visual arguments

1. first this article is too long
2. second read the first

from my understanding towards the beginning the inference is made that for the past 30 years or so, the use of images has been more present in the situations of making an argument, or getting across one's point. Often a picture can express ones feelings more than a slew of words, hence the phrase, a picture is worth a thousand words, one thousand words...you get my point.
the article shows arguments explaining the reasons for which one would go about replacing text with scenery. When going about making an argument in a visual or text way, the visual object, being the picture, must convey the text it is trying to enforce or interoperate. without this, all arguments would be considered invalid if taking the side of whether or not a picture can get a point across just as text would.

When going about using visual objects or examples, the article gives some pointers or examples about the different color schemes and their mood tones which are represented by the reader, blue for coolness, red for warmth, black for dark. the question is raised, is it possible to understand arguments in a picture, or between 2 people? the question is answered with the examples of ones facial expressions or hand gestures. The question is also made if adds in magazines with text are more assertive or powerful over plain visual non text adds?
some may speculate that an ad with text is more inviting or persuasive than one without but would one with text sort of defeat the purpose of a visual only argument?

the closing arguments are that visual depictions are not as strong as textual, why this had to be proven over 18 pages?, i don't know? my argument in text to the length of this piece is step number one listed earlier. as for a visual i don't have a paper shredder on me, but if i did theres a chance it would be a picture of this article going through it.

Meddy's link

this is a great correlation between the arguments of nicholas carr and gopnick in the beginning of the semester. when studying both their pieces there were heavily accusations by carr saying how we are relying too much on the internet, and the devices that have them. gopnick himself made an inference to a harry potter character using an iPad as well in his article. here we see a child "brainwashed" in carrs terms, by the reliance of a technology used every day in society. in my argument i can only say that learning to read from a screen rather a book has no difference, as long as you obtain the important information presented in front of you, whats the difference? yes the infant has relied on the iPad using the same gestures in the magazine as if it would resound the same way, but as time when he/she grows older, they will realize the difference between ink on paper verses text on screen! but thats just my .02

project video

project video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQbvzm5aR-c

Paper 2 thoughts

I've been thinking about my own draft for project 2 and I have to tell you that, this was a very hard project shakespear is no easy work to decipher. Comparing a sonnet to the play having to put the words of the sonnet into a mouth of one of the characters was very hard.
1. My purpose was to show the contradictions of Benedict not jus that but how the sonnet I chose was related to his love speech about beatrice.
2. I feel that my writing was only seclusion for our lass because I did not give relative information about the entire play, I only gave enough information so that my class mates would know what I am talking about
3. 3 rhetorical moves
I. Sonnet 1 how Benedick can relate his love speech
II. When benedick needs fuel for his love sonnet one describes love as a flame needing fuel
III. Benedick NASA hunger for love from a child as the sonnet says love is a hunger that can cause famine

4. I was a bit repetitious with the concept of love and benedicks speech about Beatrice

5. I think I Should try to relate more of the situation in the play to Benedict's speech because of almost the vague or repetitious behavior I had when writing this paper drafting

Act 3 questions

1. Why would claudio John don and Pedro fool Benedict with the love story about Beatrice liking him?
2. Did claudio John don and Pedro know Benedict and Beatrice would fall in love after tricking them both?
3. Why would Benedict change his mind so suddenly to liking Beatrice when right when the play starts off he is shot down by her rude remarks?
4. Why did Beatrice change her mind on love about Benedict once she was tricked as well by her sisters?
5. Knowing Beatrice loves him now, according to leonato John don and claudio, why did she change her mind for Benedict?
6. Why would claudio and leonato just believe what they thought they saw his wife to be mistressing around with another man? Why not confront her in the act?