Faigley laments academic hierarchies that place written text high above visuals: “The totemization of alphabetic literacy and the denial of the materiality of literacy have had the attendant effect of treating images as trivial, transitory, and manipulative. Visual thinking remains excluded from the mainstream literacy curriculum in the schools, and it is taught only in specialized courses in college in disciplines such as architecture and art history.” From this perspective, Kress’s Multimodality adds an explanation of why visuals are equal to text in meaning-making: “meaning is made in a multiplicity of modes, always in ensembles of modes” (182). Additionally, Kress discusses an explanation of how multimodal meaning-making can be assessed (182-183), which allows for a multimodal approach to education well before the college level.
At this point in my own studies of visual rhetoric, I find Kress’s work very helpful because of his articulation of specific terms (including discourse, genre, mode, linking, frames, etc) in which signs can be discussed. His discussion of translation (“processes of ‘moving meaning’ and of relating meanings across modes”) as transduction and transformation is particularly helpful for visual rhetoric. Transduction as “the process of moving meaning-material from one mode to another” allows us to think consciously about the mode shifting that happens both when we produce visually rhetorical items and when we analyze visually rhetorical items.
Faigley's perspective, which takes into account the "paradox of the narrative of alphabetic literacy [which] lies in its claim of a cognitive divide between oral and visual cultures," also acknowledges the fact that language and images "have material consequences." Given this perspective, Kress provides an argument and vocabulary for a social semiotic theory which would equate language and image in terms of their potentiality for being modes of meaning. Writing in 1999, Faigley wrote during a time when the internet was just beginning to blossom. After eleven years of progress and change, Kress has the benefit of the experience (and the opportunity to purchase computers with processors equipped with a billion transistors, just as the quoted COO of Intel predicted) of having seen language merge with image on the internet.
My perspective is obviously less academically rich than Faigley's, but like Kress I have the past ten years built in. But, like Faigley, I can benefit from the vocabulary that Kress provides. Also, instead of having to abolish the division between language and image, Kress can work with this abolition being understood. He instead points us on the road toward "fitting" all the different aspects of social-semiotics together (and the three big problems we face in doing that). Even in our class, we are in the process of separating the "visual" authors that we've read from the "rhetoric" people. As we situation them together, the (most exciting, from my perspective) opportunity that we have is in filling in the "gaps which point to possible new kinds of relations that were not visible or did not exist in the formerly discretely framed and bounded areas" (103).
I haven't found Kress to be the most accessible text we've read this semester, but this is what I've gotten from him, at least.
For visual rhetoric, Kress brings all modes of meaning-making together and this is something I haven't seen from another scholar. He unites verbal, visual, aural communication as well as traditional and digital media. A comprehensive discussion that includes the dialogue of street signs, pictures, drawings, buildings, language, etc allows us, as scholars of rhetoric, to have a better understanding of communication as well as the importance of sounds and visual images in our daily discourse.
I also think Kress offers an expansive vocabulary list. While it may difficult to identify his big key terms, the words he identifies in italics function as a practical language to talk about the different forms of communication and how they interact with each other and how we make meaning from them.
Kress states, "All communication is movement" (169), and this idea is one that is valuable especially to visual rhetoric. Most scholars seem to focus just on one kind of meaning-making but Kress focuses on the movement of communication through different media and genres and discourses. For visual rhetoric, a field that seems to draw on a variety of sources and disciplines, this allows for a better discussion of transfer and how the different parts of a visual composition speak to each other; how the words interact with the signs and icons; how those interact with the photographs, etc.
Especially for this class, Kress's consideration of multimodality is helpful for analyzing and thinking about how the different components of a visual composition communicate with each other and with ourselves.
Kress’s term “aptness” repeatedly came to mind while reading the Faigley piece. Kress writes: “The relation of form and meaning is one of aptness, of a ‘best fit’, where the form of the signifier suggests itself as ready-shaped to be the expression of the meaning – the signified – which is to be realized. Aptness means that the form has the requisite features to be the carrier of the meaning.” Part of this aptness is the availability of materials that support means/modes of expression. Different forms that carry meaning have different degrees of aptness in each concept. The aptness of one form over another is a critical material component that has shaped rhetoric in our culture.
