On May 1st 2011, Osama Bin Laden was pronounced dead and America rejoiced. After 10 years, 2 wars, 919,967 deaths and over a trillion dollars later we had managed to capture and kill the most wanted man in the world. As I was rioting on Beaver Ave. with the rest of the Penn State student population, I blamed much of my reaction on mob mentality. I was happy we had finally caught the man who had cost so many American's their lives, but I wondered what type of message our riots sent to the rest of the world. What kind of rhetorical statement were we making? We were rioting over a persons death after all. Or was this situation different because it was seen as an American victory? As I cheered and sang in Beaver canyon, I couldn't allow myself to become comfortable in my rejoicing. I was busy analyzing the moral and rhetorical statements I was making to the rest of the world with my actions. Rhetoric is a tool a learned to use this semester in my LA101H class. I have complied my best rhetorical speeches and and analysis on an e-Portfolio as a cumulative account of the knowledge I have acquired. This is sadly my last post on my Rhetoric and Civic Life blog, but the reality of my civic life is just beginning. Follow this link to see the work I have accomplished in this short semester.
Link to Katie Quinn's e-Portfolio
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Dressing the Part
One of my mom's favorite mottos is "clothes make the man". She reminds me of this saying whenever I have an interview or a public presentation. I always laugh it off as an old adage, but lately I have noticed the effect that a speaker's appearance has on both the speaker's confidence in delivery, and the audience's perception of the speaker and response to their message.
To relate the correlation between a speaker's confidence and their appearance I would like to recall some of the beautiful weather we had Thursday of this week! When I woke up with sun shining and warm air blowing through my dorm window, I was lifted from the gloomy mood the beginning of the week carried, and I couldn't help but feel great about myself. Even though I woke up late for class, I took some time and wore an outfit that I felt good in. On my walk to class I realized I wasn't the only one in this mood. The sidewalks looked like pages from a JCPenny's catalogue. All of the girls were sporting their cutest spring outfits and even some guys were breaking out their polos and cargo shorts. Everyone felt good, so they dressed well.
This relationship works the same way in reverse. We recently held elections in the College of Democrats, and some of the members took it much more seriously than others. About half of the members running for office arrived in suits and the other half arrived in jeans. With the exception of one person, the members who presented their platforms in suits won, and the members that presented their platforms in jeans lost. This is a great example of the effect a speaker's appearance has on both the speaker and the audience's perception of the speaker.
The members that presented their speeches in suits spoke with refined authority, and they dressed the part as a future leader of the organization. The members that presented in jeans may have been equally qualified, but they did not present themselves in that manner. Their speeches were not as coherent and their platforms were not as developed as the members in suits. The members that presented in suits may have done so because they cared more about getting the position and invested more time in their presentation, but isolating all other variables, the members in suits delivered better speeches than the members in jeans.
The audience was much more responsive to the speeches of the candidates in suits. This was compelling evidence of the effect of appearance on the perceptions of the ethos of speakers. It was especially significant because the club is very close and most of the members already know the credibility of the other members of the club. In this case, the audience held more respect for the speaker because the speaker expressed respect for the audience through their formal appearance.
In the end the rhetoric of delivery comes back to what my mom always says, "clothes make the man". Professional appearance is one of the easiest ways that a rhetor can command the audience's attention and respect before they open their mouth to speak. The rest of the speaker's delivery is up to their knowledge and preparation on the subject, but seeming like you care and respect your audience by your appearance is a crucial step to gaining the your audience's respect and conveying your message effectively.
To relate the correlation between a speaker's confidence and their appearance I would like to recall some of the beautiful weather we had Thursday of this week! When I woke up with sun shining and warm air blowing through my dorm window, I was lifted from the gloomy mood the beginning of the week carried, and I couldn't help but feel great about myself. Even though I woke up late for class, I took some time and wore an outfit that I felt good in. On my walk to class I realized I wasn't the only one in this mood. The sidewalks looked like pages from a JCPenny's catalogue. All of the girls were sporting their cutest spring outfits and even some guys were breaking out their polos and cargo shorts. Everyone felt good, so they dressed well.
