The Link to my final paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zrnkvPqvvBruECKHRtdhmc0HROK_fng8oaPoytU7M7g/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLT3z8QB&pli=1#
For the final project I chose the bar on Sixth Street, Key Bar, where I work and analyzed the decor, set-up, and architecture of it. I also analyzed two different types of closing songs; each emitting a different type of emotion and outcome from our customers. I used Aristotle, Longaker, Walker, Edbauer, Brennan, and Hyde-Smith to help in my analyzation and explain why our customers stay longer and purchase more alcohol along with they they had certain emotions due to each closing song (Pantera compared to Journey). My claim is that the closing song combined with alcohol has a huge affect on the emotions emitted by the customers along with if they will leave happily or not. I also am claiming that the decor and set-up of our bar was chosen exclusively for reasons of bringing in more customers and getting them to feel comfortable and spend as much money as possible.
I came to the conclusion by explaining group mind, affect, interpretation, and behavior, cities as weather systems, and showing Aristotle's and Walkers connections of alcohol and angry music that Key Bar is set up in two perfect sections to attract a certain type of customer for each. This also helped explain why two very different types of music (Pantera and Journey) bring out anger and calmness in our customers while we our trying to get them out at closing.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Final project rough draft
Reed Daw
4/25/11
RHE330E
Davis
The Rhetoric of the Bar
Aristotle points out in Problems 30 that “persons sometimes take on melancholic moods when they drink large quantities of wine, or become merciful or savage or silent or affectionate, even to kiss on the mouth someone whom no one would ever kiss if he were sober; and people of naturally melancholic dispositions are especially prone to such mood swings because they have an excess of black bile (953-955a).” I work at a bar downtown on Sixth Street and have had the luck to be a bigger than average guy, which means I’m always posted up at the door. During my time spent working at several different bars I’ve seen a wide variety of people act differently toward every type of setting. I’m going to break down the bar I currently work at, Key Bar, and explain the rhetoric behind the décor, the setting, the furniture, and even the opening and closing choices of music. I’ll be using Longaker-Walker’s chapter on Affect, Walkers Pathos and Katharsis, Edbauer, Hyde-Smith, Aristotle, and Bitzer to explain why everything is set up so perfectly in this particular bar.
Rhetoric in movement is a big part of what goes on at the bar, especially when it comes to what music is being played. While each night closes and while we frantically shuffle everyone out the door, the manager on duty decides what song would be best to finish the night off with/kick everyone out with. On one particular night the manager chose a Pantera song. I think he chose this song thinking it would drastically switch the mood of the bar, from the normal techno to raging metal. My first thoughts were “what are the outcomes of normally hearing this song?” The answer came quick and clear, and I was spot on. The women all left with no fuss, clearly showing that they cannot move their body to this vicious song. The men on the other hand, well, the drunker men decided to do exactly what anyone at a Pantera concert does with loads of booze in them. Their blood started boiling, their heads started rocking back and forth, and I was stuck at the door trying to get these fiends out.
Aristotle argues that “a state of pathos consists simultaneously of its characteristic physical condition and the perceptions or cognitions that both motivate and define it (79).” The reason these men reacted accordingly to this song is because they felt the certain symptoms of anger piling on: “blood boiling around the heart without any accompanying perception of insult is not yet anger but only a diffuse state, a choleric temper, a readiness to be provoked to anger by the first plausible provocation that comes along (79).” Pantera, as we all know, is a pretty heavy band, so this choice of music has ignited those first thoughts that we connect with this genre of music: head-banging, moshing, and rowdy behavior. In Aristotle’s definition we can see that all these men needed were the flick of a switch, the music, and they are now in the “choleric, diffused state,” which means they only need a little push to achieve the desired complete emotion of anger.
On the other hand, we can easily calm down an entire crowd of people through the use of effective music. The night I will be analyzing was during South-By week. We had a DJ who played every night, and always ended out the night with Journey’s Don’t Stop Believing. The immediate come down from “bumping and grinding” to a relaxed calm state was very surprising and made me curious as to why the partygoers could immediately change their entire behavior with a simple song change.
I can assume that since Pantera is defined as angry music, then Journey has to be defined as calm music, as Aristotle says is the opposite emotion of anger. Aristotle says that “growing calm may be defined as a settling down or quieting of anger. In general, the things that make us calm may be inferred by seeing what the opposites are of those that make us angry (60).” If my assumptions are correct, and Journey is in fact the opposite emotional type of music from Pantera, then the reaction the customers had were correct.
The next topic of Key Bar that holds a lot of rhetorical qualities is the setting and the décor. These two qualities were planned and constructed according to a strict set of thoughts to get the customers to stay longer, spend more money, and drink more!
When you first enter Key Bar there are three different areas to choose from. First, we have the inside area, the most well lit part, which is mainly taken up by private parties. Second, we have the outside roofed over area, which is pretty dark and holds the most amount of people. Lastly, we have a no roofed over outside area with a fire pit in the middle. I am going to use Longaker-Walker, Aristotle, Hyde-Smith, and Edbauer to show how each of the different sections were put together for a very particular reason and for different types of customers.
As Edbauer says, “Amin and Thrift argue that cities are more about movements and processes than the elements that materially construct their borders (11).” The cities in this case being sections one, two, and three of the bar. According to Edbauer, each city, or section of the bar “is a container for the local elements within a given space (11),” just like any other bars on Sixth Street would be another different container. Edbauer then uses Thrift and Amin to show that “the city becomes a kind of weather system, a rapidly varying distribution of intensities. These sites (the sections of the bar), are sustained by the amalgam of processes, which can be described in ecological terms of varying intensities of encounters and interactions-much like a weather system (12).” Each different section of the bar can be called a different kind of city because each section has been made to support a different type of encounter and interaction as I will discuss next.
The first area, the inside area, is well lit compared to the rest of the bar and is used mainly for parties so you can see everyone and converse with the entire group. If you are attempting to pick up a woman, the inside area is not your friend. There is one huge main table that seats about 16 people, and this could be considered a city all in itself. The grouping of a mass of people is perfect for this area. The lighting is brighter because you want to be able to recognize everyone you already know, and the grouping environment is used to create emotions of happiness, excitement, and energy throughout this section.
To quote Smith-Hyde, “Spoken to now in the name of the public, people are led to believe that they possess the requisite knowledge for making competent decisions. Is this to say the people are the greatest of Sophists (447)?” In this case, yes, the customers (people) are the greatest sophists, because as Smith-Hyde says, “the public should be understood as individuals whose personal motivations for power necessitate a rhetoric which can persuade people that they are the very seat of sovereignty (446).” We (the bar) are the rhetoricians in this case, and we have persuaded the customers in a group that they are in the best place, which convinces them to feel and emit good emotions. So, according to Aristotle, the bar is “putting the hearers into their right frame of mind (450).” Aristotle claims that “the orator’s goal is to bring listeners into conformance by moving them into the same state of mind (452),” which is done by using the large table and the lighting to make sure everyone stays in close proximity, which will make them stay happy.
The roofed over outside area has two different sections. There is a bar sitting area, where you can easily talk to whomever you please. It was built so that everyone has to be mashed up together yelling drink orders over other people’s heads. The second part is away from the bar and has tables designated for groups and tables designated for couples only. The lighting in this area is very dim and the music is turned up much higher than the rest of the bar.
I’m going to use Longaker-Walker’s description of affect, behavior, and interpretation to analyze this area of the bar. Although Longaker-Walker says we’re “supposed to think-not feel-before we act, (208)” this area/city does exactly the opposite. Longaker-Walker analyze affect, interpretation, and behavior through a Horror Movie and with the Fear of Looming Predators. The moment you walk into Key Bar you are forced into this area of the bar and your affect, your “bodily disposition,” is a feeling of coolness, of calmness, and of an intensifying excitement. Longaker-Walker says that “the looming phenomenon (or in this case being surrounded by tons of new people) triggers a common affect (excitement). Even if we perceive nothing more than a dramatic change in light we will feel and do these things (210).” We are affected from entering an entirely different mood and setting, our bodies are changing and we are now interpreting the environment. As Longaker-Walker says, “it is difficult to say while feeling excitement and consciously fleeing the scene (or being bombarded with loads of partiers), we consciously interpret the situation. Our behavior is too quick to allow such a conscious appraisal (210).” This is exactly the reaction the bar wants in this area. You have no time to think about what’s going on except that this is an extremely exciting scene. Your body can go through the affect, but it cannot interpret it because “our visual registration (of the scene) may bypass the brain systems where conscious deliberation appears to happen (210).” In my opinion, this strategy offers new customers only one solution, and that is to follow whatever the crowd is doing, which the best possible choice is considering everyone else looks like they are having a great time. So what ends up happening to interpretation?
