It all about the Benjamin's

I found the article by Johnson-Eilola to be very informative and interesting. I think this is so because I am writing a similar paper in a different class.  In my paper I am discussing the inconstancy of plagiarism/intellectually property case convictions in America.  I am studying some major court cases like Dan Drown and the Di Vinci Code, a law suit on George Harrison, along with many other intellectual property cases. Through my studies I have found that there is a huge gap in convictions. Some of the cases go to court, others get dismissed, and others are settled out of court. Where is the line that marks the difference between plagiarism and intertextuality? Because of Johnson-Eilola I think I found why there is this gap in convictions... DOLLA DOLLA BILLS YALL!

Throughout school, any one in my generation of English majors have touched on on the battle of modernism vs postmodernism. I think it is important to think about two things when comparing this battle to intellectual property, technology and profit. "We cannot separate writing from the economic sphere. We can attempt to keep access open, but we can no longer ignore intellectual property laws and pretend that they will go away." (212) Why will intellectual property laws no go away?... technology and profit. It is obvious that there is an information super highway it is easily accessed, yeah yeah yeah.  Because of the easy access it is easy for people to charge money for their work.  "Oddly, although we frequently lament the fact our students mist now pay copy write permission fees for material in the coursepacks we ask them to purchase for our classes, we don't often think about the postmodern shift that resulted in this situation." (209)

Before this article, I thought about this postmodern shift as a step toward a peaceful all knowing society where bunnies run, and  people are free to share ideas. Now I realize the only reason there has been a shift from modernism is because if peoples drive for profit.

Its all about he Benjamin's

know what you shoot.... my infographic

link to my infographic

Photo essay proposal

Lately, I have been thinking about going to law school. So, for my photo essay I would like to do digital rhetoric and writing in the courtroom.  Law practice has been fairly consistent in its usage in rhetoric and writing but because of the increase in technology, digital usage has been increasing in the courtroom. My photo essay will address the following questions: What usages of digital rhetoric and writing are present in today’s courtrooms? How are these digital usages used in favor of the defense and the prosecution?

I am relatively unfamiliar with courtroom rhetoric and writing, especially in terms of digital usage. This project will be more of a discovery/ informational project for me and anyone else that may be interested in law.  I am interested in this because I want to pursue law in the future but also because I believe rhetoric is one of the most important tools for a lawyer.  I want to explore this topic because I believe it will be helpful to me in the future. I could do some random project centered only on this class but instead I thought I would do something useful for my future.

A lot of my research will come from the Internet especially academic databases. Some of my other research will come from law journals and case studies. Case studies will help my project observing what digital and rhetoric usages lead to a victory in the courtroom.  Some of my secondary research could be to observe a court case at the Gallatin county court house or to do an interview with an actual lawyer.  Ideally, I would like to learn some rhetorical techniques that might help me in the future.

the true author of a photo analysis

When I first started reading Bernhardt I was wondering why we were analyzing a memo on wetlands. As I stated reading trough I started to realize all of the syntax, rhetoric, and composition an unimaginative/ creative piece can posses. "electronic media, strategist of rhetorical organization will move increasingly toward visual patterns presented on screen and interpenetrated through visual as well as verbal syntax." ( Bernhardt 77) As I thought about this quote and continued to read Wysocki the photo essay started to come into play.

Wysocki is almost too helpful in his analysis of analysis. I wonder to myself as I read is interpretation this concrete? Who is to say Wysocki's interpretations are wrong and he is full of shit? If I analyse exactly as he tells me to analyze  then I am analyzing like him. Interpretation for me is personal for the most part. Sure there are common beliefs like green is the color of success or things of that nature but who is the actual author of a photo essay? If I give analysis of a photo is my interpretation right? or is does the authors deeper meaning trump all? in that case I wonder what the point of analyzing at all?

reflection

1.       My buddy Blake and I were messing around with his go pro at hockey practice. It turned out that we got about 10 minutes worth of footage. The assignment called for videos and pictures of my own creation. Because I play hockey I have a plethora of my own photos and videos. Then the problem was finding a message. You lead me toward an advertising video.

2.  The difference with this project is that I used previous materials to write. While I do this with some projects, I usually challenge myself to write on new topics. Another difference was that this a/v project was layered with meaning. Lately I have been writing mostly academic papers. They are pretty cut and dry research, write, and then edit. This project was move of research, compose picture, compose text, compose music, compose timing, and then edit. I hopefully can write in layers when I am creative writing. But this project has taught me to think about what I say in my academic projects. I usually don’t think about rhetoric but I can relate rhetoric to the layers of this project.

3.       One of the paths I couldn't take was having actual game footage. The season has not started yet so I felt as if I could capture the crowd and he game interacting together that t would give more of a community feel; hopefully leading to more donations. I also wanted to show more of the hockey culture. The problem with this was that a lot of the things we say on the in the hockey room wouldn't help sell the bobcat hockey brand. I just wish we weren't so vulgar. It’s funny because I didn't notice until this project.

4.       I think I already said this but I will approach my academic writing with more of a layered approach, like movie maker. For example I can lay down my methods, then Ideas, then my writing, then rhetoric and then editing. I have previously had trouble with using rhetoric in my academic writings.

5.     

       I know now how to successfully compose a movie on movie maker. I also know how to properly judge an A/v short based on the viewings we did in class. I think he most important thing that I learned was realizing places to use rhetoric as a whole not specifically toward movies. Even though I learned a lot about rhetoric in movies.  

Modernist Discourse v. Postmodern Discourse

After reading Jamieson and Wysocki I realized that the third critique in Critique of Judgment by Kant connects both article. (understanding---judgment---reason) The reason that I state this is because at first I understood the Jamieson article and I also understood her judgment but I could not find her reasoning. At first in the Jamison article, (no offence to anyone) I felt as if she was extremely feminist. Extreme feminism seems to stray away from equality in my opinion. So, at first I thought, what is the reason she is blasting male discourse and anyone putting a stereotype on feminist rhetoric? Yet she would say things like “although some men deliver “effeminate” speech and some women master “manly” speech, theorists held that speakers generally stayed true to their gender?” (Jamieson 801-02) If people stay true to their gender yet Jamieson is critiquing the stereotypes people state about gender, then what is the point of this article?  I guess I finally started to get the point during the last section on politics. It is interesting to think about the political means of rhetoric for both genders. Men take shots at each other’s credibility (competitive), and women lay out what they do well/ what they can do for you (emotional). Now when you apply this idea of foreseeable discourse then you can begin to understand the change from modernism to postmodernism. Modernist were judgmental, concrete, and traditional just as their discourse and rhetoric reflect. Jamieson reflects this on her critique of gender driven discourse. Wysoki does a great job of reflecting the postmodern ideas of discourse. For example when studying one of the first graphics of the women with the arrow pointing to her butt. Obviously this is directed toward men. The point I am trying to make is that postmodern ideas are open, excepting, and groundbreaking just like our discourse and rhetoric reflect. Instead of critiquing and finding the best use of discourse we recognize and celebrate our differences. For example, “manly” was the best form of discourse in the modern era now in the postmodern era it is dependent upon the context. 

Final A/V Short

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BDJwuzOTU&feature=youtu.be