This relationship works the same way in reverse. We recently held elections in the College of Democrats, and some of the members took it much more seriously than others. About half of the members running for office arrived in suits and the other half arrived in jeans. With the exception of one person, the members who presented their platforms in suits won, and the members that presented their platforms in jeans lost. This is a great example of the effect a speaker's appearance has on both the speaker and the audience's perception of the speaker.
The members that presented their speeches in suits spoke with refined authority, and they dressed the part as a future leader of the organization. The members that presented in jeans may have been equally qualified, but they did not present themselves in that manner. Their speeches were not as coherent and their platforms were not as developed as the members in suits. The members that presented in suits may have done so because they cared more about getting the position and invested more time in their presentation, but isolating all other variables, the members in suits delivered better speeches than the members in jeans.
The audience was much more responsive to the speeches of the candidates in suits. This was compelling evidence of the effect of appearance on the perceptions of the ethos of speakers. It was especially significant because the club is very close and most of the members already know the credibility of the other members of the club. In this case, the audience held more respect for the speaker because the speaker expressed respect for the audience through their formal appearance.
In the end the rhetoric of delivery comes back to what my mom always says, "clothes make the man". Professional appearance is one of the easiest ways that a rhetor can command the audience's attention and respect before they open their mouth to speak. The rest of the speaker's delivery is up to their knowledge and preparation on the subject, but seeming like you care and respect your audience by your appearance is a crucial step to gaining the your audience's respect and conveying your message effectively.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Setting the Mood
As my group members and I were scrolling through the video of our multimedia presentation, we were happy with the way it looked, but we felt something was missing. It was silent.
We had not added the music yet and we could tell the difference. The images were compelling without the music but they didn't the same heart-gripping and mind-engaging effect.
After adding the music and watching the other groups use of music in their projects I decided to devote this blog to the effectiveness of music in creating a tone for the message a rhetor is trying to send through this type of multimedia medium.
The best way I can think of to analyze the changes in moods and tones different types of music can make is to reflect back on the changes of music themes our group went through. The tone of our project went from ironic, to intense, and finally we settled on contemplative.
Originally, our group wanted to use the theme music from "Always Sunny" to set a light mood against a heavy controversy and create a sense of irony in the audience. We loved the music, but we were afraid our infringing on the show's copyrights on the songs, and we felt that a different tone would be more effective in conveying the growing seriousness of the controversy of Adderall use in a college setting.
So next we decided to use alternative rock music to create a more intense mood. We scanned the creative commons far and wide searching for the perfect "I hate the world" song to enhance the intensity of our controversy, but we couldn't seem to find one that fit. We realized that we couldn't find a song that fit because the theme didn't fit the message of our topic.
As we were scanning the creative commons, we stumbled on the piece that would be the main song and the theme behind our music. Everyone in the group knew if fit upon hearing the song. The song was contemplative and plotting and moved forward with repetitive percussion that reminded me of at ticking of a clock. This gave our project the contemplative feel it needed and the message we were trying to send to our audience. We wanted to present the controversy as something still unclear to many people, and with alot of uncertainty surrounding the ethics of its use. This song was most effective because it instilled that same thoughtful mood into our audience.
We knew we had found the right song when the mood it created matched the message we were trying to send, and that is a good guideline to follow when searching for compelling music to set your audiences' mood.
We had not added the music yet and we could tell the difference. The images were compelling without the music but they didn't the same heart-gripping and mind-engaging effect.
After adding the music and watching the other groups use of music in their projects I decided to devote this blog to the effectiveness of music in creating a tone for the message a rhetor is trying to send through this type of multimedia medium.
The best way I can think of to analyze the changes in moods and tones different types of music can make is to reflect back on the changes of music themes our group went through. The tone of our project went from ironic, to intense, and finally we settled on contemplative.
Originally, our group wanted to use the theme music from "Always Sunny" to set a light mood against a heavy controversy and create a sense of irony in the audience. We loved the music, but we were afraid our infringing on the show's copyrights on the songs, and we felt that a different tone would be more effective in conveying the growing seriousness of the controversy of Adderall use in a college setting.
So next we decided to use alternative rock music to create a more intense mood. We scanned the creative commons far and wide searching for the perfect "I hate the world" song to enhance the intensity of our controversy, but we couldn't seem to find one that fit. We realized that we couldn't find a song that fit because the theme didn't fit the message of our topic.