In our class discussions of visual rhetoric, in particular I’m thinking about our current attempt to categorize readings as more or less visual or rhetorical, it seems that the visual can sometimes be regarded as a conduit of the rhetorical, a form that rhetoric takes in certain circumstances. With this in mind, I find Kress’s discussion of the distinction between meaning and form particularly helpful. The difference between meaning and form is a matter “of the perspective demanded at a given moment.” In this light something can function as meaning in one moment, and form in the next. I particularly appreciate these passages because, for me, they contribute to another question that has repeatedly come up: what is and what isn’t rhetoric. Here, we can use this frame to explain how the same thing may be rhetorical on one occasion, but not necessarily on every occasion. Our lines, in other words, of what is and what isn’t rhetoric do not need to be concrete. Neither do they need to feel the pressure of universality.
1) The Alphabetic Literacy Narrative as a hierarchical relationship in which text is deemed far superior; a vertical relationship.
2) Faigley’s critique of the ALN develops, instead, a non-hierarchical “space” in which the visual and the written are linked; a horizontal relationship.
3) Kress adds four things: first, as Stephen notes, Kress’ text represents a necessary technological (and thus social, cultural) upgrade; second, Kress expands the discussion by adding, via his idea of “modes”, other elements besides image and text (the politics of this is what makes this text exciting, I think); third, he widens the “space” to include the “banal” and the “unremarkable”; fourth, he emphasizes the role of the rhetor/designer in the production, selection and use of these modes—I see more “process” here than with Faigley. As a whole, I see this as a networked relationship in which the linkages are in play; Leigh’s choice of quote—“All communication is movement”—highlights this mobility well, I think.
In terms of Visual/Rhetoric or (Visual) Rhetoric or "Visual" Rhetoric, I agree with Leigh that Kress brings along quite a large lexicon of valuable terms that both expand on what we already know or challenge what we think we know. For example, in what ways might Kress’ “framing” tie into and expand our thinking about Burke’s terministic screen? Does Kress’ term “mode” make the “visual” in “visual rhetoric” redundant (I wonder if the categorizations “visual”/ “rhetoric” is productive)? What might the relationship between “aptness” and “kairos” be?
I also wonder if Kress’ work puts Mitchell’s (via H&H) idea of indiscipline into useful practice—here we have references from all aspects of the world from salt packets, to rhetoric, education, architecture, photography and advertising. I'm not entirely convinced by this, but I see this as a great start.
I think the term “framing” is an interesting addition, since it seems to stand as a challenge to Sontag’s critique of photography. There is an ethical responsibility for Kress' rhetor/designer, but because there is no mode that is clearly distinct from the material/real, Sontag's critique of the photograph as an aggression seems much less potent.
Faigley argues that “literacy has always been a material, multimedia construct but we only now are becoming aware of this multidimensionality and materiality because computer technologies have made it possible for many people to produce and publish multimedia presentations.” His focus on the materiality of literacy extends and challenges traditional notions of literacy. Kress reinforces this view “for taking ‘multimodality’ as the normal state of human communication.” Approaching literacy and communication in terms of multimedia and multimodalities forces those who are fearful of emergent technologies that encourage multimedia and multimodal constructions to rethink their static notions of literacy.
For me, Kress strengthens the idea that contemporary communication is centered on the idea that “meaning is the issue.” Instead of rejecting outdated modes of thinking about communication and meaning making, he attempts to make sense of the current situation and provides a theory that rests on the observation that “the world of communication has changed and is changing still.” As outlined on page 19, Kress’ theory relies on the structure of a community. I appreciate how he uses “community” and “social groups” as determining factors for his theory. I think the role of the community and the roles of community members and members of different social groups help to shape a group’s communication. They communicate in ways—and understand each other in ways—that are grounded in their community value system. The ideology of that certain group affects how the visual—in whatever form—functions in their communication.
