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?
I see where your coming from, as not analyzing as specifically like Wysocki stated. Though I feel that using the framework of her "too helpful" analysis techniques can be very helpful. One doesn't need to follow her suggestions to the letter, but I feel the input is important. We can use the suggestions, take what we like/dislike, edit them accordingly, then move along.
ReplyDeleteAustin- I'm not seeing the connection between the photo essay and the Bernhardt quote. Are you just connection to the format of photo and text? Might be helpful for you to give us something more there, maybe an explanation of how you interpreted Bernhardt, or what shifting to this new format can do for us as writers.
ReplyDeleteTo address your commentary on Anne Wysocki (who is in fact, a woman and a woman who teaches at the University of Milwaukee so there is at least somewhat an element of authority in her work), I think you are right to question the act of interpretation, and by definition the word itself is not concrete- Wysocki's version , though I wouldn't go as far as 'full of shit', could very well not represent the way you think about creativity. But that's sort of the beauty of art, that fact that we can even have multiple interpretations. Things aren't always black and white, and I think Wysocki is even trying to point out those grey areas...
You wander around here quite a bit, but don't seem to be able to land on a topic. I thought your statement that 'interpretation is the personal part', is the heart of what you wanted to say. If we take the readings as the final word, the only word, then we are missing the point that they are making in trying to define the multiple ways in which we can transfer ideas, convince someone, or convey ideas.
ReplyDelete