As we were scanning the creative commons, we stumbled on the piece that would be the main song and the theme behind our music. Everyone in the group knew if fit upon hearing the song. The song was contemplative and plotting and moved forward with repetitive percussion that reminded me of at ticking of a clock. This gave our project the contemplative feel it needed and the message we were trying to send to our audience. We wanted to present the controversy as something still unclear to many people, and with alot of uncertainty surrounding the ethics of its use. This song was most effective because it instilled that same thoughtful mood into our audience.
We knew we had found the right song when the mood it created matched the message we were trying to send, and that is a good guideline to follow when searching for compelling music to set your audiences' mood.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Knowing your Audience
My blog group and I entered into a healthy rhetorical debate after class on Thursday about what originally was the scope of our thesis for our multimedia presentation. Ironically, our own discussion's scope broadened and we began to discuss the importance of knowing your audience and the dangers that are associated with assuming to much about your audience. Though by the end of the debate we began to focus back in on discussion on the scope of our thesis, my mind was left pondering the idea of knowing your audience and what that meant to a rhetor when presenting a rhetorical argument.
We have learned from our RCL book [yeah Im citing it :) lol] that the more you know about the audience you are presenting to the better, but where do you draw between knowing your audience, and making assumptions about commonly held beliefs?
I will use the example from our group to explain the question I posed. As we began to discuss our thesis which was originally "The ethics of using adderall in a university setting", I had the assumption that we were only talking about the illegal use of adderall. My thinking was based off of my belief that taking drugs that are prescribed to you by a doctor is ethical. I believed this to be a common belief held by most Americans, and most university students. However, Devron brought up a different viewpoint. He said that he assumed that when we said adderall we were discussing the use of adderall both legally and illegally and discussing the ethics of taking a prescribed drug to make students who are naturally disadvantaged at their ability to focus, perform above their natural levels.
This is the point where the knowledge of our specific audience diverged. I assumed the audience would understand taking prescribed drugs as ethical, and Devron countered saying that some members of the audience may not have this assumption. Sadly, just as our entire group was entering into the debate class ended. However, Devron and I were not done with our discussion about our audience and continued for a few minutes after class. As we both began to head off in different directions towards our next class, we decided that we both needed to do more research on our topic and our audience. This would ensure that we were properly unwrapping our controversy in a way that would not bias our audience by assuming commonly held beliefs. However, we needed to also find a way to limit our thesis to make a direct a strong presentation of our controversy. For today, the conversation will hopefully come to a conclusion as we nail down our thesis and move forward on our multimedia project, but I do not think my personal contemplations of knowing your audience or discussion surrounding this issue is quite over...
(P.S. Shout out to my blog group!! Sophia, Katharine, and Devron!!)
We have learned from our RCL book [yeah Im citing it :) lol] that the more you know about the audience you are presenting to the better, but where do you draw between knowing your audience, and making assumptions about commonly held beliefs?
I will use the example from our group to explain the question I posed. As we began to discuss our thesis which was originally "The ethics of using adderall in a university setting", I had the assumption that we were only talking about the illegal use of adderall. My thinking was based off of my belief that taking drugs that are prescribed to you by a doctor is ethical. I believed this to be a common belief held by most Americans, and most university students. However, Devron brought up a different viewpoint. He said that he assumed that when we said adderall we were discussing the use of adderall both legally and illegally and discussing the ethics of taking a prescribed drug to make students who are naturally disadvantaged at their ability to focus, perform above their natural levels.
This is the point where the knowledge of our specific audience diverged. I assumed the audience would understand taking prescribed drugs as ethical, and Devron countered saying that some members of the audience may not have this assumption. Sadly, just as our entire group was entering into the debate class ended. However, Devron and I were not done with our discussion about our audience and continued for a few minutes after class. As we both began to head off in different directions towards our next class, we decided that we both needed to do more research on our topic and our audience. This would ensure that we were properly unwrapping our controversy in a way that would not bias our audience by assuming commonly held beliefs. However, we needed to also find a way to limit our thesis to make a direct a strong presentation of our controversy. For today, the conversation will hopefully come to a conclusion as we nail down our thesis and move forward on our multimedia project, but I do not think my personal contemplations of knowing your audience or discussion surrounding this issue is quite over...