Longaker-Walker says that “this does not mean interpretation doesn’t occur. It just means we can’t restrict our definition of interpretation to consciously experienced, higher-order cognition (210).” Instead we submit and conform to one unit, or one city, and follow the group’s emotions.
The last part is the outside area with no roof. This section has been dubbed as the area to pick up people of the opposite sex. The fire pit in the middle pushes everyone together in a romantic, candle-lit setting, while the seats are all one continuous bench, forcing you to sit close to the person nearest you, whether you like it or not. The music is higher than the first area, but lower than the second, giving you enough space to think, while still letting the music take over.
4/25/11
RHE330E
Davis
The Rhetoric of the Bar
Aristotle points out in Problems 30 that “persons sometimes take on melancholic moods when they drink large quantities of wine, or become merciful or savage or silent or affectionate, even to kiss on the mouth someone whom no one would ever kiss if he were sober; and people of naturally melancholic dispositions are especially prone to such mood swings because they have an excess of black bile (953-955a).” I work at a bar downtown on Sixth Street and have had the luck to be a bigger than average guy, which means I’m always posted up at the door. During my time spent working at several different bars I’ve seen a wide variety of people act differently toward every type of setting. I’m going to break down the bar I currently work at, Key Bar, and explain the rhetoric behind the décor, the setting, the furniture, and even the opening and closing choices of music. I’ll be using Longaker-Walker’s chapter on Affect, Walkers Pathos and Katharsis, Edbauer, Hyde-Smith, Aristotle, and Bitzer to explain why everything is set up so perfectly in this particular bar.
Rhetoric in movement is a big part of what goes on at the bar, especially when it comes to what music is being played. While each night closes and while we frantically shuffle everyone out the door, the manager on duty decides what song would be best to finish the night off with/kick everyone out with. On one particular night the manager chose a Pantera song. I think he chose this song thinking it would drastically switch the mood of the bar, from the normal techno to raging metal. My first thoughts were “what are the outcomes of normally hearing this song?” The answer came quick and clear, and I was spot on. The women all left with no fuss, clearly showing that they cannot move their body to this vicious song. The men on the other hand, well, the drunker men decided to do exactly what anyone at a Pantera concert does with loads of booze in them. Their blood started boiling, their heads started rocking back and forth, and I was stuck at the door trying to get these fiends out.
Aristotle argues that “a state of pathos consists simultaneously of its characteristic physical condition and the perceptions or cognitions that both motivate and define it (79).” The reason these men reacted accordingly to this song is because they felt the certain symptoms of anger piling on: “blood boiling around the heart without any accompanying perception of insult is not yet anger but only a diffuse state, a choleric temper, a readiness to be provoked to anger by the first plausible provocation that comes along (79).” Pantera, as we all know, is a pretty heavy band, so this choice of music has ignited those first thoughts that we connect with this genre of music: head-banging, moshing, and rowdy behavior. In Aristotle’s definition we can see that all these men needed were the flick of a switch, the music, and they are now in the “choleric, diffused state,” which means they only need a little push to achieve the desired complete emotion of anger.
On the other hand, we can easily calm down an entire crowd of people through the use of effective music. The night I will be analyzing was during South-By week. We had a DJ who played every night, and always ended out the night with Journey’s Don’t Stop Believing. The immediate come down from “bumping and grinding” to a relaxed calm state was very surprising and made me curious as to why the partygoers could immediately change their entire behavior with a simple song change.
I can assume that since Pantera is defined as angry music, then Journey has to be defined as calm music, as Aristotle says is the opposite emotion of anger. Aristotle says that “growing calm may be defined as a settling down or quieting of anger. In general, the things that make us calm may be inferred by seeing what the opposites are of those that make us angry (60).” If my assumptions are correct, and Journey is in fact the opposite emotional type of music from Pantera, then the reaction the customers had were correct.
The next topic of Key Bar that holds a lot of rhetorical qualities is the setting and the décor. These two qualities were planned and constructed according to a strict set of thoughts to get the customers to stay longer, spend more money, and drink more!
When you first enter Key Bar there are three different areas to choose from. First, we have the inside area, the most well lit part, which is mainly taken up by private parties. Second, we have the outside roofed over area, which is pretty dark and holds the most amount of people. Lastly, we have a no roofed over outside area with a fire pit in the middle. I am going to use Longaker-Walker, Aristotle, Hyde-Smith, and Edbauer to show how each of the different sections were put together for a very particular reason and for different types of customers.
As Edbauer says, “Amin and Thrift argue that cities are more about movements and processes than the elements that materially construct their borders (11).” The cities in this case being sections one, two, and three of the bar. According to Edbauer, each city, or section of the bar “is a container for the local elements within a given space (11),” just like any other bars on Sixth Street would be another different container. Edbauer then uses Thrift and Amin to show that “the city becomes a kind of weather system, a rapidly varying distribution of intensities. These sites (the sections of the bar), are sustained by the amalgam of processes, which can be described in ecological terms of varying intensities of encounters and interactions-much like a weather system (12).” Each different section of the bar can be called a different kind of city because each section has been made to support a different type of encounter and interaction as I will discuss next.
The first area, the inside area, is well lit compared to the rest of the bar and is used mainly for parties so you can see everyone and converse with the entire group. If you are attempting to pick up a woman, the inside area is not your friend. There is one huge main table that seats about 16 people, and this could be considered a city all in itself. The grouping of a mass of people is perfect for this area. The lighting is brighter because you want to be able to recognize everyone you already know, and the grouping environment is used to create emotions of happiness, excitement, and energy throughout this section.
To quote Smith-Hyde, “Spoken to now in the name of the public, people are led to believe that they possess the requisite knowledge for making competent decisions. Is this to say the people are the greatest of Sophists (447)?” In this case, yes, the customers (people) are the greatest sophists, because as Smith-Hyde says, “the public should be understood as individuals whose personal motivations for power necessitate a rhetoric which can persuade people that they are the very seat of sovereignty (446).” We (the bar) are the rhetoricians in this case, and we have persuaded the customers in a group that they are in the best place, which convinces them to feel and emit good emotions. So, according to Aristotle, the bar is “putting the hearers into their right frame of mind (450).” Aristotle claims that “the orator’s goal is to bring listeners into conformance by moving them into the same state of mind (452),” which is done by using the large table and the lighting to make sure everyone stays in close proximity, which will make them stay happy.
The roofed over outside area has two different sections. There is a bar sitting area, where you can easily talk to whomever you please. It was built so that everyone has to be mashed up together yelling drink orders over other people’s heads. The second part is away from the bar and has tables designated for groups and tables designated for couples only. The lighting in this area is very dim and the music is turned up much higher than the rest of the bar.
I’m going to use Longaker-Walker’s description of affect, behavior, and interpretation to analyze this area of the bar. Although Longaker-Walker says we’re “supposed to think-not feel-before we act, (208)” this area/city does exactly the opposite. Longaker-Walker analyze affect, interpretation, and behavior through a Horror Movie and with the Fear of Looming Predators. The moment you walk into Key Bar you are forced into this area of the bar and your affect, your “bodily disposition,” is a feeling of coolness, of calmness, and of an intensifying excitement. Longaker-Walker says that “the looming phenomenon (or in this case being surrounded by tons of new people) triggers a common affect (excitement). Even if we perceive nothing more than a dramatic change in light we will feel and do these things (210).” We are affected from entering an entirely different mood and setting, our bodies are changing and we are now interpreting the environment. As Longaker-Walker says, “it is difficult to say while feeling excitement and consciously fleeing the scene (or being bombarded with loads of partiers), we consciously interpret the situation. Our behavior is too quick to allow such a conscious appraisal (210).” This is exactly the reaction the bar wants in this area. You have no time to think about what’s going on except that this is an extremely exciting scene. Your body can go through the affect, but it cannot interpret it because “our visual registration (of the scene) may bypass the brain systems where conscious deliberation appears to happen (210).” In my opinion, this strategy offers new customers only one solution, and that is to follow whatever the crowd is doing, which the best possible choice is considering everyone else looks like they are having a great time. So what ends up happening to interpretation?
Longaker-Walker says that “this does not mean interpretation doesn’t occur. It just means we can’t restrict our definition of interpretation to consciously experienced, higher-order cognition (210).” Instead we submit and conform to one unit, or one city, and follow the group’s emotions.
