English 680V: Visual Rhetoric in a Technological Age (Purdue)

Hey all,Attached is my outline that contains the information I have gathered for the drug culture emergence part of the project, as well as a short essay that talks about what I would like to see in terms of form for a project like this (or any other emergent information investigations). Peace and happy summer!

Sorry to be posting this a little late. New Orleans was lovely, and I was struck by how visually compelling (at times demaning) the tourist area was. I thought about taking some pictures for you guys. It didn't happen... But I thought about it!  Attached are my 10 questions for this part of the project. Cheers, Morgan R.

I am posting some of my current work on mapping the frames of seeing that emerged in the 1950s-11970s around hallucinations.  What I am trying to do with project is create a visual network of connections that would show the way frames compete for domination in vision/though of a public.  Its been a bit of a challenge, since my technological (production) knowledge is some what lacking compared to my vision for the project.  I have found software that would let me do the kind of motion that I want, but its a couple of thousand dollars... so that will have to wait.  In the mean time you will have to use your imagination to picture a spinning 3d thought process of love.  

I was intrigued by Jenkins discussion of Christian reactions to Harry Potter, and, well, lots of other things that seem to bring into question or offer alternative views to the Christian mythos. It’s interesting to me where culture meets resistance in places, and how people deal with it.I did lots of research for my Master’s degree on table top role-playing. When it first emerged there was an over abundance of Christian resistance. This resistance was strange in that most of the people resisting had never played, and wouldn’t be interested in playing. The idea that there were young people out there “pretending” that they could do magic bothered the Christian organizations (see this pamphlet) to the point that they said it would derange youth. Wow (hehehe). As Jenkins points out on 196, the reaction that most players or fans have of, “Its just pretend, okay!” is something to worry about. When we have to down play the activities that engage us as just in our imaginations, or just pretend we are actively limiting our own fun. Beyond that, we are limiting the worlds we value, and the way we value ourselves. Role-playing and fan culture are not JUST pretend, and this is what is so amazing (frightening) about them. As we engage in our imaginations we are participating in the creation of self. Rather then have the possibilities of what we can or cannot do dictated at us, we are VISIONING something alternative.

How do we understand the frames of seeing as they are experienced? If we are limited, altered, given boundaries and metaphors by our language and culture that dictate what we see and how we see it, how would we know? Seeing around frames is a bit troublesome: they are frames, screens, rose colored glasses that we cannot remove without removing all other frames of reference. Considering these questions I am attempting to explore a region that is on the edge of our frames, and sometimes transcends various frames of reference (leaving the authors of the experience in a very difficult space of reporting); namely, the hallucination. My reasoning is that, if we examine those ways of seeing that are unsanctioned, odd, questionable, or unreal, we will be revealing some of the frames of reference that limit or control our vision. Beyond simply revealing various metaphors that control our vision (we are already aware of the frames that I will be exploring) I would like to explore why, what needs to be controlled, in regards to the vision or hallucination? In what ways do the various frames or approaches to understanding hallucination invite, reject, or ignore the experience of the author? What implications does this have on wider ways of seeing?

The idea of knowledge communities, and their flexible nature, struck me as key in Convergence Culture.  If communities rise and combine and merge and flow, telling extended stories and creating ways of knowing that are new, how does that effect the way that we learn/approach rhetoric?  Part of how we understand a discourse and an audience is as a body of language (loosely used, incorporating visual language, physical language, rites and rituals) which is defined by those outside.  Of course, these knowledge communities like the spoiler, fit this to a T.  However, what was once defined as a VALID knowledge community seems to be shifting.  No longer is the academy or law or big bad white dudes the controllers of what becomes a powerful knowledge community.  For example, the internet community that sprung up around Snakes on a Plane, that pretty much changed the script via public pressure.  This is exerting a community authority not sanctioned by any particular body (except perhaps consumer based culture).  Where ever did they get that Authority?  If any community/body of people can claim to be joining together to be making knowledge, then how can we as rhetoricians study how to talk to them?  There are personal laws and rules that each knowledge community follows, so how do we define them as an audience.  The demographics are changing, and people are increasingly altering what they are authorities on.  Now everyone with internet access can find some vague and out there thing in which they are an expert.  This is not a bad thing, but it makes me wonder about how it will change the way communication, community, authority, and rhetoric will operate in a multi-interconnected world.

>Watch this video... No... Really...   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc)                                                "Just Looking" by James Elkins was very interesting to me.  We assume our vision is directed and that we are not being seen: I am looking at the ball.  I am the active agent of the looking—not the other way around.  The ball is looking at me sounds like a silly if not damn crazy way of talking… right?  Maybe not right.  The way that we approach language and seeing is very similar: the way we note who is in control makes an assumption.  This is less easy to do with being who we equate as similar (the cat looks at me or the bunny or dog, or even snake…) but the rock and tree are outside of the seeing game. 

Hey all,I got trapped in the wonder of YouTube yet again this morning and thought I would share some of the illusions that I found there. I suppose that I am still curious about the optical nature of the way that we see, or the way our brain will project for us and fill in gaps, as with this first illusion... Dragon This illusion is really interesting, and I wish I had a little dragon of my own.

What could an immersive book look like?  Lanham has talked about the movement away from interactive texts and back towards traditional texts (only they’re on a computer screen).  He also talks about the way that books, at least for those of us who really adore reading, are an immersive reality all to themselves.  I have always shied from ebooks for many of the reasons that Lanham mentions: they are not mobile, there is nothing to touch and write on, I feel left out of the text and am interrupted by scrolling or button pushing.  I just never found a love for them, and would rather read something that is on paper—yet I am able to spend hours online flipping back and forth through pages of information.  How can this be?  The way I read a novel or article is of course very different then the way I read online.  Online I am generally skimming to the paragraph that feels like it hold some nugget of truth, or I am reading for brief information (recipe, factoid…).  It seems that the texts online don’t quite take it far enough.  How would it be different if I could be in the text?  And how would it be if my actions actually changed the text?  I was desperately looking for this wonderful thesis that one of the MFAs at Colorado State University made while I was just starting.  She had a site where how you moved and selected text (which faded in and out and was hauntingly cool) changed the story that would appear and/or evolve.  It was one of the most effective online creative texts that invited you into the process.  Also, I am curious about the way it would be if, as we read/interacted with a book, we were in a virtual world of the text… I haven’t fleshed out what this would look like, and it might be part of my 3D library mind map of love, but this giant gerbil ball might be part of it.

What would your ideal information organization attention focusing device be, if it were to be manifest outside of your brains?I ask because I am constantly picturing an interactive virtual reality in which I get to organize a giant 3D map of knowledges, interconnected and mobile (with a kick ass search engine).