blog is a funny word

News on the Web

SMARTboard Technology: Review

SMART Technology offers products for corporate, educational, and governmental use, though it is difficult to ascertain which of their technologies was created first and for which of these sectors. That said the company’s product SMARTboard has been showing up in more and more classrooms over the last decade. SMARTBoard is an interactive white board that allows for integration of computer interaction and display technology in the classroom. It also offers a central point for interfacing other technology with the SMARTboard and allows for interaction between all of these devices and the user. The interactive white board offers several functions. First, it interfaces with other technology in the room, and the board’s software allows for the display of the computer screen, images from digital cameras, and video from DVD players or VCRs to be displayed on the board. This allows for the users to work with computer applications such as Microsoft Word, any website available, images, and video content. Second, the board offers interactive elements that include specialized pen tools, an “eraser” tool, an onscreen keyboard, and the ability to click on the board itself to manipulate the computer from the board interface. The pen tools native to the technology are not real white board pens. Rather, they are shaped like white board pens and respond to the technology when they are lifted from their positions in the board tray. This enables the user to “write” on the SMARTboard, in any of the colors offered, to highlight areas of text, to point out areas of interest, to take notes, etc.
Where SMARTboard gains the most points for classroom interaction is when it supports the learning of skills and tasks that are otherwise difficult to show large groups of students at one time. For the composition instructor, SMARTboard can be very useful in showing students how to access library information online, how to find journals and articles in their areas of interest, and how to develop appropriate search terms. The University’s website can be navigated together, the instructor can use the board to circle appropriate areas for students to find links, and the onscreen keyboard can help the instructor to search together with students while working on keyword skills. The instructor can then sift through results with students, highlight areas of interest in abstracts, or use colors to code potential items in terms of usefulness.
As much as the interaction from the class can be enhanced by the use of the SMARTboard, the technology does little, if anything, to break down traditional notions of classroom authority through its design. Having students come up to work with the SMARTboard may be more interactive and involved than having them solve a problem on a board or “correct” a sentence on a clear overhead sheet, but it still supports the notion of being “allowed” to contribute. The SMARTboard too easily allows a “sage on the stage” instructor to keep the hegemony of the classroom in check. Again, too easily, the instructor is able to stick to a very traditional model of education and works against more modern notions of education that promote a more democratic and participatory atmosphere (Dewey, Freire). Interestingly though, although likely not created for this purpose, the SMARTboard allows for many interactions that creative instructors have found for online classes to interact and work with each other. Much like WebEx and Adobe Connect, the board also allows for screens to be shared, only in this case by display to a physical classroom. It also enables the student to manipulate central images without pouring over the instructor’s computer, and newer SMARTboards allow for more than one user to use their touch technology at one time.
In short, the SMARTboard is a nice addition to classroom technology if an instructor is able to have use of it. Like any technology, the way the instructor and the users actually put it to use matters the most in terms of its usefulness and the way it promotes pedagogical goals. However, estimates of the total cost of all the parts of this technology, including the projector, seem to be several thousand dollars. However, there are multiple ways to take advantage of some of the benefits of this system without actually using the system itself. If students have access to computers, this can be done by allowing them to work through Google Documents or to work through Adobe Connect so that they can take part in screen sharing activities. If computers are not available, students in the classroom could be given the chance to work in a lab with computers. Though those with SMARTboards in their classrooms may find a way to use them every day, the use of this technology may not really be required every day, depending on the course. As Selber suggests in “Reimagining Computer Literacy”, teachers and instructors are often unable to utilize technology in the classroom in pedagogically sound ways or to reimagine uses for them outside of the context of the “operational terms” of the product (1). SMARTboard’s usefulness in the classroom, above other forms of similar and less expensive technology, is limited by the ability and willingness to learn new modes of using the product to support a more evolved form of pedagogy, rather than to reinforce old notions of instruction.

Relevant Literature and Works Cited
Dewey, John. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
The Free Press. New York, NY (1916)
Freire, Paulo. “The Banking Model of Education” from Educational Foundations: An Anthology of Critical Readings. Alan S. Canestrari & Bruce A. Marlowe (Eds.)Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications (2003)
Selber, Stuart A. “Reimagining Computer Literacy”, from Multiliteracies for Digital Age.
Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, IL (2004)

Gender and Pornography: Encoded and Decoded

 “Rule 34”, a meme without a definitive origin according to knowyourmeme.com, likely holds true in regards to the plethora of pornography existing on the internet today. This “rule” suggests that if a concept exists there is pornography somewhere on the internet with the same subject. While this may be true, more mainstream forms of pornography, because of the internet and likely because of a decrease in production costs, exist in high quality and quantity as is as readily available.