(P.S. Shout out to my blog group!! Sophia, Katharine, and Devron!!)
Friday, March 25, 2011
Jane Goodall at Penn State!
Tonight I had the opportunity to see Jane Goodall speak. Jane Goodall, yeah that's right, the one who spent 50 years studying and living with the chimpanzees. Her fame and interesting life experiences were what drew me and almost 1,000 other students into Eisenhower auditorium to hear her speak tonight. Her speech was interesting in two ways: first, I went having no idea what she was going to speak about, and, secondly she delivered her speech in a captivating and compelling way that both captivated her audience's attention and conveyed her final message through a series of stories. Jane Goodall is more than just an expert in her field, she is a great communicator and storyteller and her delivery style sends her message to the audience in an effective way.
First, Jane Goodall's name carries a strong ethos appeal of respect and authority in her field. This is evident by the crowd she drew for the event. As I approached Eisenhower, I was confronted by a long line of people hoping to get in to see Jane Goodall who did not obtain a ticket in time. Luckily, I was able to pass by this large line because I had a ticket I recently received from a friend who could not make the event. People without tickets were walking up and down the line willing to pay money to get a ticket to "see Jane Goodall speak". As I stood in line holding my free ticket I wondered why I wasn't selling it for profit. Then I realized that I, like most of the other people in line valued what Jane Goodall had to say even though most of us did not know the topic she was discussing. Jane's pure ethos appeal from her experiences and accomplishments in her field have given her name a strong ethos appeal similar to that of Oprah or Donald Trump. Most of us would try to see them speak if they came to Penn State because we respect their experiences and achievements and would want to hear the perspective of a person at the top of their field. This is also the case for Jane Goodall, I and most other people at Eisenhower had no idea what she was going to say, but valued her speech because of her ethos appeal and respected status.
When Jane Goodall appeared on stage and greeted us with a monkey call, I was glad that I didn't sell my ticket. I was already hooked on this cool, little old lady with sweet British accent. Then she began to tell her audience the story of her life as a series of struggles and opportunities to reach her ultimate dream of living in Africa with the wild animals. She was a great story teller and spoke to her audience of 1,000 people as if she was sitting with just you talking over tea. I found her ability to address a large audience in a captivating and intimate way very impressive and compelling. I was extremely attentive to each story she told as she carried us closer and closer to her ultimate point of hope for humanity throughout each compelling story. She had the ability to make the audience laugh with ease and created a sense of intimacy and optimism in the crowd. She effectively sent her message of hope and a call for action to address the problems of the world to her audience and people left feeling uplifted, and a few made their intention known to actively address the problems of the world through her program Roots and Shoots. The audience's response to Goodall's speech is evidence of her intimate and compelling delivery style. Goodall was able to captivate the audience and deliver her point with good will and an effective call to action. These are all qualities that make a good speaker and an enjoyable night for the audience.
I didn't really have the time last night to stop an hear Jane Goodall speak, but now I'm glad I didn't let my friend's ticket go to waste. It was fun to take a break with friends and go hear a respected person speak, and her ethos appeal was what drew most of her audience. However, after an hour of hearing her stories and her path to success I was truly happy I attended for more than just a study break. I was happy because now I had a blog topic. haha:) However, I was also informed, uplifted, and called to action. These are three evidences of a great speaker and deliverer, and a great investment of time for the audience.
First, Jane Goodall's name carries a strong ethos appeal of respect and authority in her field. This is evident by the crowd she drew for the event. As I approached Eisenhower, I was confronted by a long line of people hoping to get in to see Jane Goodall who did not obtain a ticket in time. Luckily, I was able to pass by this large line because I had a ticket I recently received from a friend who could not make the event. People without tickets were walking up and down the line willing to pay money to get a ticket to "see Jane Goodall speak". As I stood in line holding my free ticket I wondered why I wasn't selling it for profit. Then I realized that I, like most of the other people in line valued what Jane Goodall had to say even though most of us did not know the topic she was discussing. Jane's pure ethos appeal from her experiences and accomplishments in her field have given her name a strong ethos appeal similar to that of Oprah or Donald Trump. Most of us would try to see them speak if they came to Penn State because we respect their experiences and achievements and would want to hear the perspective of a person at the top of their field. This is also the case for Jane Goodall, I and most other people at Eisenhower had no idea what she was going to say, but valued her speech because of her ethos appeal and respected status.