The last part is the outside area with no roof. This section has been dubbed as the area to pick up people of the opposite sex. The fire pit in the middle pushes everyone together in a romantic, candle-lit setting, while the seats are all one continuous bench, forcing you to sit close to the person nearest you, whether you like it or not. The music is higher than the first area, but lower than the second, giving you enough space to think, while still letting the music take over.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Twice the Edbauer
I just realized that I read, and blog posted about this Edbauer piece rather than the executive one last time. That explains some of the confusion.
Also, I realized I talk on nostalgia a lot. I got confused and used the wrong word for the Keep Austin Weird logo. In class right now we talked about it being more of social class or a social setting. So maybe replace that with nostalgia considering nostalgia is something that brings us back to a childhood memory or anything of the past.
Anyways, for this same Edbauer blog post I will talk about the "Situations Unbound: City Problems" section. Edbauer gives the example of local Austin businesses having to close down and move out due to high property and tax costs. The main focus of the section is the rhetoric of nostalgia towards the Keep Austin Weird logo.
The feeling of nostalgia is a very persuasive rhetorical device because of its effects on consumers or an audience. Nostalgia gives us a special connection to an object or place that gives it the feeling of being our own. It also plays a huge role in the advertisement world, and is the connection that every ad agency looks to evoke when they are trying to sell a product.
The interesting thing about the Keep Austin Weird logo is that while searching for a unique and nostalgic logo for Austonian's to have, they also got something else, a protective aura for local businesses all across Austin.
"The phrase, Keep Austin Weird quickly passed into the cities cultural circulation, taking on the importance of a quasi-civic duty. One pledge pitch from a local radio station told listeners, "you too can work towards Keeping Austin Weird by pledging to keep KOOP Radio on the air." The word PLEDGE is what describes my feelings of the logo best. When you pledge to the Keep Austin Weird logo, you are also pledging to hold your Austin roots together and only invest in the right businesses. Waterloo Records and the Bookstore that created the logo have legitimately created a symbol that screams out HIPNESS.
What better way to reach out to the citizens of Austin then to make them feel like they are being extra hip! Edbauer analyzes the rhetoric of the Keep Austin Weird logo in the following pages, but I thought I'd give my take on it. Let me know what you all think of nostalgia and/or the Keep Austin Weird logo and the rhetoric behind it.
Or...just share a random idea.
Also, I realized I talk on nostalgia a lot. I got confused and used the wrong word for the Keep Austin Weird logo. In class right now we talked about it being more of social class or a social setting. So maybe replace that with nostalgia considering nostalgia is something that brings us back to a childhood memory or anything of the past.
Anyways, for this same Edbauer blog post I will talk about the "Situations Unbound: City Problems" section. Edbauer gives the example of local Austin businesses having to close down and move out due to high property and tax costs. The main focus of the section is the rhetoric of nostalgia towards the Keep Austin Weird logo.
The feeling of nostalgia is a very persuasive rhetorical device because of its effects on consumers or an audience. Nostalgia gives us a special connection to an object or place that gives it the feeling of being our own. It also plays a huge role in the advertisement world, and is the connection that every ad agency looks to evoke when they are trying to sell a product.
The interesting thing about the Keep Austin Weird logo is that while searching for a unique and nostalgic logo for Austonian's to have, they also got something else, a protective aura for local businesses all across Austin.
"The phrase, Keep Austin Weird quickly passed into the cities cultural circulation, taking on the importance of a quasi-civic duty. One pledge pitch from a local radio station told listeners, "you too can work towards Keeping Austin Weird by pledging to keep KOOP Radio on the air." The word PLEDGE is what describes my feelings of the logo best. When you pledge to the Keep Austin Weird logo, you are also pledging to hold your Austin roots together and only invest in the right businesses. Waterloo Records and the Bookstore that created the logo have legitimately created a symbol that screams out HIPNESS.
What better way to reach out to the citizens of Austin then to make them feel like they are being extra hip! Edbauer analyzes the rhetoric of the Keep Austin Weird logo in the following pages, but I thought I'd give my take on it. Let me know what you all think of nostalgia and/or the Keep Austin Weird logo and the rhetoric behind it.
Or...just share a random idea.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Final Project Proposal
The Link to my final paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zrnkvPqvvBruECKHRtdhmc0HROK_fng8oaPoytU7M7g/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLT3z8QB&pli=1#
For the final project I chose the bar on Sixth Street, Key Bar, where I work and analyzed the decor, set-up, and architecture of it. I also analyzed two different types of closing songs; each emitting a different type of emotion and outcome from our customers. I used Aristotle, Longaker, Walker, Edbauer, Brennan, and Hyde-Smith to help in my analyzation and explain why our customers stay longer and purchase more alcohol along with they they had certain emotions due to each closing song (Pantera compared to Journey). My claim is that the closing song combined with alcohol has a huge affect on the emotions emitted by the customers along with if they will leave happily or not. I also am claiming that the decor and set-up of our bar was chosen exclusively for reasons of bringing in more customers and getting them to feel comfortable and spend as much money as possible.
I came to the conclusion by explaining group mind, affect, interpretation, and behavior, cities as weather systems, and showing Aristotle's and Walkers connections of alcohol and angry music that Key Bar is set up in two perfect sections to attract a certain type of customer for each. This also helped explain why two very different types of music (Pantera and Journey) bring out anger and calmness in our customers while we our trying to get them out at closing.
For the final project I chose the bar on Sixth Street, Key Bar, where I work and analyzed the decor, set-up, and architecture of it. I also analyzed two different types of closing songs; each emitting a different type of emotion and outcome from our customers. I used Aristotle, Longaker, Walker, Edbauer, Brennan, and Hyde-Smith to help in my analyzation and explain why our customers stay longer and purchase more alcohol along with they they had certain emotions due to each closing song (Pantera compared to Journey). My claim is that the closing song combined with alcohol has a huge affect on the emotions emitted by the customers along with if they will leave happily or not. I also am claiming that the decor and set-up of our bar was chosen exclusively for reasons of bringing in more customers and getting them to feel comfortable and spend as much money as possible.
I came to the conclusion by explaining group mind, affect, interpretation, and behavior, cities as weather systems, and showing Aristotle's and Walkers connections of alcohol and angry music that Key Bar is set up in two perfect sections to attract a certain type of customer for each. This also helped explain why two very different types of music (Pantera and Journey) bring out anger and calmness in our customers while we our trying to get them out at closing.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Oh My Ahmed
"Hate is economic." Is it economic? According to Ahmed the answer is yes and for good reason. Ahmed does a great job of breaking down the emotions of fear and hate, two of the most powerful negative emotions. Ahmed says on page 3, "together we hate, and this hate is what makes us together." Although Ahmed is talking about the Aryan nation and their hate for basically every other race, I think this can apply to mostly any group that is directed toward hating another. I think we can say the exact same for fear, together we fear (and/or hate), and this fear is what makes us together.
Ahmed could have used this line for her part on terrorism as well. The ones fearing in this case being the American population. It also dawned on me that by fearing someone you would be more inclined to hate them as well. Ahmed shows the great struggle of Arab, South Asian, and Muslim men through many stereotypes of being terrorists. So, being educated to be afraid of these races has also made a good number of people hate them too.
Another great line, "What is detrimental as coming-close carries with it the possibility that it may stay away and pass us by; but it actually enhances fear" (pages 9-10). She talks a little about horror movies and the same effect they have on us like this line says. Fear is what we are waiting for, "to that which is approaching rather than already here." 9/11 made us fear future terrorist attacks like the one on that horrible day and also made us fear the certain races we were informed to fear.
The rambling is over, one question for you is what do you think would be a good way to stop this fear? You could also think how to stop fear while at the same time not creating hate either. Or just let me hear anything you think about these emotions and their affects on us all.
Ahmed could have used this line for her part on terrorism as well. The ones fearing in this case being the American population. It also dawned on me that by fearing someone you would be more inclined to hate them as well. Ahmed shows the great struggle of Arab, South Asian, and Muslim men through many stereotypes of being terrorists. So, being educated to be afraid of these races has also made a good number of people hate them too.
Another great line, "What is detrimental as coming-close carries with it the possibility that it may stay away and pass us by; but it actually enhances fear" (pages 9-10). She talks a little about horror movies and the same effect they have on us like this line says. Fear is what we are waiting for, "to that which is approaching rather than already here." 9/11 made us fear future terrorist attacks like the one on that horrible day and also made us fear the certain races we were informed to fear.
The rambling is over, one question for you is what do you think would be a good way to stop this fear? You could also think how to stop fear while at the same time not creating hate either. Or just let me hear anything you think about these emotions and their affects on us all.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Edbauer blog!