Popular opinion, and indeed tradition, seems to dictate that pornography is produced largely for men and by men. While the proliferation of pornography has shifted these boundaries somewhat, mainstream pornography is generally regarded as produced for the purposes of male entertainment and male visual stimulation.

                Stuart Hall uses the example of pornography in discussing the subject-position of Foucault’s theories on the “subject” in his essay “Foucault: Knowledge, Power, and Discourse” (1997). He argues that Foucault’s position on the subject was that the subject must be within the discourse and cannot be constructed nor can they exist beyond said discourse. However, Hall also suggests that subjects, at least according to Foucault, are not localized as the ultimate power in creating discourse: the subject is “subjected to discourse” (79). According to Foucault’s point of view, Hall suggests, women must put themselves in the “position of desiring ‘male voyeur’—which is the ideal subject-position which the ideal of male pornography constructs” in order for it to “work” for them, (80).

                Hall’s “Encoding/Decoding” can be used as an interesting tool in discussing the possibilities through which men and women consume mainstream pornography. Hall contends that discourse is encoded and decoded in various ways and through various means and ultimately is consumed and reproduced (508). Messages go through various stages of production, circulation, consumption, and reproduction, and though the power structures that play a large role in producing the knowledge or the message of a particular transmission, these positions of similar power and knowledge structures must be present for the receiver to decode the message in the particular way that it is intended. Likewise, however, it is possible to decode various meanings from different subject-positions within a particular discourse (509-510).

                Of course the individual decoding of the presentation of the female body constructed through male produced pornography vary from man to man as well as from woman to woman. The subject, subjected to the visual discourse of pornography, can and will decode different meanings depending on where they are placed, and where they place themselves within the discourse.

                Females represented in mainstream pornography are often acted upon, either visually by the viewer in the case of magazine style pornography or literally in the case of video pornography. Otherwise, they are providing action for male pleasure. Also, increasingly, mainstream female pornographic stars are being depicted not only as willing and ready instruments of male satisfaction, but also as hairless and cosmetically altered. If internet discussion forums bear any light on this subject, there seems to be adequate representation from both men that view a porn star body as ideal and from those that view it as much of a fantasy as the actions happening on screen. Some men will also argue that because the women on screen often have less personality, or are depicted solely as objects, they are not “real” women as they understand them, therefore they do not see their pornographic interests as related to their interests in actual real-life women.

                How, then, do women decode these images? It is a popular belief that the popular female practice of “shaving everything” comes from the proliferation of hairless women in mainstream pornography. Likewise, the increased popularity in “designer vaginas” and labiaplasty has also been connected by bloggers, scholars, and various media reports to pornography (for more, see links below). It could be argued that the subject-position of straight females is different than that of straight males, and Foucault might argue that because they are unable to place themselves in the subject-position of the intended audience of straight men, the intended discourse does not work for them. Rather, as Hall might suggest, the dominant position of the encoder and the traditional assumed decoder are parallel, while the negotiated position of the straight female audience may socially decode these visual messages in other ways. This decoding may fuel some of these female audiences to alter their own appearance believing that pornographic images present an actual ideal of sexuality while certain male audiences may not feel the same way. Through this, certain aspects of the visual representation of women become naturalized, although they are not natural.

Sources:

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/Decoding”. From: “Encoding and Decoding in Television Discourse”, CCCS Stenciled Paper No. 7.

Hall, Stuart. “Foucault: Knowledge, Power, and Discourse” (1997). From Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. Ed.  Wetherell, Margaret. et al.

Further Reading:.

“Labiaplasty Surgery Increase Blamed on Pornography”: from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/27/labiaplasty-surgery-labia-vagina-pornography

“Demand for Designer Vagina Surgery Rising”: Reuters: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/05/25/uk-vagina-idUKL2433745220070525

 “The Porn Myth”: New Yorker Magazine: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

“The Media Lies”: Our Bodies, Ourselves Health Resources:         http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/excerpt.asp?id=2

Older:

From Salon: “Porn-star Secrets”: Salon   http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2000/09/06/hair_removal/print.html

Owen, David B., Silet, Charles L.P. “Changing Perceptions, Not Just Channels, in the Heartland: Teaching Television’s Teaching.” The Radical Teacher 50 (1997) pp. 7-11.

