Composition in the Archive

Brad and I are writing an article on composition and the archives. He's an archivist, and I'm (obviously) a compositionist, so it makes for good clean fun. So, here's a lowdown on my part of the argument. Note: I have no idea what he'll say, since we haven't officially discussed particulars yet.

I'm interested in how the archives can, and should be used, in the composition classroom as an aspect of critical pedagogy. Since our students (and even increasing numbers of faculty) are becoming more and more technologically savvy, it's important that they get a sense of how these discourses/texts/etc work. Allan Sekula argues that the archive should be read "from the bottom up"; his premise lies in the fact that archives structure knowledge in particular ways, both about class/political issues, and historical discourses. This is highly redacted, of course. But suffice it to say that his ideas help us determine how to use and teach research.

Basically, the crux of my argument relates to multimodality. If students understand how to produce, read, interpret, and incorporate, archival information, they can then think about all other aspects of knowledge production, too. Note 2: I don't want to make sweeping, correlative claims about one practice leading to another. If anything, that's the teacher's job. But think of it this way: even internet fora like facebook are designed, and set up, like an "archive"(at least in SEkula's perspective). Incorporating the necessary processes, for lack of a better term, that go into archiving, and the ways that archives -- regardless of form or media -- necessarily hide how they structure knowledge(another of Sekula's key tenets, perhaps the most important), into our curricula would be beneficial on many counts. If nothing else, it would allow students more freedom to explore possibilities, and provide spaces for making their work relevant to their own ideas/experiences/goals for education. That's my main goal as a teacher; I'm going to have T-shirts made.

So, yeah. Any questions, let me know. I'm obsessed with the archive as a construct and theoretical staple of visual studies.

The next installment of my musings on the archive will most likely be about Nicholson Baker's The Mezzanine, which I am arguing needs to be read as archive (an archive that responds to, and is influenced by, Oulipan writing strategies). After that, it's definitely gonna be Sgt. Pepper as archive.

Hmmm...maybe this should be my dissertation?

Ben's Debut (Snow Day Word Play II)

All right. In the spirit of some people's word-plays, I've decided to PhotoShop my FAVORITE subject: my dog Ben.

This photo was taken a few years ago. And yes, folks, he is really holding a peanut butter jar.

Oh, yeah, he's even BIGGER now!

Handsome, isn't he?

Snow Day Word Play I

Apparently, I suck at Photoshop. I'm looking at everyone else's images, and they seem (somehow) "better" than mine. I say this because it seems like I don't have a good enough hang of layering, cloning, etc. I guess that will come in time. I have been playing, though. You should see my failed attempts! The only reason I didnt post them is because, well, there are just too many photos of flowers with weird effects to share!

Here, I found an image of two daisies that I loved. (In case you hadn't noticed, I've only Photoshopped photos of flowers. I love them). I sharpened it, watercolored (I think) the background, and "twirled" the center of the back daisy, because you gotta have some "twirl" distortion! Plus, I think it contrasts nicely with the (unaltered) image in the foreground.

Why "Paradise Found"? Because of John Milton (Paradise Lost) and to me, finding daisies is just about as close to heaven on earth as we can get. I also like punning. Word play at its best, sez I.

This whole discussion --mostly from Marla and Kristi's blogs, respectively -- has made me think about why I do what I do in PS. That is, I have no "artistic eye," or any concept of design. Would this help me? I'm not sure.

It makes me think of the lecture Anne gave on our first night of class, where she was saying that we can all be moviemakers now. I love that I can do this, and I love the access it gives everyone. But, the other side is, how WELL? I know, I know, that's a question smacking of elitism and "traditional" values. Nonetheless, that question plagues me. I'm not good at PS because I have little (visual) aesthetic or artistic sensibility. I was the kid who did well in art class because she tried valiantly, and my work wasn't completely awful -- not because I'm good.

So Kristi's question, about "how to PS this? Would it make it better?" is at stake here. I don't think any of my PS experiments make anything better. Then again, the assignment was to explore the relationship between words and texts, so... better might not serve our purposes here.

This post is not answering any questions, and it is not tying up any loose ends. Oh well.

Second Wordplay!

Here's yet another version of my wordplay. This time, I got better, since I figured out how to save files and manipulate them! Woohoo!