So, after some confusing texts, I think Edbauer has definitely been much easier to understand. Through her first several pages she starts talking about rhetoric and the motion of rhetoric. She says that "rhetoric is always in a state of flux," which basically means that it's always moving and that the emotions it has can be and are different at all times. This connects with what she says in the next page, "rhetorical situation is part of an ongoing social flux." It's like I said in the last comment: rhetoric is always in motion and is constantly changing due to the rhetorical situation.
So this was more of an elementary connection, but I think it helps with what Edbauer says next...
She then quotes Remy Chauvin who talks about "an apparel evolution of two beings that have absolutely nothing to do with each other." Remy did the study about a cat and a baboon who have nothing in common with each other, but who have "transversal communication with each other through the genealogical tree." I think this is a good study/main point because it shows that by being around each other, i.e. an audience, you can spread emotions and when you push it even further you can even spread a virus type.
The last quote I liked and can ask a question with follows with baboon/cat study: "what is shared (between the cat and baboon) are certain emotions and contagions." So can emotions be shared and felt by being around someone or something for long enough? What do you all think?
So this was more of an elementary connection, but I think it helps with what Edbauer says next...
She then quotes Remy Chauvin who talks about "an apparel evolution of two beings that have absolutely nothing to do with each other." Remy did the study about a cat and a baboon who have nothing in common with each other, but who have "transversal communication with each other through the genealogical tree." I think this is a good study/main point because it shows that by being around each other, i.e. an audience, you can spread emotions and when you push it even further you can even spread a virus type.
The last quote I liked and can ask a question with follows with baboon/cat study: "what is shared (between the cat and baboon) are certain emotions and contagions." So can emotions be shared and felt by being around someone or something for long enough? What do you all think?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Visual Appeal, Rough Draft.
http://prezi.com/uqzvhvi98pim/rhe-330e/ (link to Prezi)
The College Labyrinth
In my visual argument I claim that living the college life gives us all a guideline for becoming adults, but the path to victory is double-sided. For every happy memory, there is a sad one to follow suit, but once we get to the end, we are relieved for having made it to the finish line. I confirm this argument by showing the happy side of college life, the side that we all, or most, look forward to, and compare it with the strenuous fight it takes to relieve lots of stress and earn our degree along the way.
The first image in my Prezi is the UT tower at night lit up blazing with orange, bearing the number one to show our great victory. The UT tower is the first or one of the first things every student and prospective student sees at UT. It marks the start of a great year and makes us all feel happy to have pride in our school. The second image displays what we get to do in our free time. Not everyone attends the football games, but the great majority of us has attended at least one game and knows the feeling of pride and joy as the cannon sounds or of the booming roar of the crowd. UT football unites us all as one big mass and shows the pride and joy of thousands of colleges students brought together.
The third and fourth images show the opposite sides of how campus and our minds look when we are under a lot of pressure. The Twilight Zone-resembling tower creates feelings of stress and pulls us into a world we cannot escape, which could be finals, mid-terms, roommate problems, or any of the endless lists of college anxieties. The image of cram studying is one we are all familiar with. It creates stress and anxiety because cram studying feels exactly like what the picture displays, having our heads crushed by knowledge.
The fifth, sixth, and seventh images represent our friends, loved-ones and our enemies. Having a girlfriend or boyfriend evokes a lot of happiness and is a great anxiety-free tool. They can be our best friends and each of us that has one know we go to them to seek comfort in our stressful times. The sixth picture is of the familiar Delta Tau Chi boys of Animal House. They are a brotherhood of friends who will take care of each other through thick and thin. They represent the best friends you’ve made along the way who make you feel happy and safe when you need someone to talk to or lean on; but with each friend you make you have someone who is out there to haze you, to hurt you, to make you feel wanted and then thrown out. The sixth picture, although humorous, shows us that we will be tested by fake friends along the way.
The last two images can basically be formed into one. Feelings of happiness arise knowing we have made it through some of our toughest years. We have a foundation laid out for us and feel accomplished through each painstaking step we’ve taken. The final image is not only a picture, but a symbol that represents who we are and where we’re from. UT’s hook-em sign symbolizes pride in our school, our state, and ourselves and makes us all feel extremely happy knowing that we go to UT. Whether we’ve sported it in a Facebook picture, at a football game, or to acknowledge a friend, the hook-em sign brings us all together as the UT family and shows that each picture was a step forward in our path to making it through college.
Photos
1. Private Collection
5. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nationallampoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07 3/30/11
9. Private Collection.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Massumi Blog Number 2
In chapter 1 Massumi talks a lot about levels of intensity of emotions by showing the example of the students analyzing the German film. He notices, oddly, that the students seem to connect the sadder images as being more emotionally pleasant. I was having a pretty hard time understanding why this happened so let me know what you all think or if it's even important at all.
Another part I found interesting was at the end of chapter one when Massumi connects affect to emotion. He says that although they are used as a synonym for each other "they follow different logics and pertain to different orders."
An emotion, Massumi says, "is a subjective content, the sociolinguistic fixing of the quality of an experience which is from that point onward defined as personal. Emotion is qualified intensity, the conventional, consensual point of insertion of intensity into semantically and semiotically formed progressions, into narratavizable action-reaction circuits, into function and meaning." Confusing definition, but I think it's saying that emotion is what defines our reaction to certain thing and what shows how we perceive the meaning of situations into some form of "action and reaction."
The difference between emotion and affect is that "affect is unqualified. It is not ownable or recognizable, it is thus resistant to critique." Help me out on this one guys, I'm not sure how it can be unrecognizable when your bodily actions show your affect to an emotion, Maybe I'm not looking at it right or not translating right, but let me know what you think.
Another part I found interesting was at the end of chapter one when Massumi connects affect to emotion. He says that although they are used as a synonym for each other "they follow different logics and pertain to different orders."
An emotion, Massumi says, "is a subjective content, the sociolinguistic fixing of the quality of an experience which is from that point onward defined as personal. Emotion is qualified intensity, the conventional, consensual point of insertion of intensity into semantically and semiotically formed progressions, into narratavizable action-reaction circuits, into function and meaning." Confusing definition, but I think it's saying that emotion is what defines our reaction to certain thing and what shows how we perceive the meaning of situations into some form of "action and reaction."
The difference between emotion and affect is that "affect is unqualified. It is not ownable or recognizable, it is thus resistant to critique." Help me out on this one guys, I'm not sure how it can be unrecognizable when your bodily actions show your affect to an emotion, Maybe I'm not looking at it right or not translating right, but let me know what you think.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Transmission of Affect Chapters 3-5 (Mainly Chapter 3)
Brennan first says that the transmission of affect is a theory of the group. "It is also a theory of the group based on what is produced by the group" (Brennan 51). Aristotle said that emotions can often flow much greater when used to appeal to a group, which is what I think Brennan is saying. She makes a more interesting point though when she writes "the emotions of two are not the same as the emotions of one plus one" (Brennan 51). Brennan is saying that with a group, emotions will be different when one person is appealing to two or more people rather then two groups coming to each other with different emotions.
The thing that I thought was weird was how she says "each of us will take onboard the effects of this new composite" (Brennan 51). So if my group is angry, and the opposing group is happy, the clash of the two groups will create some emotion in the middle?
Moving on to the next interesting point on pages 59-60. Brennan compares to Aristotle's views on group emotion yet again by saying "Critically, the crowd adds nothing new to what the individual would do if he were by himself. The individual behaves just as he would behave alone, only more so. He behaves more so because the sights and sounds facilitate an increased fervor int he responses of each" (Brennan 60). To me, this is defining peer pressure. We all have to feel some emotion on a certain level of intensity, but with a group feeling the same emotion, its level of intensity rises up. It seems like it can be compared to rumors going through the grapevine. The more people hear about it, the more real it becomes.
The thing that I thought was weird was how she says "each of us will take onboard the effects of this new composite" (Brennan 51). So if my group is angry, and the opposing group is happy, the clash of the two groups will create some emotion in the middle?
Moving on to the next interesting point on pages 59-60. Brennan compares to Aristotle's views on group emotion yet again by saying "Critically, the crowd adds nothing new to what the individual would do if he were by himself. The individual behaves just as he would behave alone, only more so. He behaves more so because the sights and sounds facilitate an increased fervor int he responses of each" (Brennan 60). To me, this is defining peer pressure. We all have to feel some emotion on a certain level of intensity, but with a group feeling the same emotion, its level of intensity rises up. It seems like it can be compared to rumors going through the grapevine. The more people hear about it, the more real it becomes.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Revision: DeBeers Diamond Ad Visual Analysis
Note: for this revision I have made my paragraphs easier to read and have made the sentences flow better. I took out one connection of Aristotle that did not fit (confidence and kindness). I also changed the focus of the main pathetic appeal, which I first had as humor to a sense of sexiness and reigniting a boring marriage. Lastly, I didn't narrate so much so the analysis sounds more like analysis.
