Rose’s analysis of the image and its rhetorical purpose is applicable to my map. I think the map covers the “Four Sites of a Critical Visual Methodology” well. In the map’s production I used Microsoft PowerPoint because the composition is familiar to both me and the audience. I also created very simplistic lines and images to be as clear as possible. The image itself is complete and explains the mapping of the terms quite clearly. In terms of circulation, I put the map up on both the student blog and Twitter for the appropriate audiences. Those audiences that I took into consideration in the creating of my map. My map is fairly complete in terms of Rose’s analysis.
Lundsford’s analysis focuses on writing instead of images. My map fits well in Lundsford’s realm of creating audiences. My map visually shows the audience member their position within the terms. It also facilitates that “blurring” of writer and audience, because the audience may interpret the map differently and thus alter it. My map fits this concept well and I would not change it.
Shipka challenges the idea of uniformity in the creation of texts or works. She emphasizes the importance of multimodal creating and its rhetorical significance. This is the only work that challenged the map I created. My map fits the basic visual and written qualities that it needs to be understood, but it does not go beyond that. My map accomplishes Shipka’s core proponents, but it could have done more. I did not consider doing anything beyond what seemed convenient and logical. This work challenged me because I did not challenge myself. My map does not have that element of ingenuity that Shipka encourages, and that is what I would change if/when I edit it.
Rose’s analysis of the image and its rhetorical purpose is applicable to my map. I think the map covers the “Four Sites of a Critical Visual Methodology” well. In the map’s production I used Microsoft PowerPoint because the composition is familiar to both me and the audience. I also created very simplistic lines and images to be as clear as possible. The image itself is complete and explains the mapping of the terms quite clearly. In terms of circulation, I put the map up on both the student blog and Twitter for the appropriate audiences. Those audiences that I took into consideration in the creating of my map. My map is fairly complete in terms of Rose’s analysis.
ReplyDeleteLundsford’s analysis focuses on writing instead of images. My map fits well in Lundsford’s realm of creating audiences. My map visually shows the audience member their position within the terms. It also facilitates that “blurring” of writer and audience, because the audience may interpret the map differently and thus alter it. My map fits this concept well and I would not change it.
Shipka challenges the idea of uniformity in the creation of texts or works. She emphasizes the importance of multimodal creating and its rhetorical significance. This is the only work that challenged the map I created. My map fits the basic visual and written qualities that it needs to be understood, but it does not go beyond that. My map accomplishes Shipka’s core proponents, but it could have done more. I did not consider doing anything beyond what seemed convenient and logical. This work challenged me because I did not challenge myself. My map does not have that element of ingenuity that Shipka encourages, and that is what I would change if/when I edit it.