Although I appreciate having to decipher your images, I would have loved some written commentary to ensure I’m gleaning the correct message from each. I’ll focus on one for the time being.
‘Outcomes of Digital Rhetoric’ Poster:
The webtext suggests that there are three general outcomes for teaching digital rhetoric: (1) Critical Thinking, (2) Production, (3) Play. I appreciated your visual interpretation of this portion of the webtext.
Regarding the “critical thinking” jackboot stomping on “habits of thought”: (I think), I see what you’re trying to suggest. Clark relays to readers what Vaidhyanathan wrote about Dewey’s “psychological tenet” of ‘habits of thought.’ Perhaps we become too complacent in our use of digital media that it becomes second-nature. When, in actuality, we should be placing heavy consideration on every choice or move we make (digital or otherwise). In theory that sounds wonderful, but in practice, much harder. As Clark suggests, “Academia has been slow to adopt the teaching of these new habits of thought to our students” (28). Breaking the mold is a challenge worth taking on if you ask me.
You border the jackboot on the left with a few French words, one of which translates to ‘bricolage’ or, “something constructed or created from a diverse range of available things.” ‘Monteé du’ translates roughly to “ascent of/from,” so I suspect you’re trying to acknowledge the movement or motion needed to create (produce) something as a result of digital rhetoric. We want our students to make, not just analyze digital media. What a wonderful outcome – to send students out in the world confident that they can produce and distribute their digital work!
You place alternating “PLAY” and “YAWP” at the bottom of your poster. I like this. I love Whitman, so any shoutout to him is a plus for me. It alludes to allowing our students to be themselves and produce that which describes them the best. At the same time, it suggests that students need the opportunity to mess around (aka “play”) before they are expected to create something they’re confident about. I also saw this idea of play in Clark’s piece. She devotes an entire section to the use of “Second Life” and gameplay as a way to incorporate interactivity in her curriculum. When done well, it can be tremendously successful.
Thank you for your reply.
I had considered adding commentary to the images. Much of it though had the feeling of apology or explanation that in the end I felt was too directive for what I wanted to accomplish. I was attempting to provoke inquiry. So…in the end I wanted people to decipher the images. I wanted to see how others saw them to fuel my own thinking and inquiry as well. Essentially I wanted to play…and so there really is no right or wrong take-away.
The French, thanks to google translate so it may be a bit inelegant, is “rise of the tinker” which nods to some of our earlier conversations about tinkering and play and DIY ideas of using available materials…or available means to create.
Whitman is one of my favorites as well and I liked the connection of play and yawp as a means to challenge the habits of thinking and break the patterns. Sometimes we need to go off into the woods to gain perspective and in play there don’t have to be rules. Both allow a freedom of a form that can open up the ability to think creatively and critically. To challenge the assumptions and social constructs.
You, sir, are taking leaps and exploring depths and wilds that I’d be lost in, were I to try and follow.
Your second graphic is beautiful. Academic bossfights punk.
Are they sparring? Social-distance fist bumping? Boogying down? They’re divided, it seems. And their backgrounds are different. Interference between them, a lack of understanding. But they’re the same, at the end, yeah? We’re the same, is what I’m receiving, at the end. We’re all rhetoricians, despite what spiteful interference may be between us.
Go, handyman, you. Yawp from your rooftop. Stomp your righteous stomp on default thought, and default e-reflections, and keep this good stuff coming. I’m enjoying your expedition, and happy to be along for it. Timshel, namaste, 干杯, and kudos. Thanks for your efforts.
Thank you for the reply. I wanted the images to be provoking and it seems it has worked. Your string of questions is really what my intent was…to spark curiosity and inquiry.
I have been lurking on different punk boards lately in part for project research and there is this general contention that arises over and over. “I’m so punk.” and “You’re not punk.” There was a similar feel to the debate on who or what a rhetorician is.
While wouldn’t say they are the same, I would say they are more the same than different.
Generally we seems so eager to separate ourselves, this obsession with individuality that we find the smallest of details to preserve our uniqueness and we obscure or deny the similarities. I wonder what would happen if we flipped that script we follow and focused on what makes us similar and veiled our differences.