When Jane Goodall appeared on stage and greeted us with a monkey call, I was glad that I didn't sell my ticket. I was already hooked on this cool, little old lady with sweet British accent. Then she began to tell her audience the story of her life as a series of struggles and opportunities to reach her ultimate dream of living in Africa with the wild animals. She was a great story teller and spoke to her audience of 1,000 people as if she was sitting with just you talking over tea. I found her ability to address a large audience in a captivating and intimate way very impressive and compelling. I was extremely attentive to each story she told as she carried us closer and closer to her ultimate point of hope for humanity throughout each compelling story. She had the ability to make the audience laugh with ease and created a sense of intimacy and optimism in the crowd. She effectively sent her message of hope and a call for action to address the problems of the world to her audience and people left feeling uplifted, and a few made their intention known to actively address the problems of the world through her program Roots and Shoots. The audience's response to Goodall's speech is evidence of her intimate and compelling delivery style. Goodall was able to captivate the audience and deliver her point with good will and an effective call to action. These are all qualities that make a good speaker and an enjoyable night for the audience.
I didn't really have the time last night to stop an hear Jane Goodall speak, but now I'm glad I didn't let my friend's ticket go to waste. It was fun to take a break with friends and go hear a respected person speak, and her ethos appeal was what drew most of her audience. However, after an hour of hearing her stories and her path to success I was truly happy I attended for more than just a study break. I was happy because now I had a blog topic. haha:) However, I was also informed, uplifted, and called to action. These are three evidences of a great speaker and deliverer, and a great investment of time for the audience.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Scare Center
Sleeping in was one of my favorite things to do on spring break. However, on Friday March 11, 2011 I slept through some serious seismic activity and a serious natural disaster in Japan. The damage was catastrophic and as I woke up and shuffled past the TV I was confronted with a press conference on the disaster. Trying to catch up on what happened while I slept I read the headline: "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JAPAN'S NUKES?"
Oh no. Another person is threatening to use nuclear weapons now!?
I froze in fear and immediately asked my Dad what was going on. He explained to me that Japan experienced as 9.0 earthquake off its coast, and that a tsunami with 33ft waves followed shortly after and damaged their nuclear power facilities. The news was tragic, but my fear slightly subsided. The news agency had grasped my attention by appealing to my fears through the way they displayed their information.
The headline, "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JAPAN'S NUKES?" is vague an alarming for a person who has not received the information to put this headline into context. (Not to mention someone who had just woken up 10 minutes before seeing the news.) First, the text is completely capitalized and was written on the screen in an alarming bold yellow color. The text is meant to grab its audiences attention in an alarming nature. Secondly, it is written in the form of a question and creates uncertainty in its audience that can only be dispelled by watching the news and receiving more information on the issue. Finally this question provides no other details placing it into context, and therefore, it is clearly appealing to the audience's pathos, specifically their emotion of fear. The audience will only find comfort after receiving more information and tuning in for the entire press conference.
The context in which this headline is placed also proves that the news station was appealing to the audience's emotion of fear. Many news stations are broadcast on mute in doctor's offices and gyms. Therefore the vague and alarming text would be the only medium available to these viewers, giving them a skewed and fearful understanding of current events. However, the lack of detail would make many viewers want to follow up on the story through that news station. Finally, the headline contained the word "nukes", a word which carries a connotation of fear for most Americans. Ever since the Cold War most Americans have consciously feared the prospect of engaging in a nuclear war or being victim to a nuclear attack. The fear has run so deep in our culture that even the word "nuke" instills fear in its audience. The news station knows this and used this abbreviation to evoke fear in its audience and grasp their attention.
This news headline scared me out of my slippers on Friday morning and I sat down and watched the press conference after seeing that headline. However, the headline scared me for all of the wrong reasons. It was vague providing few details on the issue being discussed. Its text and context appealed to my fear and I was hooked to their station for the next half hour. This was the goal of their alarming message, to scare the audience and appeal to their fear of uncertainty and make them want to acquire more information on the issue from their station.