In the introduction of this article, Owen and Silet set up the context of the creation of their course and a rationale for their pedagogical choices. The course they created, a course in critically analyzing televisual media, was developed as part of a program designed to prepare students for the teaching profession. Somewhat problematically, the authors paint their students with a rather broad stroke. They suggest that their students have little experience outside of their own experiences and accept their teaching preparation largely as “vocational” but not reflective (7). They also suggest that although their students are well prepared for the academic challenges of college, they are generally not reflective of culture in general and have difficulty thinking outside of their heartland “conservative” upbringings (7). This article is also somewhat dated as critical media study is far more acceptable today. However, despite these issues, the rationale the authors present in arguing the value of their course and the pedagogical choices that they made in constructing the course itself are very useful models for instructors hoping to construct similar courses.

The authors argue that because their students are largely set in their ways in regards to how they consider culture, they must learn to critically analyze television in particular because their students will be very affected by television. They believe that these future teachers must be able to do this type of analysis in order to be able to teach their own students to be critical consumers of culture.

The authors work with several types of media in order to get their students more accustomed to doing this type of critical analysis. First they work with print ads; then they work with fictional drama and news media; next, with “entertainment” , such as situation comedy; and finally, with children’s television. They assert that working with a print ad first is helpful because it allows the students to break into analysis with a static form. They suggest also that working with dramatic fiction or the news is also a good step in the process because their students can imagine the situations presented as realistic as this type of media deals with important social issues. The authors also assert that their students have the most difficulty engaging with what they perceive to be entertainment television because they have been socialized to believe that this type of television is meant to be consumed without much thought or criticism. Unfortunately, they do not discuss many strategies for altering this perception. Finally, they suggest that their students are able to analyze children’s television more fully and recognize the issues in what children are consuming.

 The authors were also very invested in shifting the paradigm of power in the classroom by allowing the students to bring in different examples on video tape and to lead discussions in the classroom. Rather than lecturing or allowing the students to take their place as lecturers, the instructors focused on using student centered and student created instruction.

Beckelhimer, Lisa. “From Hitler to Hurricanes, Vietnam to Virginia Tech: Using Historical Nonfiction To     Teach Rhetorical Context.” English Journal  99.4 (2010): 55-60

Lisa Beckelhimer’s article describes her experience in using historical nonfiction to teach rhetoric in her English course. Originally published in NCTE, this article is heavily focused on both practice and rationale for her approach.

Beckelhimer first has her students define rhetoric. This allows her to contextualize her students’ prior knowledge and allows her to work through their own definitions as well as more established definitions to fill in gaps in their understanding. These multiple definitions are not only helpful for establishing student ethos and agency, but also allow the students to see how broadly the term “rhetoric” can be applied. Through a thorough introduction to rhetoric as it applies to historical non-fiction, Becklehimer is able to construct her instruction around artifacts that are accessible and familiar to students. These artifacts include both traditional sources as well as new media sources.
After introducing her students to the concepts of rhetoric and how they apply to different elements of historical non-fiction, Beckelhimer is able to construct rhetorical analysis assignments in specific contexts.  She asserts that using historical non-fiction as a basis for this type of analysis allows students to use the contexts from which these texts emerge as an important part of their rhetorical construction and deconstruction.  Beckelhimer suggests that students should either choose their own topics to work with or choose between texts suggested by the instructor. By allowing her students to work with cultural artifacts on topics of their own choosing, she clearly demonstrates how students engage with their texts.
Beckelhimer also uses these types of texts as the basis for a research assignment. She believes that although a rhetorical/research paper may seem daunting or difficult in some situations, her students are prepared for this assignment because of their previous assignments. She suggests that constructing the assignment in this way allows her students to develop a more grounded focus on the content of their research texts. They are able to engage with the rhetorical contexts of their research materials and apply this information in assessing the validity of their research as well.
Finally, Beckelhimer asserts that this type of instruction is easier due to the increased use of technology in teaching. She also suggests that the use of “authentic texts” (59) allow students to become more culturally literate. It also allows her students to engage with texts that mean something to them as they have an investment in historical and current events. She also believes that students better learn to analyze ideas and texts between genres.  
I would recommend this article to anyone that is hoping to apply a similar strategy in teaching rhetoric. Beckelhimer gives excellent examples of how her framework can be applied, and also provides a clear rationale. She is also convincing in her argument for this type of instruction through specific examples of her students work, and she clearly ties it to standards of learning and other pedagogical goals.