Creating Dissonance 
Hi Brian,
I’d expect nothing less than this from you. 🙂
Although I appreciate having to decipher your images, I would have loved some written commentary to ensure I’m gleaning the correct message from each. I’ll focus on one for the time being.
‘Outcomes of Digital Rhetoric’ Poster:
The webtext suggests that there are three general outcomes for teaching digital rhetoric: (1) Critical Thinking, (2) Production, (3) Play. I appreciated your visual interpretation of this portion of the webtext.
Regarding the “critical thinking” jackboot stomping on “habits of thought”: (I think), I see what you’re trying to suggest. Clark relays to readers what Vaidhyanathan wrote about Dewey’s “psychological tenet” of ‘habits of thought.’ Perhaps we become too complacent in our use of digital media that it becomes second-nature. When, in actuality, we should be placing heavy consideration on every choice or move we make (digital or otherwise). In theory that sounds wonderful, but in practice, much harder. As Clark suggests, “Academia has been slow to adopt the teaching of these new habits of thought to our students” (28). Breaking the mold is a challenge worth taking on if you ask me.
You border the jackboot on the left with a few French words, one of which translates to ‘bricolage’ or, “something constructed or created from a diverse range of available things.” ‘Monteé du’ translates roughly to “ascent of/from,” so I suspect you’re trying to acknowledge the movement or motion needed to create (produce) something as a result of digital rhetoric. We want our students to make, not just analyze digital media. What a wonderful outcome – to send students out in the world confident that they can produce and distribute their digital work!
You place alternating “PLAY” and “YAWP” at the bottom of your poster. I like this. I love Whitman, so any shoutout to him is a plus for me. It alludes to allowing our students to be themselves and produce that which describes them the best. At the same time, it suggests that students need the opportunity to mess around (aka “play”) before they are expected to create something they’re confident about. I also saw this idea of play in Clark’s piece. She devotes an entire section to the use of “Second Life” and gameplay as a way to incorporate interactivity in her curriculum. When done well, it can be tremendously successful.
Thanks for the response!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your reply.
I had considered adding commentary to the images. Much of it though had the feeling of apology or explanation that in the end I felt was too directive for what I wanted to accomplish. I was attempting to provoke inquiry. So…in the end I wanted people to decipher the images. I wanted to see how others saw them to fuel my own thinking and inquiry as well. Essentially I wanted to play…and so there really is no right or wrong take-away.
The French, thanks to google translate so it may be a bit inelegant, is “rise of the tinker” which nods to some of our earlier conversations about tinkering and play and DIY ideas of using available materials…or available means to create.
Whitman is one of my favorites as well and I liked the connection of play and yawp as a means to challenge the habits of thinking and break the patterns. Sometimes we need to go off into the woods to gain perspective and in play there don’t have to be rules. Both allow a freedom of a form that can open up the ability to think creatively and critically. To challenge the assumptions and social constructs.
~Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
You, sir, are taking leaps and exploring depths and wilds that I’d be lost in, were I to try and follow.
Your second graphic is beautiful. Academic bossfights punk.
Are they sparring? Social-distance fist bumping? Boogying down? They’re divided, it seems. And their backgrounds are different. Interference between them, a lack of understanding. But they’re the same, at the end, yeah? We’re the same, is what I’m receiving, at the end. We’re all rhetoricians, despite what spiteful interference may be between us.
Go, handyman, you. Yawp from your rooftop. Stomp your righteous stomp on default thought, and default e-reflections, and keep this good stuff coming. I’m enjoying your expedition, and happy to be along for it. Timshel, namaste, 干杯, and kudos. Thanks for your efforts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for the reply. I wanted the images to be provoking and it seems it has worked. Your string of questions is really what my intent was…to spark curiosity and inquiry.
I have been lurking on different punk boards lately in part for project research and there is this general contention that arises over and over. “I’m so punk.” and “You’re not punk.” There was a similar feel to the debate on who or what a rhetorician is.
While wouldn’t say they are the same, I would say they are more the same than different.
Generally we seems so eager to separate ourselves, this obsession with individuality that we find the smallest of details to preserve our uniqueness and we obscure or deny the similarities. I wonder what would happen if we flipped that script we follow and focused on what makes us similar and veiled our differences.
~Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person