Reed Daw
The image I have chosen comes from a DeBeers diamond ad. 
Although at first I thought this ad would be directed strictly for women, it is for men as well who want to reignite their first-date sparks. I assume they are hammering out as many of these ads as possible for the upcoming Valentine’s holiday, which is why it is directed toward men. All men want for Valentine’s Day is a simple gift, while finding the right present for your wife is a much more strenuous process. I think the audience is married, upper-middle class couples who have solid foundations and jobs. The families have above average status; they drive a nice car, live in a two-story house, and live a very comfortable life. The affected audience isn’t overly rich because although they have everything they need, a diamond is only given as a gift for special occasions. Even though this ad is for men I found it advertised in adult women’s and men’s magazines such as Vogue, Ms. Magazine, O, GQ, Esquire, and Men’s Journal. I think DeBeers advertises in women’s magazines so the woman can drop a hint to her husband about what she wants. I think women find this ad humorous and seductive at the same time, which entices them to want a DeBeers diamond. The DeBeers ad will be displayed in men’s magazines with the hopes that a husband will be able to bring his wife back to their first kiss, his proposal, or some other equally memorable moment.
Although at first I thought this ad would be directed strictly for women, it is for men as well who want to reignite their first-date sparks. I assume they are hammering out as many of these ads as possible for the upcoming Valentine’s holiday, which is why it is directed toward men. All men want for Valentine’s Day is a simple gift, while finding the right present for your wife is a much more strenuous process. I think the audience is married, upper-middle class couples who have solid foundations and jobs. The families have above average status; they drive a nice car, live in a two-story house, and live a very comfortable life. The affected audience isn’t overly rich because although they have everything they need, a diamond is only given as a gift for special occasions. Even though this ad is for men I found it advertised in adult women’s and men’s magazines such as Vogue, Ms. Magazine, O, GQ, Esquire, and Men’s Journal. I think DeBeers advertises in women’s magazines so the woman can drop a hint to her husband about what she wants. I think women find this ad humorous and seductive at the same time, which entices them to want a DeBeers diamond. The DeBeers ad will be displayed in men’s magazines with the hopes that a husband will be able to bring his wife back to their first kiss, his proposal, or some other equally memorable moment. The DeBeers ad has a solid black background with one picture (diamonds) and one sentence. The words are sprawled out in different sizes in huge bright white font that reads in all caps: “HEY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW, SHE THINKS YOU’RE FUNNY AGAIN.” The different font sizes are used to catch the audience’s attention and even if you skip some of lines the message is still clear. This strategy is effective because at a quick glance you will read “HEY, YOU’RE FUNNY AGAIN,” making the audience curious about the ad without having to read the whole thing. Clearly, DeBeers wants us to buy this or any set of beautiful diamonds they have, knowing it will make our significant others that much happier with themselves and with us.
The color of the ad is very important; De Beers uses the two black and white colors for a reason, it looks elegant and adds an emotional appeal to the ad. White and black scream out sleekness, class, and a sense of sexiness as well. All the top car ads: BMW, Mercedes, etc., show shadow-like black cars that make you feel confident and popular. The color contrast gives off a “Ying-Yang/Male-Female,” type of energy that makes buying a diamond feel right.
The emotion this ad wants to bring out in the audience is a sense of desire; what woman doesn’t want a diamond that is “forever,” a stone that will re-ignite those first-date sparks? The solid black background reminds me of a darkening cave, representing your days counting down to get the perfect gift. By having everything you could already want the ad shows that a diamond is forever, meaning that this is a perfect, unique gift that can never be replaced and will be remembered forever. The bright words and diamonds are the light at the end of the tunnel, our talisman to success, and of course the punch-line, “A diamond is forever,” says that your relationship with your woman will create new levels of happiness when you purchase the diamonds.
Another emotion the ad wants to evoke in the audience is confidence through humor. DeBeers is showing this through the struggles of finding the perfect gift for your wife. The diamond is a symbol that defines you as the number-one husband this Valentine’s Day. The diamond is your ticket to a perfect Valentine’s Day and your woman will forget your acquired beer-belly and will remember you as her new, sexy, perfect man.
On the other hand, having the mindset of a broke, wifeless college student created a different reaction to the ad for me. The first time I looked at this image it provoked anger because of what the title reads. Why the heck do I need to get my significant other a diamond for her to like me? It made me feel inferior because if I have no money, then can I not make my wife happy? I think that if I had the money and a loving woman to buy the diamond for, my thoughts would be different.
The connection the ad made to Aristotle was to my thoughts and his analysis of anger. At first it doesn’t seem like his definition of anger connects with the ad: “an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards concerns oneself or towards what concerns one’s friends” (Book 2, Part 2). The impulse of anger asks the question of why a wife needs diamonds in order to be happy, but if my pain can be defined as buying love through materialistic things, then that would define it accurately, but I also had the pain of wishing women didn’t care about these sorts of things.
DeBeers wants men to want to be loved by their wives more, and what other way than to purchase them a huge, flawless diamond? Who would’ve known that through the power of a diamond, your woman will remember the first time she met and fell in love with you? DeBeers apparently, and through this ad they have shown that you cannot let your wife go without their beautiful selection on Valentine’s Day. DeBeers uses a carefully laid out strategy of making the audience feel like they must buy these diamonds in order to bring back those first date sparks! Either way, the ad is effective in producing the sense of need and want for what will end in an ecstatic wife and a continuous happily married couple.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Transmission of Affect blog
This book was really technical I thought, which I can just translate into a book that confused me most of the time.
But for the times I did find catchy things, I thought Brennan and Aristotle had some interesting points to compare with each other.
At the very beginning of chapter one Brennan is showing the "transmission of affect" and how it works its way into everyone. "There are many psychological clinicians who believe that they experience the affects of their patients directly" (Brennan 2). Aristotle said that we share our emotions and that one of the most persuasive ways of persuading your audience is to really feel the emotion yourself, or at least act that you do. Another person we read, (can't remember who), wrote a section about how when we act, we tend to feel certain emotions. He/she used the example of faking a smile; when you do this you too feel the emotion of happiness even though you are pretending or faking the feature. I think this part is important because whatever emotions you have are going to shed onto whomever you're venting them too, and vice versa.
Moving much further ahead to chapter 2 is Brennan's section on Drives and Objects: Affects and Attention. Brennan says "the drive propels the affect; it is in large part the stuff out of which the affect is made" (Brennan 34). So, here's my question directed toward your thoughts...What do you think about our drive and the affect it has on us. Would you say it's like Brennan's description, "The indebtedness of the affects to the drives is plain if we reflect on the way that affects... If i am depressed, it may be because i have turned the affect of anger back against myself rather than directing it toward another" (Brennan 34)? Or do you have an answer of your own for the purpose or level of intensity of our drive? This seemed like somewhat of a good quote to sum up his first thoughts on the drive.
All the parts I read were on page 34 so you don't have to go crazy looking through the book.
But for the times I did find catchy things, I thought Brennan and Aristotle had some interesting points to compare with each other.
At the very beginning of chapter one Brennan is showing the "transmission of affect" and how it works its way into everyone. "There are many psychological clinicians who believe that they experience the affects of their patients directly" (Brennan 2). Aristotle said that we share our emotions and that one of the most persuasive ways of persuading your audience is to really feel the emotion yourself, or at least act that you do. Another person we read, (can't remember who), wrote a section about how when we act, we tend to feel certain emotions. He/she used the example of faking a smile; when you do this you too feel the emotion of happiness even though you are pretending or faking the feature. I think this part is important because whatever emotions you have are going to shed onto whomever you're venting them too, and vice versa.
Moving much further ahead to chapter 2 is Brennan's section on Drives and Objects: Affects and Attention. Brennan says "the drive propels the affect; it is in large part the stuff out of which the affect is made" (Brennan 34). So, here's my question directed toward your thoughts...What do you think about our drive and the affect it has on us. Would you say it's like Brennan's description, "The indebtedness of the affects to the drives is plain if we reflect on the way that affects... If i am depressed, it may be because i have turned the affect of anger back against myself rather than directing it toward another" (Brennan 34)? Or do you have an answer of your own for the purpose or level of intensity of our drive? This seemed like somewhat of a good quote to sum up his first thoughts on the drive.
