let that happen.”
The video contains a lot of pathos. The scriptwriter chose a few
emotionally loaded words like “shuttered” when talking about businesses and factories
closing. The speaker used “slashed” instead of cut when talking about lowered wages.
These words can bring up images of depression, fear, pain and suffering.
Craftily chosen indeed.
The image of Romney standing in front of the Trump airplane sends the
message that he rides with the millionaires; not the people. I think this image
was chosen because almost all Americans know who Donald Trump is and are aware
of his reputation as someone with little compassion. The Obama campaign wants
people to lump Romney and Trump together in the same group. The assumption here
is that the targeted audience does not want someone like Donald Trump running
their country.
The first difference I noticed when I watched the Romney video was the
delivery of information. An anonymous male narrates “To Us” and the words are
accompanied by related images. The Romney video is much more direct. The
presidential hopeful sits in front of the camera and speaks to the audience for
the duration of the advertisement. I think he is employing ethos here and
attempting to raise his credibility with the viewers (the same targeted group
as the Obama video). He does this by looking into the camera viewer so that he
can make eye contact with every person who watches this advertisement. This
tactic creates the feeling that Romney is speaking directly to you.
He uses pathos when he talks about Americans struggling to make ends
meet. He implies that he cares for those who are suffering from the current
economic situation. He needs voters to believe that he truly cares for the
American people since he is not struggling financially - nor will he ever - a
fact that the Obama administration has raised frequently throughout the
election. Romney has to come off as sympathetic and empathetic. Like Aristotle
said, Romney has to convince viewers that he is a virtuous man in order to give
an effective speech.
Romney really gets into pathos when he talks about the word “compassion.”
The aim here is to imply that Romney is the more compassionate presidential
candidate. Well, logically he needs to define this word – especially when the
definition leads to the conclusion that he is in fact the true compassionate
candidate. He purposefully includes welfare in his definition because the
Democratic Party has slammed Romney/Republican Party for not supporting
programs like welfare. Here Romney attempts to flip the negative image onto
Obama who is less compassionate because he has too many citizens on welfare.
So which tactic is more effective, one that focuses on past actions and
implies a similarly negative future, or one that suggests poor leadership and a
brighter future? First, the verdict depends on the audience. Are they informed?
Let us assume someone who knows very little about the current economic
situation and does not follow politics watches these two advertisements. I
think Romney’s ad is more effective in that case.
He is able to come off as
more trustworthy, caring and concerned simply because he is the one speaking to
the audience. He does not slam Obama directly. Instead he talks about current
issues. He does not have to say that Obama is at fault. It is implied. I think
the enthymeme here that people could answer themselves is, “Obama’s leadership
these past four years has been ineffective because he is not truly
compassionate. Romney knows what being compassionate really means and can
therefore create jobs for the American people.”
While Obama’s video is effective, it does not connect as well with
voters. Romney’s ad both attacks Obama’s leadership and gives hope for the
future. Obama’s advertisement only slanders Romney’s skills as a leader. The
creators behind the Romney ad realize that people want to hear something
positive about the future. Although they want to know the details of the
opponent’s failures, they also want to hear the speaker’s plans to improve
their lives.
The problem with this judgmentof the
advertisements is that I do not have to take into account if Romney is speaking
honestly or with enough knowledge to know his policies will actually work.
Obama’s video may be speaking the truth and correctly warning the American
people that Romney’s skills as a business leader will not improve their lives.
How many people fact check these days? I do not know the answer to that
question. I do know that campaigns would not allot so much money to
advertisements if they were ineffective.
This brings us back to the first day of class when we talked about how
many people define rhetoric in terms of empty words and promises. Romney’s effective
use of rhetoric could help him sail to the Oval Office. But when it comes to
actually running a country, will his campaign words hold any weight – any
truth? Does it pay off to be skilled in the ways of effective speaking? I’d say
that depends on if one can talk the talk and walk the walk.
I had an interesting experience with the debate. I am home sick with a lovely case of Tonsillitis (yay!!) and out here in the sticks we don't have no TV or nuthin so I listened to the debate on NPR. I'm sure it made quite a difference not being able to see faces, gestures, colors, clothing, hair style, and the like.
As far as style - I thought Romney spoke with what seemed like more confidence. He did not pause very much nor stutter. I think he was speaking to an audience mixed of members of the Republican party who were losing a bit of faith as well as the Independent voters he has a shot of winning over by November 6th. I think he spoke to that audience well. He came off strong and aggressive. He also seemed to strongly stand behind his views.
I think the other audience being Democrats and Obama supporters (as well as some Independents or people who really don't have a party choice) he probably came off as rude, pushy, and defensive. Also, during the post debate discussion on the radio, analyzers said that Romney did in fact just change some of his views on the spot, including the ping pong debate of a 5 trillion dollar tax cut.
Aristotle doesn't speak of "the last word" as far as I recall, but I definitely noticed that trend! Phew! It took forever to move on to the next subject because each candidate (and I'd say Romney more than Obama) had to get in the last word - even interrupting the moderator!
Obama spoke slowely, and though he didn't trip on his words, sometimes he seemed to struggle to find the exact phrase. I noticed he used a lot of logos. He even brought up simple arithmetic when discussing Romney's economic plan. I think Obama's strategy was to call out Romney's plan and put it down with logic and figures.
I thought Romney used more of an ethos approach, arguing that the American people are suffering and he'll be the one to save us from destruction with his supreme business skills and his experience in Massachusetts! don don donnnnnn
BTW correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure Mass had superior schools before Romney became Governor...and I really like PBS...and Big Bird!
So from Rhetoric website I chose four sentences from the campaign adds I'm analyzing for the paper:
Mitt Romney - "Too Many Americans" http://youtu.be/_HjDCHbtXHQ
And Barack Obama - http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2012/?adv=Too+Many+Americans+-+Mitt+Romney+-+Sep+27
Antirrhesis - Rejecting reprehensibly the opinion or authority of someone
Example: "Romney's not the solution. He's the problem." - Obama Video
Climax - arrangement of words in order of increasing importance
Example: "Too many Americans...struggling to find work...pay check to paycheck...living in poverty...on foodstamps" - Mitt Romney video
Epitorchasmus - to touch rapidly on one point then another
Example: "When Mitt Romney led Bain, hundreds of plants, factories, and stores were shuttered. Workers saw wages slashed, jobs sent over seas. Romney made a fortune." - Obama Video
Simile - Explicit comparison
Example: "Obama and I both care about the poor and middle class. The difference is, my policies will make things better for them." Romney video
I'm either going to analyze and compare strategies in these two videos or just analyze one depending on how much time I have... :)
