Final Blog Reflection

Taking WAM this semester was a very interesting experience. I have never taken a class that was so project based and hands on so this was fairly new to me. Though, I have still learned a lot from this class and am glad I’ve taken it. There were a lot of projects and a lot of non-traditional writing, but it’s helped me gain a better understanding of what rhetoric is and what “writing” truly is.

One lessons I’ve learned this semester is that you can learn by experience. Most of the projects were lessons in themselves. While we’ve had reading assignments and discussions in class, much of what we learn comes from the different projects. We would learn the basics of the theory or less we were studying and put in into perspective using the projects. This was very different for me, but it demonstrated that one does not always have to be told word from word a particular lesson; you can learn by doing and experiencing.

Another lesson I’ve learned this year is that “writing” is not always structured words on paper. The art of expressing rhetoric (writing) can be done in many different ways, even without actually writing. This is one lesson that I’ve learned and am glad to have put into use. There are many different ways of communicating ideas (video, sound, image) and they can be structured in a way that presents a full essay or commentary on an idea. I really enjoyed being able to work with different forms of media to write essays and commentaries. This is one lesson that I’ll apply in other areas of life.

Such areas include future projects. When I approach similar projects in the future, I will now be able to express ideas in more creative ways. While before, I may have simply written out the main topic or structured the project to blatantly convey an idea, I am now better equipped at presenting an idea in more creative ways. Having worked with images, stencils and sound this semester, I learned that there are many different ways of conveying ideas and they don’t always have to be conveyed so blatantly. Rhetoric includes giving the audience room to interpret.

I will also look at writing traditional essays as one of many different ways of expressing ideas. While it may be tempting to write out an essay or project, I now know that writing with words is not the only way. I can enhance my writing with video or even photos. Having a broadened view of writing may also broaden my ideas as I now have a more opened mind to the different ways of presenting rhetoric.

So, all in all, this was a very interesting class that has taught me many different things. I’ve learned that there are many unique ways of learning an idea. I’ve also gained a new insight on what “writing” is and how media and technology can be used to enhance it. These are lessons that I’ll definitely apply in future endeavors and projects.

Final Project notes

The Rules

1. create an image using the following 9 shapes:

• 3 circles
• 2 straight lines
• 1 curvy line
• 1 triangle
• 2 dots

You have to use them all
Talk it over with your neighbor and compare drawings

Work with: Paper, markers, pens, pencils, crayons, etc.

Now compare your drawing to ours (ours has no meaning, does yours)

Take Away: By having control over your drawing you used a cold medium. This provided open interpretation and community. Though when we showed you our drawing it was an example of a hot medium which provides audiences with an experience rather than allowing the audience to create their own.

Final Project Review

Pre Poduction: During brainstorming, Parker and I wanted to incorporate as much media into our project as possible. Because our theory was about media and the message they send, we wanted to convey it in a hands on way that incorporated different media. We exchanged ideas via email and finally came up with a project that we though would best demonstrate the “Medium is the Message” theory. We decided we’d play a “game” with the class and have theme create a message using different forms of media. In the process the idea that the content of a medium is not as important as the medium itself would be exemplified. This is because, while the class worked on trying to convey a message, we would show them that there was not message.

Composing: We decided to think of different shapes and figures to suggest to the class to include in their drawing. During this process, we thought it’d be a good idea to come up with simple shapes that the class would quickly relate to a particular image or message.  Parker gathered mos of the materials and I conducted some reasearch. We planned on using these things as the media for the class’ messages.

Presenting: The presentation seemed to be a success. Many people actually did what we had expected and drew actual images with different messages. I think the pupose was well exemplified after we drew our meaningless content and explained that the message was not important but how it was presented. People seemed to understand quite well and were not confused

Post Production: Viewing some of the other projects also put our project into more perspective. Almost every other group that went had indirectly exemplfied our theory. The consumer fetishism group for example discussed the idea of commercials advertising an idea or experience rather than the actual product (GAP dance commercial). This showed how people can use the Medium is the Message theory to their advantage. I’m not sure if any of the other groups caught how closely related our theory was to theirs, but there was definitely a strong connection.

Video Project in Review

Pre-Production: During our brainstorming, we decided we wanted to present an issue that was somewhat controversial. We thought interracial dating would be a good topic especially since I happened to know a few interracial couples. We would interview the couple and then present a well balanced side of the interview and a very biased (subjective) side of the interview. The only concern we had was how we would present he subjective view of the video.

Production: We decided to film the interview together. We formulated questions together and filmed the couple. One of us filmed while other asked the questions. Later, we looked for B-roll footage on the Quad. We still were not sure what we’d do with all the footage and decided to take the footage and edit them separately.

Editing: During the editing, it was fun to try and figure out ways to change the couple’s interview. Because, the couple was obviously in support of interracial dating, it was difficult to find clips in the interview that would support our subjective viewpoint that interracial dating has many negative aspects. This resorted to going through all the footage and finding good responses that could be funny and supportive of the negative viewpoints.

Critique: Classmates seemed to enjoy the video. They laughed at the parts that were obviously subjective showing that they understood that those portions were subjective and taken out of context. People also claimed to really understand that the video was the subjective version. This means our difficult mission of presenting a subjective version of content with a completely opposite message was accomplished.

 

Objective/Subjective: Video (the latter)

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/vdixon3/shared/subjective_video_xvid.avi

Ede/Lunsford Responses

Davis asks:

How do you feel about cooperation in authoring a text? in working in a group? how does group recognition compare to individual recognition?