Kostelnick: “Melting-Pot Ideology, Modernist Aesthetics, and the Emergence of Graphical Conventions”

Kostelnick’s argument, that the statistical atlases of the late 19th and early 20th century “created visual arguments about the progress of the nation” (217) is founded upon his assertion that “visual language develops within discourse communities that enculturate its members” with codes and visual discourse and use this “to achieve certain ends” (216). Because of this, Kostelnick argues that visual language can provide arguments through cultural values quite easily. Specifically, the data sets Kostelnick speaks of were constructed from the censuses of those years and were a part of a movement of similar visual atlas displays created in Europe that helped to encourage feelings of nationalism and identity (216).

Development of this type of data, he argues, was accessible to wide audiences as well as new and exciting. They led to an increased literacy in visual literacy and also allowed for audiences to learn about current trends in ways they had not before. He argues that a rich visual culture, while new at the time, became standard. Also, the representations of data in these new ways shifted the focus of what was traditionally associated with “states” and rather became a representation of population and people (218). He argues that because this type of visual rhetoric was continually adapting and still emerging, variations on the theme presented an opportunity for the growth of “a variety of genres” which contributed to “building reader expectations” (218).

Kostelnick also argues that, “these atlases demonstrate a key principle of visual rhetoric—that information design is socialized by discourse communities that construct, adapt, and refine conventional practices and that encapsulate users in those practices,” (225). This argument demonstrates clearly the fundamental aspects of visual rhetoric that can be uncovered through study of these documents and reinforces their value in terms of developing visual literacy through cultural means.

Interestingly, Kostelnick goes on to discuss the implications of these maps and the arguments they made to their audiences. For example, he demonstrates how certain maps worked to both assuage and increase the visibility of foreigners and immigrants in the United States at different points in cultural history.  In other displays, assimilation is highlighted through the rhetorical construction of these visuals. Because these displays were widely disseminated, they had the potential to work for or against certain social concerns, but also serve to demonstrate potential biases within the frameworks of the creators of these maps and visuals. Kostelnick refers here to Ben Barton and Marthalee Barton and their “rules of inclusion” and “rules of exclusion” from their article “Ideology and The Map” (232). Both of these ideas involve the rhetorical choices that those in control of data make. How data is included or excluded it will be is an argument in and of itself as these decision makers are constructing arguments simply by making choices of what will be left in and kept out of the demonstration.

The Barton’s paper can be found at http://www.mendeley.com/research/ideology-and-the-map-toward-a-postmodern-visual-design-practice/. Additionally, several related papers are linked from this site.

Below are some examples of maps, charts, and graphs that are rhetorically constructed. The Library of Congress has several of the types of maps that Kostelnick discusses, while the maps of the British Empire are clearly demonstrative of the type of tradition that Kostelnick points out as the predecessor to these American data constructions. Dorks and Dweebs can consider the politics of inclusion and exclusion while examining a Venn Diagram discussing Geeks and Nerds, while deep sea mythical gods can consider their exclusion from a visual depicting the types of creatures hell-bent on annihilating the human race.

American Map Data

From the Library of Congress:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awgmd7/graphic.html

American Memory Map Collections:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gmdhome.html

The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire (Except That Time It Did.) :

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/pinkbits.htm

Just for Fun:

http://laughingsquid.com/xkcd-venn-diagram-on-geeks-nerds/

<br>http://laughingsquid.com/zombies-robots-and-aliens-venn-diagram/

Roth, Wolff-Michael and Yew-Jin Lee. “Vygotsky’s Neglected Legacy”: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory.” Review of Educational Research  77.2 (2007): 186-232

In this article, the authors describe cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) as, “an evolving theoretical framework,” (187) and stress its flexibility and practicality as a pedagogical tool. The authors assert that, “Basically, CHAT was conceived of as a concrete psychology immersed in everyday (work) praxis (Vygotsky, 1989),” (192).  They describe CHAT as a way to bridge pedagogical praxis with sociocultural expectations as well as a way through which teaching practitioners use activity theory, whether they know it or not, as a methodology to construct pedagogy when they themselves are less up to date with pedagogical theories yet all the while are bombarded with pressure to meet “standards”. This article also provides a bibliography and historical overview of the literature on this framework. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of reading more about this framework is the means through which it is enacted and reproduced. The article has its limitations, but they are very practical. Because of the variations of usage, many projects and works have been excluded from their study, including some that have “sympathy” with CHAT, but are less closely linked (191). Unfortunately, for some practitioners, these variations may be more closely linked to what they are able to accomplish in their own classrooms given other constraints.