All the parts I read were on page 34 so you don't have to go crazy looking through the book.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Written Pathetic Argument
I am making the claim that eating disorders are addictive and dangerous diseases that many young girls are being diagnosed with. I hope to guide you through the emotions of feeling sad, and having sympathy and understanding towards the evils of bulimia and anorexia. I will be showing these first emotions with a diary of a young girl who was diagnosed with anorexia due to being made fun of for being overweight when she was in fact at the perfect weight. I will also show statistics and facts on these eating disorders and how they are very serious and hurting a big number of the population.
After I have informed and shown my claim on eating disorders I hope to evoke feelings of confidence, positive energy, and clarity knowing that we now have the information to prevent a friend or loved one from falling victim to these horrible diseases. I end my argument with some signs to show what to look for with someone who you suspect is developing an eating disorder along with the steps to take to confront them to reach their path to being healed and cleared of all negative emotions that follow these disorders.
The link to my written argument:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19F9duEvnvUWd21Ctr7ZBqE5PojiMjof_V2o8phpVegY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CI_I0pMG&pli=1#
After I have informed and shown my claim on eating disorders I hope to evoke feelings of confidence, positive energy, and clarity knowing that we now have the information to prevent a friend or loved one from falling victim to these horrible diseases. I end my argument with some signs to show what to look for with someone who you suspect is developing an eating disorder along with the steps to take to confront them to reach their path to being healed and cleared of all negative emotions that follow these disorders.
The link to my written argument:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19F9duEvnvUWd21Ctr7ZBqE5PojiMjof_V2o8phpVegY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CI_I0pMG&pli=1#
Monday, February 28, 2011
Kennedy's Komparisons
A first good point of Kennedy's piece is his connection of animals and rhetorical knowledge compared to Damasio's piece on monkeys and the troubles that come with their lack of emotion.
Kennedy says "Whether or not animals have a sense of self, many clearly can recognize other individuals of their own species and some animals can apparently recognize what individuals belong to what family groups" (Kennedy 7). This can verify my point that emotions play the role of being an individual. I think emotion equals personality, and each animal species/the human species has their own code of personality, although many branches exist in each. When you deprive or "cut away" an animals emotion they fail to recognize and be recognized by the members of their species. This is so effective for persuasion because humans, as a whole, connect with each other on an emotional level, and when you take that away we don't have the same main branch as each other so their is no way we can be persuaded.
I also thought his section on rhetoric comparing with communication could be useful to becoming a successful rhetor. Kennedy says "Rhetoric is apparently present in communication, though communication can be within the personality of one individual, as when one tries to "talk" the self into some action or belief about
which one has conflicting sentiments" (Kennedy 2). So do you all think he's saying that communication is effective, except it can be harmful by persuading ourselves? Or why you agree or disagree with what kennedy says about communication and rhetoric. I know he goes on to talk about different ways communication cannot be compared to rhetoric, but I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.
Kennedy says "Whether or not animals have a sense of self, many clearly can recognize other individuals of their own species and some animals can apparently recognize what individuals belong to what family groups" (Kennedy 7). This can verify my point that emotions play the role of being an individual. I think emotion equals personality, and each animal species/the human species has their own code of personality, although many branches exist in each. When you deprive or "cut away" an animals emotion they fail to recognize and be recognized by the members of their species. This is so effective for persuasion because humans, as a whole, connect with each other on an emotional level, and when you take that away we don't have the same main branch as each other so their is no way we can be persuaded.
I also thought his section on rhetoric comparing with communication could be useful to becoming a successful rhetor. Kennedy says "Rhetoric is apparently present in communication, though communication can be within the personality of one individual, as when one tries to "talk" the self into some action or belief about
which one has conflicting sentiments" (Kennedy 2). So do you all think he's saying that communication is effective, except it can be harmful by persuading ourselves? Or why you agree or disagree with what kennedy says about communication and rhetoric. I know he goes on to talk about different ways communication cannot be compared to rhetoric, but I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Smith and Hyde: three points.
I wanted to follow and finish the three main points made in class since we were only to go over one of them.
The first was the continuum of emotions and how there's always a middle ground that the person being persuaded is pulled to either side of. The example shown in the reading was fear and confidence and this was the one we talked about in class a lot, which I think we covered pretty well.
The second main point that I analyzed was that every emotion has a limited time frame and a sense of proximity to tell how long and how much of an effect this emotion holds over you. This strategy helps the rhetor determine who he/she needs to persuade the most efficiently and who will be easier to persuade. In SmithHyde reading, they talk about how the longer you let an emotion sit, the greater a chance it has to go away and they return back to a neutral emotional state. I think the best example for this is when we were all rebellious high-schoolers to our parents. When we'd get mad at them for something dumb they would tell us to go to sleep and we'd feel better in the morning. Everytime I woke up I was never mad anymore. I think this works for all emotions; they all spark an intense feeling, but never an ever-lasting feeling.
On the topic of proximity and emotions, HydeSmith uses the analogy of Alcibiades and Callicles. "Proximity in time and space allows the identification to take place" (HydeSmith 453). This is true and they go on to show it through their analogy: "Alcibiades observation of Callicles threatening circumstances forces Alcibiades to share them as being close to his own existence" (HydeSmith 453). They say that as a result, what is brought close to Alcibiades now "gains a dimension of immediacy." "Thus, Alcibiades pity is incited by his fear of certain circumstances that he experiences by identifying with one another. Emotion modifies the lived time and space of our everyday being-with-others" (SmithHyde 452). It's this last line that seems most important to me; I think it's sort of defining the second main point of how emotions have limits and can be modified to due proximity.
Let me know what your alls thoughts are on in this point.
The first was the continuum of emotions and how there's always a middle ground that the person being persuaded is pulled to either side of. The example shown in the reading was fear and confidence and this was the one we talked about in class a lot, which I think we covered pretty well.
The second main point that I analyzed was that every emotion has a limited time frame and a sense of proximity to tell how long and how much of an effect this emotion holds over you. This strategy helps the rhetor determine who he/she needs to persuade the most efficiently and who will be easier to persuade. In SmithHyde reading, they talk about how the longer you let an emotion sit, the greater a chance it has to go away and they return back to a neutral emotional state. I think the best example for this is when we were all rebellious high-schoolers to our parents. When we'd get mad at them for something dumb they would tell us to go to sleep and we'd feel better in the morning. Everytime I woke up I was never mad anymore. I think this works for all emotions; they all spark an intense feeling, but never an ever-lasting feeling.
On the topic of proximity and emotions, HydeSmith uses the analogy of Alcibiades and Callicles. "Proximity in time and space allows the identification to take place" (HydeSmith 453). This is true and they go on to show it through their analogy: "Alcibiades observation of Callicles threatening circumstances forces Alcibiades to share them as being close to his own existence" (HydeSmith 453). They say that as a result, what is brought close to Alcibiades now "gains a dimension of immediacy." "Thus, Alcibiades pity is incited by his fear of certain circumstances that he experiences by identifying with one another. Emotion modifies the lived time and space of our everyday being-with-others" (SmithHyde 452). It's this last line that seems most important to me; I think it's sort of defining the second main point of how emotions have limits and can be modified to due proximity.
Let me know what your alls thoughts are on in this point.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Visual Analysis (Revised)
The image I have chosen comes from a DeBeers diamond ad. It popped up on Google images for me (http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2009/images/Diamond.jpg), but can be originally be found at debeers.com. Although many of us would choose a diamond ad to be strictly for women, this ad is for women, and men who want to sort of 1-up their relationship. I assume they are hammering out as many of these ads as possible for the upcoming Valentine’s holiday, thus why it is directed toward men. All men want for Valentine’s Day is a couple shirts or jeans or something along those lines. Valentine’s Day for women is all about the glitz and glam, and needs a lot more thought, i.e. money, put into it. I think the audience are married, upper class couples, who have solid foundations and jobs. Even though this ad is for men I found it advertised in adult women’s and men’s magazines such as “Vogue, Ms. Magazine, O, GQ, Esquire, and Men’s Journal.” I think the reason for De Beers advertising in women’s magazines is the hope that they will show their husband the ad, finding it humorous and seductive at the same time. It will be in men’s magazines because during Valentine’s Day what better gift is there then to buy your lover a diamond.
The DeBeers ad has a solid black background with one picture (diamonds) and one sentence of words. The words are sprawled out in different sizes of huge bright white font that reads in all caps: “HEY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW, SHE THINKS YOU’RE FUNNY AGAIN.” Clearly DeBeers wants us to buy this or any set of beautiful diamonds that they have, knowing it will make our significant others that much happier with themselves and with us.