Like Leigh, I appreciate Kress’s efforts to show the relationship amongst modes in creating meaning. Thus far this semester, we’ve read scholars who’ve examined and discussed visuals as texts that also contain words (e.g., Kostelnick and Hassett); however, rarely did these scholars examine in depth the way these modes (as well as others, not just image and written word) work together nor did they underscore that meaning is, as Kress argues, primarily made multimodally. Like Josh, then, I find that one of the more valuable contributions Kress makes is his expanding of what we consider meaningful text by including the “banal.” Such a capacious understanding of text illuminates just how inundated we are in our everyday lives, particularly outside the academy, with what appear to be mundane texts that nonetheless direct our attention and prompt us to interpret and act.
As for Faigley, like Elizabeth, I find the most resonating aspect of his online text to be the focus on and lamenting of the visual’s diminutive status in the academy. It’s almost clichéd at this point to talk about the relationship between the written word and the visual and to claim that the visual traditionally has been seen as a compliment, that the visual occupies an ancillary relation to the written word, but the sad fact remains that Faigley’s text still has pertinence despite being composed over a decade ago—not to mention that said decade was one where the visual has never had more prominence. Even though we’ve made important stride to legitimize the visual, we still too frequently inculcate within our students a distrust (or at least a skepticism) of the visual and an urgency to understand the nuances of the word rather than the visual.
Thus, what I think these two, Kress and Faigley, do together is draw our attention to a shift in “seeing” and thus emphasize the importance of conceiving literacy in a more robust manner. When reading Faigley, I couldn’t help but think of Donald Leu’s argument about the importance of teaching kids how to read the screen, a vastly different literacy from reading tangible print texts. Kress, though perhaps more tacitly, makes a similar argument by turning our attention toward the “banal”: we read these texts every day but we rarely consider the ways those texts read and thus inscribe us.
For both of these men bring me to the idea and importance of “literacies.” Kress is creating a theory of communication that includes language as one of many possible options for communication. He offers us an exploration into the multiple media we use when working to communicate our ideas. Faigley introduces us to the notion that visuals are at work all around us and require a certain literacy on our part in order to understand them. Both men are hinting at the ideas that much more than just a linguistic literacy is used when we communicate. We employ a multimodal literacy in our daily lives.
Therefore, both of these men take me toward pedagogy and the interminable debate over just what it is we teach in the English composition classroom. If we maintain that our goal is to teach students to communicate effectively and rhetorically, these pieces offer us a solid argument that an expended notion of communication, and therefore literacy, needs to be adopted. In many ways, both Kress and Faigley’s treatment of the visual as one of many rhetorical strategies affords us the opportunity to bring these types of conversations to our English colleagues using a language they are familiar with. When visual rhetoric is framed not just as “looking at pictures and advertisements” and more in terms of communication theory and linguistics, it would appear to me that we have a more solid case to begin our argument with. These men offer us theories of literacIES in ways that our previous reading have only hinted at.
Faigley’s argument states that “literacy has always been a material, multimedia construct but we only now are becoming aware of this multidimensionality and materiality because computer technologies have made it possible for many people to produce and publish multimedia presentations.” Literacy is everywhere and everything. Like Kress mentions in his discussion on translation, transduction, and transformation, information is constantly being moved, shifted, reorganized, and being understood in new ways based on the type of mode and conventions used. This process is that of linking; Kress links multiple facets of Visual Rhetoric together (even though difficult for a reader.) Faigley and Kress parallel each other with the images and examples that they use to explain their arguments. The elementary, youthful examples display their own characterization of a community of visual discourse in the age of technology development. I agree with what has been previously stated Kress has a great vocabulary and pushes visual rhetoricians to contemplate the relations between various facets of the theory. My Question for Kress: - Did you use a model text for this book? If so, what text and how much control did you have over the conventions used? What control did your publisher have
Faigley laments academic hierarchies that place written text high above visuals: “The totemization of alphabetic literacy and the denial of the materiality of literacy have had the attendant effect of treating images as trivial, transitory, and manipulative. Visual thinking remains excluded from the mainstream literacy curriculum in the schools, and it is taught only in specialized courses in college in disciplines such as architecture and art history.” From this perspective, Kress’s Multimodality adds an explanation of why visuals are equal to text in meaning-making: “meaning is made in a multiplicity of modes, always in ensembles of modes” (182). Additionally, Kress discusses an explanation of how multimodal meaning-making can be assessed (182-183), which allows for a multimodal approach to education well before the college level.