One of the case studies looks at a middle school science project where the teacher allowed the students to work on a project of environmental concern within the community. The students were allowed to choose the object of their work, the means through which they would do their work, and the design of the activity. The students in this case study, the authors assert, are learning for a practical and social benefit and, “motivated by a collective, societal concern,” (195). They were involved from the start in developing the learning activity and motivated by the practical nature of the project as well as the societal importance of their work, thus the learning project is authentic and meaningful to the students. The “exchange”, “distribution”, and “consumption” of their work gives the students new “identity” though which they can view themselves as members of their community rather than just students learning science (196).  The instructor’s pedagogy then, emerged as a collective project that was informed by the activity of the students as well as the needs of the community.

I would recommend this article for anyone considering how to design a course that hopes to engage students, at any age, with a pedagogy that addresses social and societal concerns, or at the very least engages students as citizens of their communities. It is a helpful read to those that hope to develop a meaningful course with praxis that can be applied outside of the classroom. Additionally, there are practical resources mentioned in the historical explanation of this framework that can provide additional reading sources for students of pedagogy.

Parham, John. “Teaching Pleasure: Experiments in Cultural Studies and Pedagogy.” International Journal of Cultural Studies. 5.4 (2002) 461-478.

This article outlines a case study examined at the University of East London and the experiences had with teaching cultural studies and developing a module of media and cultural studies that would serve their increasingly diverse student population. The most interesting aspect of the author’s study is the argument that teaching cultural studies ought to be a site of tension by nature, and that striving to maintain a pedagogy that eliminates this tension goes against the principles of teaching cultural studies. The author also maintains that teaching cultural studies can be difficult when trying to use a “reflexive” approach, as students are sometimes reluctant to reflect on their own experiences. Cultural studies, he suggests, are a site where neither reflective work nor theoretical work can be the sole pedagogical core of studies. However, Parham suggests that certain students have difficulty engaging with a combined approach when asked to work with personal experience and critical approaches together.

Specifically, the author discusses the problem of cultural studies in identifying itself as a discipline, but he also discusses issues of students in identifying themselves. He suggests that students found the process of identifying themselves within a cultural context to be difficult because they had understood their own perspectives to be a part of their individual personalities. These issues of identity are particularly relevant in how researchers, teachers, and instructional designers construct pedagogical practices because identity plays such a central role in negotiating with students as well as negotiating with content and contextual practices.

This article was a very good read for me as I struggle to work out how to approach constructing an undergraduate course focused on cultural studies and rhetoric. Though the course he  discusses is not a rhetoric course specifically, I feel that the challenges faced in constructing this pedagogy are applicable to cultural studies courses in general. The author is also particular in admitting that his situation is unique and dependant on several variables.  He also maintains, while keeping these variables in consideration, the knowledge gained in this work can be applied in different situations if the conditions of teaching are considered against the variables of the readers own experiences.

Nelson Graff suggests that the assignment he discusses in “Teaching Rhetorical Analysis to Promote Transfer of Learning” was originally meant to demonstrate to future teachers in upper level courses how rhetorical skills can transfer across courses for students. However, Graff’s further research and reflection on his assignments leads him to conclude that rhetorical analysis is an important strategy to teach to students in order to help them to improve as writers– not just to improve their writing. While this paper demonstrates a “how-to” approach for the Graff’s particular project, Graff has included a theoretical background to situate his approach pedagogically. Also, the Graff’s reflections on the reflections and experiences of his students participating in the project has led to an interesting discussion on how variations of this project might be used at different levels as well as how this approach could inform more traditional basic writing approaches. As Graff states:

This strategy has the potential to help students develop the rhetorical awareness and meta knowledge about writing that can help them transfer their learning about writing to new contexts and tasks (376).

