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

If we believe Purdue’s own Pat Sullivan (and why wouldn’t we), an extremely close and specific look at the pedagogical uses of advertisements has never been composition studies’ forte. The subject has either been: belonging to communications departments, too obviously a bad thing to bother with, or too distasteful a topic to encroach. Which is semi-ironic because as early as 1953, CCCC panel reports were giving the green light to using newspapers and ads in the composition classroom (hesitantly, I might add). Therefore, the analysis of ads were one of the first pop culture texts to enter comp classrooms, and are subsequently our longest running ones. Nevertheless, I researched the history of pop culture in the comp classroom last semester and direct mentions of ads are few. For this paper I want to give a category list of current and previous uses, which looks something like this at the moment:

Discriminatory/Taste Analysis– the oldest category, a throwback to the 1950s, where students are encouraged to decide what makes a good ad verus a bad ad.

Positivist– where ads are treated a place of linguistic mastery of their own and students study them (I guess) to use similar techniques in their own writing (shudder)

Language Based– where ads are almost used as grammar how not tos– looking for fragments, cliches, coinages, neologisms, levels of diction

Argumentative– as it sounds, using ads to teach traditional argument: looking for claims, warrants, persuasive devices, logical fallacies, etc.

Culture/Critical– the most recent and popular, where ads are seen as an interplay of codes and signifiers that can be teased apart to make criticisms about social and economic representations and constructions

This is probably not a complete list, there’s probably some overlay, and I’d love some comments from ya’ll to help add or combine categories based on your own experiences.

For this paper, I want to assert that ignoring ads is at our peril as a discipline, but also suggest that none of these approaches have been entirely successful. The critical approach has probably been best, but my problem with it is my same old story (you’ve seen it in other posts) the critical approach too often merely breeds cynicism or tells students something they already know. The history of advertising itself suggests a move from more text-based use-value claims to pictorial sign-value claims. I want to find a way to link up visual rhetoric theory to suggest new ways of looking at ads in the classroom that acknowledges this and hopefully moves beyond apathy and passivity.