ReplyDeleteAt this point in my own studies of visual rhetoric, I find Kress’s work very helpful because of his articulation of specific terms (including discourse, genre, mode, linking, frames, etc) in which signs can be discussed. His discussion of translation (“processes of ‘moving meaning’ and of relating meanings across modes”) as transduction and transformation is particularly helpful for visual rhetoric. Transduction as “the process of moving meaning-material from one mode to another” allows us to think consciously about the mode shifting that happens both when we produce visually rhetorical items and when we analyze visually rhetorical items.
Faigley's perspective, which takes into account the "paradox of the narrative of alphabetic literacy [which] lies in its claim of a cognitive divide between oral and visual cultures," also acknowledges the fact that language and images "have material consequences." Given this perspective, Kress provides an argument and vocabulary for a social semiotic theory which would equate language and image in terms of their potentiality for being modes of meaning. Writing in 1999, Faigley wrote during a time when the internet was just beginning to blossom. After eleven years of progress and change, Kress has the benefit of the experience (and the opportunity to purchase computers with processors equipped with a billion transistors, just as the quoted COO of Intel predicted) of having seen language merge with image on the internet.
ReplyDeleteMy perspective is obviously less academically rich than Faigley's, but like Kress I have the past ten years built in. But, like Faigley, I can benefit from the vocabulary that Kress provides. Also, instead of having to abolish the division between language and image, Kress can work with this abolition being understood. He instead points us on the road toward "fitting" all the different aspects of social-semiotics together (and the three big problems we face in doing that). Even in our class, we are in the process of separating the "visual" authors that we've read from the "rhetoric" people. As we situation them together, the (most exciting, from my perspective) opportunity that we have is in filling in the "gaps which point to possible new kinds of relations that were not visible or did not exist in the formerly discretely framed and bounded areas" (103).
I haven't found Kress to be the most accessible text we've read this semester, but this is what I've gotten from him, at least.
ReplyDeleteFor visual rhetoric, Kress brings all modes of meaning-making together and this is something I haven't seen from another scholar. He unites verbal, visual, aural communication as well as traditional and digital media. A comprehensive discussion that includes the dialogue of street signs, pictures, drawings, buildings, language, etc allows us, as scholars of rhetoric, to have a better understanding of communication as well as the importance of sounds and visual images in our daily discourse.
I also think Kress offers an expansive vocabulary list. While it may difficult to identify his big key terms, the words he identifies in italics function as a practical language to talk about the different forms of communication and how they interact with each other and how we make meaning from them.
Kress states, "All communication is movement" (169), and this idea is one that is valuable especially to visual rhetoric. Most scholars seem to focus just on one kind of meaning-making but Kress focuses on the movement of communication through different media and genres and discourses. For visual rhetoric, a field that seems to draw on a variety of sources and disciplines, this allows for a better discussion of transfer and how the different parts of a visual composition speak to each other; how the words interact with the signs and icons; how those interact with the photographs, etc.
Especially for this class, Kress's consideration of multimodality is helpful for analyzing and thinking about how the different components of a visual composition communicate with each other and with ourselves.
Kress’s term “aptness” repeatedly came to mind while reading the Faigley piece. Kress writes: “The relation of form and meaning is one of aptness, of a ‘best fit’, where the form of the signifier suggests itself as ready-shaped to be the expression of the meaning – the signified – which is to be realized. Aptness means that the form has the requisite features to be the carrier of the meaning.” Part of this aptness is the availability of materials that support means/modes of expression. Different forms that carry meaning have different degrees of aptness in each concept. The aptness of one form over another is a critical material component that has shaped rhetoric in our culture.