The color of the ad is very important; De Beers uses the two black and white colors for a reason, it looks elegant and adds an emotional appeal to the ad. White and black scream out sleekness, class, and a sense of sexiness as well. All the top car ads: BMW, Mercedes, etc., show shadow-like black cars that make you feel awesome. This color contrast gives off a “Ying-Yang/Male-Female,” type of energy that makes buying a diamond feel right.
The first time I looked at this image it provoked an emotion of anger out of me because it says “Hey, what do you know, she thinks you’re funny again.” My reaction to it was “why the heck do I need to get my significant other a diamond for her to like me.” For the audience though, I think they are trying to boost your confidence and kindness, bring out a sense of humor, make the reader feel shameful (for not having bought his wife this gift) for Valentine’s Day by displaying the perfect gift for your wife. The last emotion it brings is a sense of desire; what woman doesn’t want a diamond that is “forever,” a stone that will bring your relationship to the best possible stage. It brings out humor because all men know (whether they like it or not) that they will do pretty much anything for their wife, and this is something that will make her happy. The cheesy humor is good for making a man feel safe knowing the he has given the best possible Valentine’s gift. The solid black background almost reminds me of a darkening cave, representing your days counting down to get the perfect gift. The bright words and diamonds are the light at the end of the tunnel, our talisman to success, and of course the punch-line, “A diamond is forever,” shows that with this diamond your relationship will improve, and continue to improve forever the day your wife has this prized gem.
I first want to connect how I felt about this article with what Aristotle has said; my emotion in this case being anger. At first it doesn’t seem like his definition of anger: “an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards concerns oneself or towards what concerns one’s friends” (Book 2, Part 2). I definitely felt the impulse, anger towards why a wife needs diamonds in order to be happy, but the pain is a bit more difficult. If my pain can be defined as buying love through materialistic things, then that would define it accurately, but I also had the pain of wishing women didn’t care about these sorts of things.
In terms of connecting Aristotle to how the ad wants the audience to feel, I think his chapters on confidence and kindness are suiting. Aristotle says confidence is having “good sense, good moral character, and goodwill” (Book 2, Part 1). For me, enough is said right here because even though that ad is trying to say that a woman needs diamonds, it is also asking the question of whether or not you want to be the “perfect” husband. In this case the perfect husband should use his good sense, moral character, and goodwill to purchase the diamonds. In terms of kindness, Aristotle says “kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need, or who needs what is important and hard to get” (Book 2, Part 7). Now I don’t think anyone is ever in a great need of diamonds, but I do get the second part when he says it is “important and hard to get.” These diamonds are important because of the occasion, Valentine’s Day, and they are hard to get because well frankly, they are ridiculously expensive, which usually takes a chunk out of any man’s wallet
DeBeers wants men to want to be loved by their wives more, and what other way then to purchase them a huge, flawless diamond? Who would’ve known that through a diamonds power, your woman will see you as funnier? DeBeers apparently, and through this ad they have shown that you cannot let your wife go without their beautiful selection on Valentine’s Day. I mean really, what kind of person would you be? DeBeers uses a carefully laid out strategy of making the audience feel like they must buy these diamonds or it will surely be the end to them! Either way, the ad is effective in producing the sense of need and want for what will end in an ecstatic wife and a happily married couple.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
New Blog. Hooray! (Over Walker's and Nussbaum)
I'm going to be jumping around between the two readings for this blog post, but first I'll start with Walker's when he talks about the inseparable emotions of the body. He says that Aristotle's emotions of the soul are "anger, gentleness, fear, pity, courage, joy, and loving and hating." He says anger, along with all these other emotions, "belong to the body and are inseparable from it." Reason being because whenever you feel them you have "bodily effects." I'm not really sure why it means they are inseparable from the body just because you have bodily effects from them. Don't you have bodily effects from every emotion? Being anxious produces sweatiness, rosy cheeks, clammy palms. Maybe he is just circling only those emotions at this time, but I figured you can and can't be separable from any emotion because when an emotion arises it's not like you are going to be calm for every one of them. Calm is basically an emotion in itself.
As I further read, he talks about anger and how with the feeling of wanting to get revenge on someone making you angry, blood boils around your heart. This is definitely true, but, like I said, how can you not have an effect coupled with any emotional feeling? It wouldn't be an emotion if you didn't react in some way. I guess what I'm curious about is what am I supposed to get out of this, or is this even important at all?
Moving away from this on to something I liked about this piece was his translation of what happens when you are persuaded. "Kenneth Burke once pointed out that persuasion is cognate with faith. To say that someone is persuaded is to say that he/she believes/trusts the assurances presented to him or her." He says that "a person who is truly in a state of no-effect will not be persuaded." What struck me as odd in this part was that he added the emotion of anger in to something that brings out effect, but if you are angry with the person who is speaking you will shut yourself off with no chance of being persuaded. Do you all think this is true or what he was trying to say?
As I further read, he talks about anger and how with the feeling of wanting to get revenge on someone making you angry, blood boils around your heart. This is definitely true, but, like I said, how can you not have an effect coupled with any emotional feeling? It wouldn't be an emotion if you didn't react in some way. I guess what I'm curious about is what am I supposed to get out of this, or is this even important at all?
Moving away from this on to something I liked about this piece was his translation of what happens when you are persuaded. "Kenneth Burke once pointed out that persuasion is cognate with faith. To say that someone is persuaded is to say that he/she believes/trusts the assurances presented to him or her." He says that "a person who is truly in a state of no-effect will not be persuaded." What struck me as odd in this part was that he added the emotion of anger in to something that brings out effect, but if you are angry with the person who is speaking you will shut yourself off with no chance of being persuaded. Do you all think this is true or what he was trying to say?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Virtual Analysis of Debeers Diamond Ad!
The image I have chosen comes from a DeBeers diamond ad. It popped up on Google images for me (http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2009/images/Diamond.jpg), but can be originally be found at debeers.com. Although many of us would choose a diamond ad to be strictly for women, this one is for men who want to sort of 1-up their relationship. I assume they are hammering out as many of these ads as possible for the upcoming Valentine’s holiday, thus why it is directed toward men. All men want for Valentine’s Day is a couple shirts or jeans or something along those lines. Valentine’s Day for women is all about the glitz and glam, and needs a lot more thought, i.e. money, put into it. I’d say the audience age group would have to be men between the age of 30 and 60 because that’s about the age you get settled in and can afford something like this and by 60 you will have probably grown out of that diamond buying stage. I couldn’t find any magazine links that this article is in, but I’d say it appears in GQ, Sports Illustrated, or Men’s Health.
The DeBeers ad has a solid black background with one picture (diamonds) and one sentence of words. The words are sprawled out in different sizes of huge bright white font that reads in all caps: “HEY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW, SHE THINKS YOU’RE FUNNY AGAIN.” Clearly DeBeers wants us to buy this or any set of beautiful diamonds that they have, knowing it will make our significant others that much happier with themselves and with us.
The first time I looked at this image it provoked an emotion of anger out of me because it says “Hey, what do you know, she thinks you’re funny again.” My reaction to it was “why the hell do I need to get my significant other a diamond for her to like me.” For the audience though, I think they are trying to boost your confidence and kindness on Valentine’s Day by displaying the perfect gift for your wife. It brings out humor because all men know (whether they like it or not) that they will do pretty much anything for their wife, and this is something that will make her happy. The cheesy humor is good for making a man feel safe knowing the he has given the best possible Valentine’s gift. The solid black background almost reminds me of a darkening cave, representing your days counting down to get the perfect gift. The bright words and diamonds are the light at the end of the tunnel, our talisman to success!
I first want to connect how I felt about this article with what Aristotle has said. My emotion in this case being anger. At first it doesn’t seem like his definition of anger: “an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards concerns oneself or towards what concerns one’s friends” (Book 2, Part 2). I definitely felt the impulse, anger towards why a wife needs diamonds in order to be happy, but the pain is a bit more difficult. If my pain can be defined as buying love through materialistic things, then that would define it accurately, but I also had the pain of wishing women didn’t care about these sorts of things. The part where this comparison goes awry is when Aristotle says “If this is a proper definition of anger, it must always be felt towards some particular individual. It must always be attended by a certain pleasure-that which arises from the expectation of revenge” (Book 2, Part 2). I don’t feel any anger towards a person, but more towards what this ad is using to display what it takes to reunite love. I’m not sure who I would take revenge on; the women who don’t find me funny until I present diamonds? DeBeers for making me feel like I must buy diamonds? Myself for actually wanting to buy diamonds now? Whoever is to blame I do not know, but I actually feel angrier writing this as I follow along with Aristotle. I guess he is the true master of persuasion.
