Cheryl Ball "Show, Not Tell: The Value of New Media Scholarship"
& Steven Fraiberg "Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework"
For me, these two have to go together. I had them separately at first but I found myself talking about them together. I read Cheryl's article first and thought for sure I would not return to this in my blog post for this week because I whizzed through it so quick. However, this article really stuck with me in how I understood a lot of the applications in the other chapter's (mostly within the Sheppard piece). I see a lot of the same structure in the Lauer piece in how Ball attempts to map out a framework and ideology for how we not only situate terms, but also how we categorize different extensions of new media scholarship. Ball offers important distinctions and is (justly) critical at other compositionists attempts to create "new media scholarship" but instead are rein-scribing traditional linear print conventions in a new media landscape. I was however surprised to see that there was really a lack of discussion concerning culture and the rhetorical agency new media scholarship offers composers who either contest Westernized composing practices (or who truly don't use them). I thought that Fraiberg kind of extended Ball's conversation in considering the globalization of composing and how multimodality alongside multilingual composing is inherent in regards to new media scholarship (though I'd argue in his example it more reaffirms Western notions in how Israel situates itself alongside America in how it remixes English and Hebrew.
I was drawn to Fraiberg because I'm not really familiar with multilingual composing or ESL theory and practice. I thought this marriage of multimodality alongside multilingualism was important, and Fraiberg uses it to consider globalized rhetorical practices and consideration in new media composing. Fraigberg also discusses this notion of "home literacies" and "classroom literacies" (though he doesn't use those terms, that's me), stating "moving toward a practice-based framework are studies of the ways digital youth use new communications technologies, text-messaging practices in national and international contexts" (499). I thought a lot about Fraiberg alongside Rhodes and Alexander and how we might ask students to explore and play with digital technologies and how we may collaborate with ESL students in understanding different rhetorical ways of composing and situating ourselves within the world. I also thought a lot about Kress and his discussion of discourse and how multimodality is a social semiotic theory and how resources and signs are culturally specific. In looking to the future and my work with emoji's, Fraiberg was an important article for me to read in considering colonization, globalization, and affect.
In returning to Ball, I felt as though this piece was important in considering the articulation of how our final projects are to be envisioned. According to Ball new media are text that "juxtapose semiotic modes in new and aesthetically pleasing ways and, in doing so, break away from print traditions so that written text is not the primary rhetorical means" (165). My final project has text as the most underrepresented mode within the argument of my project, so for me I truly feel if I were to describe my project as either scholarship about new media, or new media scholarship, I would be falling on the spectrum of new media scholarship that makes an argument ABOUT scholarship within new media. I hope that makes sense. While the readings for this week are looking at new media scholarship, I'd argue none of them enact the ideology they advocate, with even the web texts containing a primarily textual overtone in order to convey meaning (Ridolfo and DeVoss was certainly intentional though in their press release).
My final project has to do with the body, and how bodies are often left out within new media scholarship and composing. In reading Fraiberg, I'm extending this notion to consider if particular bodies (identities more specifically) are left out of the conversation concerning multimodal composing and what we can learn from multilingual composing alongside multimodality. In considering this notion alongside Ball, I think that these pieces have asked me to not only consider myself and where my project stands alongside scholarship in the field, but also what colonizing narratives I may be rein-scribing or contesting in how I choose to structure my project. As I discuss below, I also consider notions of how that project may be repurposed or remixed, and what they may mean for a layering of audiences.
Jim Ridolfo and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss "Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery"
I was interested in this article primarily due to how frequently it came up within our classroom conversations. However, I found it to be really salient in some of the research question's i'm asking within my scholarship having to do with snapchat. I think that rhetorical velocity is really important in considering the role the remixing plays within composition practices. Ridolfo and DeVoss extend this notion of remixing beyond merely copying and pasting and instead offer it as a WAY of composing, which makes me think of Kress and his notions of production and distribution. Ridolfo and DeVoss offer up remix as a composing practice that is MEANT for what they refer to as "recomposition". I believe that Ridolfo and DeVoss also share Kress's framework in discussing authorship in the digital age. Ridolfo and DeVoss acknowledge that what it means to compose is strongly informed by the rewrite or remixing, mashing, merging, and pasting of a digital culture. Kress also affirms this notion and acknowledges that traditional notions of authorship are complicated in a digital age (though he never really offers what we are to do with this, I made my critique of this clear during our presentation last week).
Instead of offering ways to situate this notion of authorship, Ridolfo and DeVoss instead extend it, arguing that there is no such thing as single authorship in reference to rhetorical velocity and delivery, arguing that ethical considerations are not at the remixing stage, but rather fall within the delivery. I appreciated the example of Wikipedia as a platform that embodies the notion of authorship and collaboration. "What does it mean to compose with recomposition or remix in mind?" To me this question is really important in regards to how fully we consider our audience in regards to the composition we produce and how we deliver content (by the way, I also super appreciated the discussion on classical rhetoric because I'm finding the connections between Victor's 509 and our course to be tied together through the notion of delivery).
I thought about this notion alongside my final project for this course and how I might envision turning it into a piece for a publication within Kairos or Enculturation. How would my multimodal piece by remixed or recomposed for particular audiences? How might the feedback I receive for review rein-scribe the cohesion, argument, and structure of my work? Will I compose my final project with my end-user as someone in Kairos? Or will I compose with an audience that situates itself within my seminar? In considering the role of authorship, how might I extend to make my final project a collaborative piece? Will I consult users outside of my class? institution? rank?
No comments:
Post a Comment