ReplyDeleteIn our class discussions of visual rhetoric, in particular I’m thinking about our current attempt to categorize readings as more or less visual or rhetorical, it seems that the visual can sometimes be regarded as a conduit of the rhetorical, a form that rhetoric takes in certain circumstances. With this in mind, I find Kress’s discussion of the distinction between meaning and form particularly helpful. The difference between meaning and form is a matter “of the perspective demanded at a given moment.” In this light something can function as meaning in one moment, and form in the next. I particularly appreciate these passages because, for me, they contribute to another question that has repeatedly come up: what is and what isn’t rhetoric. Here, we can use this frame to explain how the same thing may be rhetorical on one occasion, but not necessarily on every occasion. Our lines, in other words, of what is and what isn’t rhetoric do not need to be concrete. Neither do they need to feel the pressure of universality.
Here’s what I see:
ReplyDelete1) The Alphabetic Literacy Narrative as a hierarchical relationship in which text is deemed far superior; a vertical relationship.
2) Faigley’s critique of the ALN develops, instead, a non-hierarchical “space” in which the visual and the written are linked; a horizontal relationship.
3) Kress adds four things: first, as Stephen notes, Kress’ text represents a necessary technological (and thus social, cultural) upgrade; second, Kress expands the discussion by adding, via his idea of “modes”, other elements besides image and text (the politics of this is what makes this text exciting, I think); third, he widens the “space” to include the “banal” and the “unremarkable”; fourth, he emphasizes the role of the rhetor/designer in the production, selection and use of these modes—I see more “process” here than with Faigley. As a whole, I see this as a networked relationship in which the linkages are in play; Leigh’s choice of quote—“All communication is movement”—highlights this mobility well, I think.
In terms of Visual/Rhetoric or (Visual) Rhetoric or "Visual" Rhetoric, I agree with Leigh that Kress brings along quite a large lexicon of valuable terms that both expand on what we already know or challenge what we think we know. For example, in what ways might Kress’ “framing” tie into and expand our thinking about Burke’s terministic screen? Does Kress’ term “mode” make the “visual” in “visual rhetoric” redundant (I wonder if the categorizations “visual”/ “rhetoric” is productive)? What might the relationship between “aptness” and “kairos” be?
I also wonder if Kress’ work puts Mitchell’s (via H&H) idea of indiscipline into useful practice—here we have references from all aspects of the world from salt packets, to rhetoric, education, architecture, photography and advertising. I'm not entirely convinced by this, but I see this as a great start.
I think the term “framing” is an interesting addition, since it seems to stand as a challenge to Sontag’s critique of photography. There is an ethical responsibility for Kress' rhetor/designer, but because there is no mode that is clearly distinct from the material/real, Sontag's critique of the photograph as an aggression seems much less potent.
Faigley argues that “literacy has always been a material, multimedia construct but we only now are becoming aware of this multidimensionality and materiality because computer technologies have made it possible for many people to produce and publish multimedia presentations.” His focus on the materiality of literacy extends and challenges traditional notions of literacy. Kress reinforces this view “for taking ‘multimodality’ as the normal state of human communication.” Approaching literacy and communication in terms of multimedia and multimodalities forces those who are fearful of emergent technologies that encourage multimedia and multimodal constructions to rethink their static notions of literacy.
ReplyDeleteFor me, Kress strengthens the idea that contemporary communication is centered on the idea that “meaning is the issue.” Instead of rejecting outdated modes of thinking about communication and meaning making, he attempts to make sense of the current situation and provides a theory that rests on the observation that “the world of communication has changed and is changing still.” As outlined on page 19, Kress’ theory relies on the structure of a community. I appreciate how he uses “community” and “social groups” as determining factors for his theory. I think the role of the community and the roles of community members and members of different social groups help to shape a group’s communication. They communicate in ways—and understand each other in ways—that are grounded in their community value system. The ideology of that certain group affects how the visual—in whatever form—functions in their communication.