In terms of connecting Aristotle to how the ad wants the audience to feel, I think his chapters on confidence and kindness are suiting. Aristotle says confidence is having “good sense, good moral character, and goodwill” (Book 2, Part 1). For me, enough is said right here because even though that ad is trying to say that a woman needs diamonds, it is also asking the question of whether or not you want to be the “perfect” husband. In this case the perfect husband should use his good sense, moral character, and goodwill to purchase the diamonds. In terms of kindness, Aristotle says “kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need, or who needs what is important and hard to get” (Book 2, Part 7). Now I don’t think anyone is ever in a great need of diamonds, but I do get the second part when he says it is “important and hard to get.” These diamonds are important because of the occasion, Valentine’s Day, and they are hard to get because well frankly, they are ridiculously expensive, which usually takes a chunk out of any man’s wallet.
DeBeers wants men to want to be loved by their wives more, and what other way then to purchase them a huge, flawless diamond? Who would’ve known that through a diamonds power, your woman will see you as funnier? DeBeers apparently, and through this ad they have shown that you cannot let your wife go without their beautiful selection on Valentine’s Day. I mean really, what kind of person would you be? DeBeers uses a carefully laid out strategy of making the audience feel like they must buy these diamonds or it will surely be the end to them! Either way, the ad is effective in producing the sense of need and want for what will end in an ecstatic wife.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Thoughts on Aristotle book 2 parts 12-26
In chapter 12 Aristotle connects his definition of youthful character types to his definition of confidence in chapter 1. He says that confidence is due to ignorance (there are other definitions, but this is the one I'm focusing on). In chapter 12 he says "Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions (the youth) make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear, and the hopeful disposition creates confidence (book 2, part 12). Aristotle is saying that because of their hot tempers and moods full of pride, it makes them more courageous, which in turn prevents fear. This reads to me like they have a force-field of pride and will to conquer things that makes them not care what the danger of their quest is, thus forcing them to fulfill it. Can you connect this to a pathetic appeal by saying that in order to get the youths attention you have to have adventure or action in your story?
I also had some thoughts on the later chapters on proofs and examples. In chapter 23 Aristotle writes about the "fortiori," "It may be argued that if even the gods are not omniscient, certainly human beings are not. The principle here is that, if a quality does not in fact exist where it is more likely to exist, it clearly does not exist where it is less likely" (book 2, part 23). This somewhat makes sense in that if someone you look up to does something then you follow suit. Sort of like a teacher and a student, but where do we draw the line? This could only really work for youths because we develop our own sense of morals fast and we know when to put our foot out for something wrong. Aristotle continues to confuse me with his next few lines... "Again, the argument that a man who strikes his father also strikes his neighbors follows from the principle that, if the less likely thing is true, the more likely thing is also; for a man is less likely to strike his father than to strike his neighbors" (book 2, part 23). The last part makes sense, but I don't really get how he uses it. If someone is able to strike his father, then he must be able to strike his neighbors because striking your father is much more of a crime? I think striking anyone for no reason is equally evil.
I'm going a bit crazy trying to figure him out, so let me know what everyone thinks. Muchos gracias.
I also had some thoughts on the later chapters on proofs and examples. In chapter 23 Aristotle writes about the "fortiori," "It may be argued that if even the gods are not omniscient, certainly human beings are not. The principle here is that, if a quality does not in fact exist where it is more likely to exist, it clearly does not exist where it is less likely" (book 2, part 23). This somewhat makes sense in that if someone you look up to does something then you follow suit. Sort of like a teacher and a student, but where do we draw the line? This could only really work for youths because we develop our own sense of morals fast and we know when to put our foot out for something wrong. Aristotle continues to confuse me with his next few lines... "Again, the argument that a man who strikes his father also strikes his neighbors follows from the principle that, if the less likely thing is true, the more likely thing is also; for a man is less likely to strike his father than to strike his neighbors" (book 2, part 23). The last part makes sense, but I don't really get how he uses it. If someone is able to strike his father, then he must be able to strike his neighbors because striking your father is much more of a crime? I think striking anyone for no reason is equally evil.
I'm going a bit crazy trying to figure him out, so let me know what everyone thinks. Muchos gracias.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thoughts on Aristotle Book 2, chps 1-11
For this reading, I highlighted a few sentences in each part, mainly the ones I liked or the ones I wanted to analyze. Let me know if you all feel the same way or can help in my quest to understand Aristotle.
In part 2, Aristotle talks about anger and says "Again, we are angrier with our friends than with other people, since we feel that our friends ought to treat us well and not badly." So if those who we expect to make us angry make us angry, then is it not classified as anger? This one confused me because he is saying we have to have a sort of prefixed person for each emotion in order to bring out that emotion...or just anger for that matter.
In part 5, Aristotle says "we do not fear things that are a very long way off; for instance, we all know we shall die, but we are not troubled thereby, because death is not close at hand." But once death is close at hand do we start to become afraid of it? This also confused me because what happens when a teenager is presented with a death-like instance; do we feel fear right at that moment because we actually realize death is in our face or are we just like "hey, it's death, I've thought about you before, but you're no big deal."
For my interest in this line, I think it's related to me being too curious more than anything. In part 7 Aristotle says "kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need (cravings)...the appetites are cravings for this kind: sexual desire, for instance." Is this saying that if you give someone sex out of the feeling that they are craving it, i.e. horny, then you are being kind? This just struck me as odd.
If I could come up with a concluding line for these 11 parts then it would be that I think Aristotle is saying that the more you are feeling each emotion then the more each emotion is inclined to happen to you. If you are happy, then happy things happen; if you are envious, then you see more things that make you envious; etc., etc.
In part 2, Aristotle talks about anger and says "Again, we are angrier with our friends than with other people, since we feel that our friends ought to treat us well and not badly." So if those who we expect to make us angry make us angry, then is it not classified as anger? This one confused me because he is saying we have to have a sort of prefixed person for each emotion in order to bring out that emotion...or just anger for that matter.
In part 5, Aristotle says "we do not fear things that are a very long way off; for instance, we all know we shall die, but we are not troubled thereby, because death is not close at hand." But once death is close at hand do we start to become afraid of it? This also confused me because what happens when a teenager is presented with a death-like instance; do we feel fear right at that moment because we actually realize death is in our face or are we just like "hey, it's death, I've thought about you before, but you're no big deal."
For my interest in this line, I think it's related to me being too curious more than anything. In part 7 Aristotle says "kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need (cravings)...the appetites are cravings for this kind: sexual desire, for instance." Is this saying that if you give someone sex out of the feeling that they are craving it, i.e. horny, then you are being kind? This just struck me as odd.
If I could come up with a concluding line for these 11 parts then it would be that I think Aristotle is saying that the more you are feeling each emotion then the more each emotion is inclined to happen to you. If you are happy, then happy things happen; if you are envious, then you see more things that make you envious; etc., etc.
The Lonely Visitor (Revisited)
Sarah was the last student to leave study hall. When she exited the room, all the lights were off and many of the gates had been locked to the upper and lower floors. An icy finger slowly crept up her back as she replayed, in her mind, the many horror films she'd seen on weekends. She ran back to the classroom to find comfort in her teacher, except he wasn't there. Panic hit and Sarah froze, not thinking coherently and wondering if the approaching squealing sound was real or her imagination. She took solace in the thought of the nearest exit door and made a sprint. Locker doors were slamming shut, and wet sloshing sounds were echoing in all the halls. As Sarah turned the final corner of this horror story, she ran straight into the thing she hoped did not exist. She screamed as she fell, fearing for her life, not wanting to stare into the eyes of the demon...only to see it was the janitor.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Lonely Visitor
Sarah was the last student to leave study hall. She asked to use the bathroom as a final request. When she exited the restroom, all the lights were off and many of the gates had been locked to the upper and lower floors. An icy finger slowly crept up her back as she replayed, in her mind, the many horror films she'd seen on weekends. She ran back to the classroom to find comfort in her teacher, except he wasn't there. Panic hit and Sarah froze, not thinking coherently and wondering if the approaching squealing sound was real or her imagination. She took solace in the thought of the nearest exit door and made a sprint. Locker doors were slamming shut, and wet sloshing sounds were echoing in all the halls. As Sarah turned the final corner of this horror story, she ran straight into the thing she feared did not exist. She screamed as she fell, fearing for her life, not wanting to stare into the eyes of the demon...only to see it was the janitor.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)