I loved the blue in this one, and I like the yellow on the petals. Now, if I can just find out how to make a petal drop, or something, I'll be set.

Comments?

First Wordplay!

Here is my first attempt at playing with Photoshop. I was just having some fun...enjoy!

Semiotic Analysis of Image #2

First off, the image has three separate sections of red and yellow: at the very top, in the characters on the bottom, and right in the middle on the soldier’s collar. Not only does this structure our vision, but it signifies China, specifically the Chinese flag. Barthes (and Rose) would argue that this is a metonymic relationship, since the flag stands in for China, as do red and yellow. The winding road in the background seems to represent the Great Wall of China as well, which has become an iconic symbol of China.

The soldier himself symbolizes masculinity and toughness, and these qualities are enhanced by his erect pose. He’s staring not at “us,” but just above eye-level, suggesting that he is battle-ready. To use a soldier and all masculine qualities therein, the image implies that China can be protected by these tough, masculine soldiers. Since he’s also wearing the colors of the Chinese flag, placed against a typically Chinese background, and wears an expression of pride, it also signifies that China itself is made up of these kinds of men (qualities?).

Related to the previous paragraph, the image as a whole stands in for our “Westernized” image of China, because it plays on what we expect to see. In some sense, it is the “myth” of China: red and yellow, Chinese characters, the Great Wall, beautiful birds, pagodas, etc. All of these symbols contribute to the iconic status (in our culture) of the Orient; that is, we associate these things with Chinese culture and China in general. Thus, the poster in its entirety suggests the Non-Western, delivering a myth of strength and the exotic. Perhaps we might call it strength in the exotic?

Since Rose argues (and I’ve agreed with this for quite some time now) that we need to consider how an image makes meaning for its intended viewers, I’ll speculate on that point for a bit. Mostly, I’d say everything stays the same, except that the “myth” of this image changes. Instead of signifying the Non-Western or the exotic, for the Chinese, it probably signifies strength and power through the symbol of the man on the poster. His expression, stature, and size – as well as the gun he carries – suggest this. Further, the image might also suggest that China is full of men, or that the future of China lies in its men, since this masculine image dominates the photo (as it may dominate the culture as well). If you’re a male viewer, you, too, can join the army and protect China (which, I think I’ve heard, is referred to as female? Not sure on this one). In short, though, the myth of this image for Chinese viewers is likely one of male dominance and power, as well as strength.

Together, these readings reinforce the masculinity of the armed forces in general; regardless of nation or culture, viewers expect to see male soldiers, since they're universally seen as more powerful and protective. Soldiers are also tough, aloof (as this man is), and imperturbable, which in turn comprise the iconic status of a soldier in general. All of these elements reinforce the dominant myth of masculinity, whether in China or in Western society.

Maybe I'll think of more later. If I do, I'll post!

Photoshop = AWESOME! I've been poking around at it since our demo, and I am amazed at what it can do! I've never seen any real reason to use it...until Thursday. I think there's something to be said for the element of "play" it invites.

Related to photographs, I'm somewhat disturbed by Gillian Rose's watered-down analyses of visual methods and visual culture. Her definition of ideology is utterly atrocious. In spite of my disgruntlement, however, I do like what she does in the first chapter, where she argues for "critical visual methodology" -- a method for interpreting images and visual artifacts that takes into account the practices involved. I like this because I'm a visual studies/visual culture geek, and thus I am interested in the debates that happen within the field. She's right about the arguments that go on; like Rhetoric and Composition, for example, Visual Studies (as a discipline) often has to fight for, or defend, its legitimacy. Thus, debates about what it does and why abound.

For me, the interest in a critical visual methodology lies in its potential for teaching composition/writing. Not only might we teach students to develop their own "critical visual methodology" for interpreting and analyzing images, but they might apply this to their writing. That is, it seems like the bulleted list of behaviors that Rose claims constitute a "critical visual methodology" are strikingly similar to those we'd want our students to do when they interpret a text. Of course, I'm deliberately dichotomizing "image" and "text" -- in my world, and often in the world of the classes I teach, "text" = "image." (That is, an image is also a text, which I know assumes a lot of things about images, etc, but I think we need, at least for the sake of teaching composition, to join these terms).

I'm not sure what to do with this insight here; I just thought it would be interesting to post and see what you guys all thought. Or, most likely, post anyway! :)