Collaboration in authorship provides many ideas to float around at a quicker pace. It also allows for a wider array of story and writing and lessens the workload. However, recognition becomes more difficult. If one author has more name value or prominence that would perhaps overshadow the other author(s).

 

how do you think Ede & Lunsford’s discussions of authorship and collaboration apply to the collaborative video project you’re working on

The video project offers more minds for one concept. Because the project presents two versions of one footage, this is perfect. Both minds are focusing on two aspects of the same issue. This makes being strictly objective and strictly subjective a more “objective” task.

Ede/Lunsford Questions

1) Do you buy the many authors theory? How would you say our video project has many authors besides your group members?

2) Do you think authors prefer to collaborate on a project versus doing it on their own. What would be the benefits and disadvantages of both?

3) Do you find working in groups more productive and fulfilling than doing things on your own. Tie this in to the the theory presented in the reading.

Podcast Process

Pre-Production: For this project, I wanted to tell a story that seemed familiar, but was told in a different way. I decided to tell a Bible story. I thought that a Bible story would be best, because they are really interesting and well known. I chose the story of David and Goliath. This story has a lot of imagery, action and lessons. Instead of reading straight from the Bible, I wanted to paraphrase a bit. This was also done to clear up any confusion about the background story or certain unfamiliar words. For the script, I just copied the story from the Bible then took out certain bits that may have been confusing without back story or extensive Biblical knowledge. Though, I kept the basic plot of the story.

Production: This portion of the project was fun, but difficult. I wanted to talk loud enough for the mic to pick up my voice, but not too loud. Therefore, I put my mouth close to the mic. I simply read from the script and recorded the reading. I changed my voice for each of the characters, but not too much as I planned on using editing to it completely. During the recording I stumbled or messed up a few times and had to start over from a good reference point. This  was a little frustrating at times.

Editing: After recording the story, I went through it and took out the portions that I made mistakes on. I then broke up the recording into section so that I could have room to add sound effects. After this, I went through the recording and located the portions where the characters David and Goliath were quoted. For David, I raised the pitch of my voice. This was to give David a teenage/younger voice. For Goliath, I lowered the pitch to emphasize his height and giant-ness. Later, I collected sound effects that I thought would enrich the story. I found sound effects of crowds, sword slashing and water. I placed the sound throughout the podcast at the appropriate points. This was to make the story come alive as if it were happening in the background as it was being told.

Post-Production: The class seemed to enjoy the podcast. One thing I was surprised about was how different the podcast sounded through the class speakers. Because I spoke so close to the mic, the air blowing through the mic caused an odd clipping sound. This made hearing parts of the podcast in class harder to understand. However, classmates commented on being able to understand it and liking it. I liked that people were comfortable hearing a Bible story. Many commented on the fact that they had not heard the story in a long time. That was an unexpected benefit the podcast had. It reminded people of what is arguably a very special story with an important message.

Stencil Project Process

Pre-Production: This project took a lot of time to come up with an idea. I wanted to do something that was humorous and not too serious. I also wanted to think of something that would be noticeable as a stencil. I thought of using the well known circle with a line through it. This is a well known symbol for “no.” That is how I got the idea to come up with “say no to hugs” instead of “say no to drugs.” I wanted to make a statement about something that I noticed around campus, but never had a chance to address.

Production: Making the stencil was very difficult. Trying to cut out the small letters was the most difficult task. I wanted the letters to be cut smoothly and straight, but it was too hard to do with the tools I was using. This ultimately made the words on the stencil look a bit jagged and off. It was also a bit hard to read when stenciled. Cutting the actual no symbol was easier, but still complicated.  The entire process took about 3-4 hours, which was a lot longer than I had expected.

Post-Production: I think people may have gotten the humor in the stencil. I actually posted the image on a chalk board in a classroom on campus. I did not erase the image, but am unsure how long it stayed up. Hopefully, a class was in session and the students saw the image. It could have easily been erased so it was not vandalism. Though, the final project was a bit harder to read. The text at the bottom that says “stop H1N1″ may not have been clear. Yet the no symbol and the word “hugs” came out very nicely.

Answers to Hampe Class Questions

Parker asks:

Hampe continually stresses that “Talk is cheap” and visuals are absolutely necessary to effective create meaning. Do you agree? Can you think of an example when you thought that a verbal scene was just as, if not more effective than visual evidence?

Talk is not always cheap. As we learned in the Podcast Project, storytelling and talk does not always need visuals. Thus, it is not always necessary to effective create meaning. In many cases, visuals are good for assisting people in conceptualizing something that is too complicated or even too important to be changed by imagination.

Lochlan asks:

When watching a documentary, are you watching real life, or is it a recreation of real life.  In what ways does the author change the aspects of what truly has happened?

Documentaries are supposed to be as close to real life as possible. I think that when I am watching a documentary I am watching real life. Though, the author can stage scenes or set up shots. Also, the director cannot be at all places at once and neither can the camera lens. Thus, some information can get lost or construed in documentary filmmaking.

Documentaries can be objective in a loose sense. If a documentary simply documents what happens and doesn’t highlight or focus too much, it can be somewhat objective. Though we are all humans and are not designed to be 100% objective. We each have our own unique history, personality and experiences which gives us different outlooks and perspectives of the world. Thus, what may seem objective to one person may not be so to another.