Like Leigh, I appreciate Kress’s efforts to show the relationship amongst modes in creating meaning. Thus far this semester, we’ve read scholars who’ve examined and discussed visuals as texts that also contain words (e.g., Kostelnick and Hassett); however, rarely did these scholars examine in depth the way these modes (as well as others, not just image and written word) work together nor did they underscore that meaning is, as Kress argues, primarily made multimodally. Like Josh, then, I find that one of the more valuable contributions Kress makes is his expanding of what we consider meaningful text by including the “banal.” Such a capacious understanding of text illuminates just how inundated we are in our everyday lives, particularly outside the academy, with what appear to be mundane texts that nonetheless direct our attention and prompt us to interpret and act.
ReplyDeleteAs for Faigley, like Elizabeth, I find the most resonating aspect of his online text to be the focus on and lamenting of the visual’s diminutive status in the academy. It’s almost clichéd at this point to talk about the relationship between the written word and the visual and to claim that the visual traditionally has been seen as a compliment, that the visual occupies an ancillary relation to the written word, but the sad fact remains that Faigley’s text still has pertinence despite being composed over a decade ago—not to mention that said decade was one where the visual has never had more prominence. Even though we’ve made important stride to legitimize the visual, we still too frequently inculcate within our students a distrust (or at least a skepticism) of the visual and an urgency to understand the nuances of the word rather than the visual.
Thus, what I think these two, Kress and Faigley, do together is draw our attention to a shift in “seeing” and thus emphasize the importance of conceiving literacy in a more robust manner. When reading Faigley, I couldn’t help but think of Donald Leu’s argument about the importance of teaching kids how to read the screen, a vastly different literacy from reading tangible print texts. Kress, though perhaps more tacitly, makes a similar argument by turning our attention toward the “banal”: we read these texts every day but we rarely consider the ways those texts read and thus inscribe us.
For both of these men bring me to the idea and importance of “literacies.” Kress is creating a theory of communication that includes language as one of many possible options for communication. He offers us an exploration into the multiple media we use when working to communicate our ideas. Faigley introduces us to the notion that visuals are at work all around us and require a certain literacy on our part in order to understand them. Both men are hinting at the ideas that much more than just a linguistic literacy is used when we communicate. We employ a multimodal literacy in our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, both of these men take me toward pedagogy and the interminable debate over just what it is we teach in the English composition classroom. If we maintain that our goal is to teach students to communicate effectively and rhetorically, these pieces offer us a solid argument that an expended notion of communication, and therefore literacy, needs to be adopted. In many ways, both Kress and Faigley’s treatment of the visual as one of many rhetorical strategies affords us the opportunity to bring these types of conversations to our English colleagues using a language they are familiar with. When visual rhetoric is framed not just as “looking at pictures and advertisements” and more in terms of communication theory and linguistics, it would appear to me that we have a more solid case to begin our argument with. These men offer us theories of literacIES in ways that our previous reading have only hinted at.
Faigley’s argument states that “literacy has always been a material, multimedia construct but we only now are becoming aware of this multidimensionality and materiality because computer technologies have made it possible for many people to produce and publish multimedia presentations.” Literacy is everywhere and everything. Like Kress mentions in his discussion on translation, transduction, and transformation, information is constantly being moved, shifted, reorganized, and being understood in new ways based on the type of mode and conventions used. This process is that of linking; Kress links multiple facets of Visual Rhetoric together (even though difficult for a reader.) Faigley and Kress parallel each other with the images and examples that they use to explain their arguments. The elementary, youthful examples display their own characterization of a community of visual discourse in the age of technology development. I agree with what has been previously stated Kress has a great vocabulary and pushes visual rhetoricians to contemplate the relations between various facets of the theory.
ReplyDeleteMy Question for Kress:
- Did you use a model text for this book? If so, what text and how much control did you have over the conventions used? What control did your publisher have