Oh no. Another person is threatening to use nuclear weapons now!?
I froze in fear and immediately asked my Dad what was going on. He explained to me that Japan experienced as 9.0 earthquake off its coast, and that a tsunami with 33ft waves followed shortly after and damaged their nuclear power facilities. The news was tragic, but my fear slightly subsided. The news agency had grasped my attention by appealing to my fears through the way they displayed their information.
The headline, "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JAPAN'S NUKES?" is vague an alarming for a person who has not received the information to put this headline into context. (Not to mention someone who had just woken up 10 minutes before seeing the news.) First, the text is completely capitalized and was written on the screen in an alarming bold yellow color. The text is meant to grab its audiences attention in an alarming nature. Secondly, it is written in the form of a question and creates uncertainty in its audience that can only be dispelled by watching the news and receiving more information on the issue. Finally this question provides no other details placing it into context, and therefore, it is clearly appealing to the audience's pathos, specifically their emotion of fear. The audience will only find comfort after receiving more information and tuning in for the entire press conference.
The context in which this headline is placed also proves that the news station was appealing to the audience's emotion of fear. Many news stations are broadcast on mute in doctor's offices and gyms. Therefore the vague and alarming text would be the only medium available to these viewers, giving them a skewed and fearful understanding of current events. However, the lack of detail would make many viewers want to follow up on the story through that news station. Finally, the headline contained the word "nukes", a word which carries a connotation of fear for most Americans. Ever since the Cold War most Americans have consciously feared the prospect of engaging in a nuclear war or being victim to a nuclear attack. The fear has run so deep in our culture that even the word "nuke" instills fear in its audience. The news station knows this and used this abbreviation to evoke fear in its audience and grasp their attention.
This news headline scared me out of my slippers on Friday morning and I sat down and watched the press conference after seeing that headline. However, the headline scared me for all of the wrong reasons. It was vague providing few details on the issue being discussed. Its text and context appealed to my fear and I was hooked to their station for the next half hour. This was the goal of their alarming message, to scare the audience and appeal to their fear of uncertainty and make them want to acquire more information on the issue from their station.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Analysis of an Aerie Ad
Spring has Sprung! Maybe not quite yet, but it sprung sometime in late January for most clothing companies. As the weather gets warmer, one image of spring portrayed by advertisers sticks in my mind better than any other. It is the Aerie Spring 2011 ad campaign selling the beauty of nature's revival and the revival of natural looking beauty. The ad induces a longing for fresh spring air and the warm spring sun with its outdoor setting and color scheme, and sells an image of natural beauty to young girls by blending their clothing into the background of the ad and bringing to the forefront a motto describing the company's image.
When I first saw this ad I noticed three things immediately. The sun, the balloon, and the grass. Each yellow item drew your eye to the next yellow item and pulled your attention to the focal point of the ad. The pretty brown haired girl blending into her surroundings. The warm yellow color scheme invoked a sense of optimism in the audience, and the girl's upward gaze reinforced this feeling. The big yellow balloon creates hope and desire in the audience for a playful and carefree spring that will lead into an unforgettable summer. The audience is now hooked on aerie's idea of spring and they have created an ethos for their company as natural and carefree, which they will use to sell their clothing.
The audience shifts their attention to the true focus of the ad, the 2011 line of spring apparel. But as we look at the girl, its hard to find her clothing because it blends in with the grass. Aerie employs this strategy to sell the idea of natural prettiness. Aerie's spring line consists of clothes with pale natural hues of grass greens and off whites. Hues that you would find in nature.
They tie this idea together with the slogan "pretty goes with everything" written in pale colors on what looks like a bleached burlap sack. The slogan motivates readers to let their beauty shine through, and to buy clothes that enhance their natural beauty instead of constricting it.
Just as the sun shining through the trees gives extra beauty to an already beautiful sun, aeries clothes will add beauty to an already beautiful you. Aerie conveys this message with a natural setting and an optimistic color scheme. There message is created by displaying their clothes as only an accent to the girl's beauty and the phrase "pretty goes with everything" inspires us all to feel a little more beautiful, and buy into Aerie's image of "natural pretty".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)