I would recommend this article for anyone that is interested in learning more about transferring learning skills or how teaching rhetorical strategies can benefit students both in traditional composition as well as more advanced writing. Additionally, his strategies are transferable to a wide range of learning and teaching situations and his rationale demonstrates clear benefits for working with similar projects. I would actually also recommend this article to anyone that is interested in seeing a good example of how to reflect upon their strategies through student response as well as through their own observations of the students’ work. Graff does a nice job at integrating students’ points of view regarding their writing in his course, which I think can be difficult instructors at the beginning stages of reflecting on pedagogical strategies. This work provides a good example of a pedagogical strategy as well a good example of a rhetorical and analytical strategy for this reflective process.

Graff, Nelson. “Teaching Rhetorical Analysis to Promote Transfer of         Learning.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 53.5 (2010): 376-385.

 January 22, 2011

 Readings:

Richard Buchanan. “Rhetoric, Humanism, and Design”.

W.J.T. Mitchell. “What is an Image?”

       Mitchell’s collection of thoughts about images and iconography was particularly helpful for a newcomer to this subject. I was really excited to read about the sociopolitical aspects of imagery that I hadn’t connected yet to the topic. He laid out these connections clearly and provided an excellent guide to the various ways in which our “theoretical understanding of imagery grounds itself in social and cultural practices, and in a history fundamental to our understanding not only of what images are but of what human nature is or might become” (9). While at first I found the sentiment of what human nature ‘might become’ as readable through our theories of understanding sign and symbol as somewhat hyperbolic, it did not take long for me to see that these possibilities easily exist within the frameworks of looking at how these theories are constructed. Mitchell’s critique within his discussion of the theories  provides the reader with the opportunity to glean a more full understanding of the concepts he covers.

In his “Family of Images”, Mitchell explains the family tree of imagery and various theories of how transmission works as well as how imagery various theoretical concepts (11). exist. Locating the Roger Bacon’s ideas of optical theory and imagery within Foucault’s “order of things” (11) is particularly helpful to the newcomer to visual rhetoric as it also locates visual rhetorical theory within the larger body of rhetorical theories and constructs. From this “order” Mitchell is able to suggest the construct of imagery and notions of the image as the subject and object of various “institutional discourses” (11). The sections of this chapter reflect the reiffication of various notions of hierarchies and theoretical understandings of imagery and incude: “Mental Images”, “Verbal Images”, “Image as Likeness”, “The Tyranny of the Picture”, “Picturing the Invisible”, and “Image and Word”.

Buchanan, on the other hand, gives an overview of theories on design as opposed to images and imagery. In his introduction, Buchanan explains that design is composed and read through a variety of ways in the modern era. Challenging the idea that design should be examined as a science rather than as invention, he simultaneously challenges the assumption that good design is “discovered” as opposed to “invented” (229) while also blurring the lines between the binary opposition of each. He suggests that modern design, though fragmented, can be seen through differing lenses as a part of differing historic traditions. His historical perspective is important as it allows for modern design to be seen as a part of a whole and part of a continuum rather than as a practice divorced from social, political, and historical perspectives. Buchanan also argues that the reasoning behind so many differing explanations and definitions for design is a natural part of the humanistic practice of design itself, that design is done by human beings (252) and is the result of a variety of rhetorical and “poetic” traditions. He explains that the “pluralism of pf design is intelligible because it rests on a pluralism of philosophic assumptions which are familiar” (252).

What interested me most about this article was the very clear connection that Buchanan makes with rhetoric and design. He clearly demonstrates that the foundations of rhetoric can be discussed as the foundations for the process of design. Also interesting is the connection he makes between Aristotle’s original proposal of the nature and use of rhetoric and argumentation and the progression of rhetorical principals as the foundation of literary expertise. Highlighting this shift is imperative to consider while moving on to how Buchanan discusses the shift of rhetoric to discussions of design.

Notable Figures: Aristotle, Hobbs, Hume, Locke, Bacon, Foucault, Kenner, Derrida, Wittgenstein, Gombrich, Freud.

Additional Links: 

Katherine Perdue’s discussion of Aristotle and Imagination @The University of Chicago: http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/imagination.htm

Richard Buchanan from Philosophy and Rhetoric: “Design and the New Rhetoric: Productive Arts in the Philosophy of Culture”: http://muse.jhu.edu/loginuri=/journals/philosophy_and_rhetoric/v034/34.3buchanan.html

A Discussion of Richard Buchanan’s Keynote @ Emergence 2007: http://designforservice.wordpress.com/buchanan_keynote/

W.T.J. Mitchell from New Literary History: “Wittgenstein’s Philosophy and What it Tells Us”:  http://www.jstor.org/pss/469342