Post 6

Davie's Terminology is very similar to the previous reading we just finished, with the addition of rhetor.

He made some interesting new points, beginning with exigence. He explained it in the same basic sense, as a call to change or urgency, but noted that it could also be portrayed in a positive light and doesn't always constitute a negative. In the case of this photo, representing the 99% and mass consumerism, the urgency is drawn to the need to become consciously aware. It implies that our heads are in our possessions, not our values. The 99% is a call for change against consumerist brainwashing. I also like how he states that exigence is a call for discourse, it is a matter of corrective means. That most materials are produced, then taught, as a corrective measure because something needs addressed. Whoever designed this believes that a mindset needs corrected amongst the American people.

The audience is really diverse, though I don't believe that children would understand it. He did say that "art" can in fact turn people off to an idea. The design is very young, modern graphic design. This could cause it to reach an age demographic of 18-35 most immediately, then maybe "put off" those of other age demographics. It also appeals to a more left-sided outlook on politics. Generally speaking, the right is more concerned with consumerism.

The constraints are tied into the audience: Conflicting views against the 99%, outlook on consumerism, political association. There really is no such thing as a value free statement.

The rhetor would be the producer of the design, who in this case, is someone associated with the 99%. This person has filled the image with implied meaning. 

What do they want their audience to do? Become consciously aware of their purchasing decisions, to stop buying into consumerism, to change their ways.

Post 5

A really great example from this reading that I immediately took notice of was the Campbell Soup commercial that targeted weight issues of young women who were watching their weight. Every day I see dozens of advertisements for women's beauty products. Hair products, lotions, tanning, anti-aging cream, exercise and weight loss, spas, vitamins, minerals, perfumes, and clothing. Message, after message, after message representing "ideals" of beauty.

One set of commercials in particular that I am aware of are from Garnier fructis. The girls in the commercials always have extremely long, healthy hair down to their waistlines. They are always outdoors doing some sort of lively activity. They always have the models tie their hair in a knot and tug it, or they tie their hair up to something, or have it pulled. It is suppose to represent the "strength" that this product gives to the hair. It implies that if you use this product, your hair can be strong too.
The targeted audience for this product is obviously girls, especially really young girls. This can be seen not only in the models they choose, but also the lighthearted outdoor fun they are having. If you have long, beautiful hair, you'll be fun and outgoing too. This plays into the perception we have of ourselves and the way we want others to perceive us.
It uses exigence with "defect, obstacle," as in your hair is the defect and obstacle between you and beauty, and beauty is power.
The constraints to this commercial would be mostly male, those with no desire for longer hair, or even older women. There could also be other factors that deter young women away from this product, like an opposition to the values of the company or other personal beliefs.
The commercial has potential to persuade others into buying it, but there is of course no guarantee. They do well with representing an image, however, that image has a very small target: young, mostly white, girls.

Post 4

When writers begin to see themselves as individualistic and isolated, they can begin to take an anti-rhetorical view and start to believe that writers are born, not made. It implies that the creative capacity is within the individual and not a component of greater society. Or, as the text says, not social but eccentric.
However, within the discourse community this is seen as an error because of 1. limited range and 2. unclear context.
He states earlier that there really is no such thing as originality in writing. Quite literally, a creative writer is a creative borrower.
He dives into the history of Jefferson and the constitution, and how the vast majority of the language used in it was borrowed from other important documents of the time as well as common sayings of the mass public. Also known as intertextuality. All documents are interactive and build upon one another. To believe otherwise, to think oneself an original, is quite frankly a fallacy. There is such thing as creative modification in writing, but little else.
He argues that for a writing to be valid it needs "acceptability," or approval within a similar genre of other writings, to gain the accuracy and approval rating of a like-minded group. Texts need to be able to be validated to be worthwhile. This is an essential part of a discourse community.
We must first come to understand ourselves within a social context and learn what it means to be a writer before we can become one. Man can not be a writer on his own.

