My final paper came along easier than I thought it would.
Maybe that was due to the extra motivation that came to me via procrastination. Maybe it’s a symptom of being a third year English student; by this point, you kind of have to learn how to pop out papers quickly. Either way, I knew what I wanted to say, and I hope I communicated it clearly.
I didn’t consciously go through Alex White’s book when I was making my book cover and create my design according to what I read. Instead, I designed the book cover using my common sense, and then compared it to what White wrote, and connected the two in my essay. That’s the thing about what White wrote. For the most part, we kind of know what makes a design good or not. It’s kind of obvious that space should be used wisely, your type should be legible, etc. While I did learn some things from The Elements of Graphic Design, it mostly just gave me the jargon to go along with design elements I already subconsciously knew. Not that it’s a bad thing to bring those philosophies to the front of mind and define them, but that is the bulk of what this book did for me, not teach me something brand new.
I thought this would be an easy 10%.
For some reason I completely forgot about colourstarsthursday until I was looking at our assignment description for our final paper, and noticed the groups blog blurb there.
Maybe I’ll write reflections on writing this paper, as soon as I start writing. Which is going to be right now.
See you in a few days.
I found this interesting and relative to our course. Currently I’m taking two courses in Digital Rhetoric and they have a tendency to overlap (both being on the same day as well), so I aplogise if it’s not directly relevant to our readings for this course. However, it is a very potent idea.
I don’t like it when people are “know-it-alls”. When they know they’re smart and like to flaunt it with one-ups and needless information.
But for some reason I have this need to know the names for rhetorical figures. When our professor said in class “the reason we’re studying all these fancy words is so you can whip them out at parties”, I was like yeah. I want to be able to do that.
Part of me thinks it’s the pressure as an English student to know everything about English. For example, my friend will be reading a book, and they’ll say, “Hey Justine, my book has this sentence in it. “”Eat to live, not live to eat.” What rhetorical device is that again?” If I don’t know, I get grilled. My respect as an English major is diminished. One flop, one grammar mistake, everyone says, “But you’re in English major!” Talk about pressure.
Meanwhile, my ability to memorize is seriously demoralized, due to many factors (read “The Shallows” by Nicholas Carr.) It’s hard to remember all these complicated names. And when the internet, endless information, is a click away, why should I?
Whatever the reason, I would like to know more rhetorical devices. I want to know that “eat to live, not live to eat” is an antimetabole without looking it up (yep, I just looked that one up. One click away.) So learning about these things in class is exciting for me.
I’ve got the Typology Poster iteration done. I’m so glad he had the class time to look at the different versions other people had made, otherwise we’d be done for. orz
Visit my deviantART scraps to see the poster. You can download the image to get the full size. We need a place to get this printed for next week too, and we should also have a skype discussion regarding the poster so we’re all on the same page as to what we’re writing about.
Please give your input ASAP.
I’m reminded of what Professor O’Gorman said about the “canon” and how we learn “mainstream” things in our academic world. Some old white men decided that we need to learn about Freud in every single one of our classes. I struggle with spending so much of my time (and money) on a guy whose theories no one believes anymore? That being said I understand his influence on Psychology was significant
Also we should have done Freud, since by now we know everything about him (unlike Magritte.) Oh well, I feel like our presentation went pretty well! 🙂
Freud is a really odd man. Interpreting dreams is something I have never really understood the need to rationalize dreams and make them have meaning. To me, it is just an entertaining or horrifying thing that you remember sort of in the morning, but that has no real connection or meaning in reality.
The idea that dreams are a pile of constructed bits of my reality makes some sense, I think. The idea that it is just my brain going through what I went through during the day, perhaps in a bizarre format kinda makes sense to me. It’s a good an explanation as any.
Here’s the Phillips and McQuarry grid poster. I managed to hash it out after finding a version of the grid online. (Darn LEARN not working when we need it most! *fistshake*)
I had to take some liberties with the style and the ads we’d chosen since I couldn’t get versions that were a high enough resolution.
NOTE: If the image isn’t working, I uploaded it to my devART here: http://santheas.deviantart.com/art/Rhetoric-Coursework-351584303