Journal 3

The artifacts I chose all come from different genres or modes like video, social media, and printed text on a bottle wrapper. Since all of these artifacts are considered rhetoric, we can agree with a multimodal view of rhetoric. We can also learn from the intended audience. They show us that the mode of the rhetoric can greatly influence the reaction and interaction of the audience. Social media for example, is easy for the audience to interact and become part of the social rhetoric, while a commercial has a harder time connecting with an audience. 

Since I was the first person to publish a journal three post, I have not had the opportunity to comment on other blogs. I will be going back and writing comments as more blogs develop, but I was able to hear a list of artifacts talked about by my peers in class that I think will compensate. I heard artifacts such as an Xbox controller, record player, and YouTube video. These artifacts are spread out through digital, print, and other intertextual artifacts of rhetoric. The only common theme was the idea of rhetoric being portrayed for an audience. My artifacts had a common exigence, which was the environment, but beyond that constraint I used when choosing them they have the same commonalities as my classmates. They all have text or words, and they all direct the text or words to be understood by an audience.

The role of circulation is dire to the life of rhetoric. All of the artifacts are not stagnate thing, but are changing, reacting, and causing further rhetoric to happen. As Edbauer agrees, we need to look at them from a wider circulation context. The role of design as stated by Wysocki, can be applied because the artifacts are multimodal and need to be evaluated by their design relationship as well. What is on the page/screen is just as important as whatever is on the page/screen is trying to say. The role of material affordances can also be seen in the artifacts because even though it would seen to be easier, not all artifacts are digital. As Gladwell thinks, certain kinds of documents are “living objects”, and can have a social aspect they would not have been able to achieve as an online document.