Post 3

Greene discusses what is known as "argument  as conversation," which addresses how scholarly argument differs from daily interactive argument. Scholarly argument involves many voices holding productive conversation of an intellectual topic. In order to have this type of scholarly debate, you must first identify a topic, identify the situation, and frame a good question. This is a very interactive, educational debate style. Writers can oppose in manners that are represented with backed research findings. Each person can state their opinion in a fair, open fashion. In reality, participants are "conversing" with opposing views.

The second author, Kleine, offers the approach of using heuristics, or problem solving patterns. His mission is to enable students to perform research in the same way that an actual researcher would. He does this by gathering information and interviewing real researchers to find out how they do their jobs. He proposes the styles of hunters or gatherers; people who go after the information they desire, or those that gather previously existing information in order to compile it to make sense.

Each author seems content in his own writing style. Both, however, do support the use of research. Argument as conversation to me seems the most practical, though, considering it offers varying views from several researched view points.

Greene is addressing college aged students, he even makes a comment along the lines "similar to the academic setting you find yourself in now." And Kleine also introduces the subject "How can we teach students?..." in one of his opening paragraphs. Whether they are of the same age group, I'm not sure, but they both seem to be addressing a student body.

When writing to students the authors have to take into consideration the students' previous writing experiences. Most specifically, just how much experience do they have with this style of research and debate. Addressing this specific audience causes them to start from a primary educational outloook and build up their cases. Had this material been presented to scholars, the arrangement would be entirely different.

Post 2: Wikipedia Works Wonders

After reviewing these articles, I found some helpful advice on the most acceptable way to use Wikipedia: as a starting source. Wikipedia claims that it's articles are not always factual, up to date, or 100% credible. However, it is a great place to get started. Wikipedia often provides excellent in text citations and links that can lead to more credible sources.
One of the things I enjoy most about Wikipedia is the ability to edit. This allows for erroneous information to be revised and resubmitted by multiple users.The article talks about the "conversing" aspect, which keeps the information from becoming too one sided. Users are able to interact amongst each other and keep everything fresh. The content is intended to be free of bias and having several writers and reviewers is helpful in maintaining that.
I like that the information is available to the public, however, this is what causes it to be a troubling resource. Too many contributors without appropriate accredidation. It does seem to have a fair amount of people revising so often that source are USUALLY pretty accurate.
I would still never site Wikipedia as a main source of information, but it does continue to be a wonderful place for me to get started with research.
I think we can learn a lot from Wikipedia for the future of writing resources. It teaches us the time, effort, revision, and reviewing that goes into making a source. This is the first time the "average" person has been able to create factual content and can see the extensive process a real scholar would have to undergo to make it possible.

Introduction-Post 1

    My name is Carolyn Croft and I am an Organizational Communications major with a related area in marketing and economics. I am a senior and looking forward to graduating this year. I hope to work in the copywriting and advertising field, and eventually work my way up to an art director. I was born in Newport News, Va. but was raised primarily in the Mid-Ohio Valley (about 35 minutes from here).
    I've previously taken two other levels of English and introductory English, however, they were at the University of Akron that had a semesters system. The class style was slightly different from what I am experiencing here, but I found the content helpful and relevant because it exposed me to social issues that wouldn't typically be found in a high school classroom discussion.
    The most rewarding aspect? The dynamic teaching style of my highly liberal teacher. The least rewarding? The University assigned texts were rather dull, as usual, and caused the writing assignments to be mundane, predictable, and a little drab. Considering the teacher's style, it would have been more beneficial had the University allowed her to choose the content we used to write. I appreciate a class that keeps up with current events and allows the student to analyze an event as it's taking place, instead of after.
     This class is a little more "hands-on" than I am accustom to in my communications classes. Generally, I have a couple major projects and a presentation, but very little work in between. This class seems to be very updated week-to-week, like my introductory speech class.
     What do I look forward to the most? Observing and analyzing internet culture as well as learning new and modern methods of using it. My concerns? Being on the internet anymore than I already have to for all my other classes; my eyes are hurting.