Visual Rhetorical analysis of an ad.

So in class we were discussing the importance of ads and their details. The colors that they use, layout, font (color, size, type), subject, and anything else they put into the company's advertisement. Everything that a company does is for a reason. We took an example from our Writing Arguments book and analyzed it. We are to do the same on our own with an advertisement from a magazine (or an online ad if desired). Mr advertisement comes from the magazine Cosmopolitan. The magazine itself targets women, and with women, the "need" to be beautiful. So what are their ads going to consist of? Of course anything to make you beautiful. The advertisement that I chose is one for Tampax Pearl products.

This ad shows a famous athlete in an accomplished success in "shut(ing) out mother nature's monthly gift." The bottom right hand corner shows you the product and obviously refers to a woman's menstrual cycle. The athlete, Serena Williams, is wearing white to show how there are no leaks (as depicted next to the image of the product). She's also wearing jewelry to show that women can still feel beautiful. The tennis court setting is in a sense Serena's daily lifestyle. With that being the set, it also portrays that women can go about their normal routines and tasks they come across day by day. In the background, it show's a woman being carried out by two security officers. The words "Serena shuts out mother nature's monthly gift" are purposely placed across mother nature so the reader implies that the woman is "mother nature", the pink present is the menstrual cycle, and the "shutting out" with the officers is the tampon. It's nothing but similes in this ad! The three people in the background are not in focus, so the reader's focus is on Serena and her accomplishment. The fact that they're not in focus also implies that a woman's period is in a way, no longer important (in the background) and if they buy the product, they no longer have to worry about it anymore (hence the security). They place some words in pink because females are associated with that color. the words "Outsmart Mother Nature" are in a different font so as to bring attention to it. The other text tells the reader that so-and-so trusts this products and like it, so you should to! It also give a minor illustration and bolded text as to WHY the product is better ("...new and improved LeakGuard braid.").

Truisms

In English, we're asked to pick a truism, and write about the believing side of it as well as the doubter side. There were three from this list that was given to us that interested me, but the one that popped out at me was this: Expressing anger is necessary.

Believer's Side:

The title says it all. It's necessary because if we do not express our anger, it will only bottle up inside of us. When a little incident happens to push us over the edge just a little bit, all that bottled up anger will explode out of us like a shaken up bottle of soda. In my observations, I've seen this happen to fellow friends, family members, and even myself. This especially happens with my father. On multiple occasions, he has gone to and come home from work seeming fine. He doesn't talk about his day much, so we all assume everything is fine. What we don't know is what all is happening at his work place. From Monday morning to Friday afternoon, everything could have gone wrong. He doesn't communicate this with us, so as I said before, we think everything is fine. So it's a Friday night, the evening going along as it normally would. Him coming home, relaxing a little bit, and then preparing dinner. My mother goes into the kitchen to try and help and notices the beans on the stove have been cooked enough. "Honey, the beans are ready, would you like me to take them off the stove?" And he blows up. Not because she offered to help, but because she "doesn't like his cooking" or because "she doesn't know what she's doing." (No hitting, just verbal yelling.) So he goes to bed and leaves dinner to be cooked by my mom. If he were to have expressed his anger little by little through-out the week, this incident would have not occurred. He could have expressed his anger by complaining to my mother what has been happening at work, and none of it would have been bottled up.

Doubter's Side:

Expressing anger is absolutely NOT necessary. Whenever anger is expressed it hurts many things: people, people's feelings, pets, objects of value, etc. Anger is a negative feed that is not needed in peoples' lives. If you think about it, anger is basically stress. Stress can be let out in different ways other than shouting and hitting. Meditation is a solution. So is shopping (for those with a loaded bank account), cooking, listening or performing music, getting a massage, so on and so forth. In my experience, I've learned to control my angry outbursts into harmless stress releases. When I was a kid, if I didn't get something I wanted, I would throw a tantrum (which a lot of people have done), or how if I'm on the road and someone cuts me off, I would tailgate and flip them the middle finger. I've realized that these actions don't really help the situation, instead they make it worse. So if now I don't get what I want, or some idiot driver make a bad decision, I release that stress with music. I'll sing and listen to my iPod. It doesn't hurt anything or anyone at all (unless you're next to me while I begin to sing). Whenever my mom is stressed, she makes quilts or reads a book. There are actions that can be done so anger is not present and everyone is happy.

What is an argument?

Part A.

So our class is asked to write a full page response on the question "What is argument?" As sad as it is, I can define this in one sentence versus three people compiling an entire book about this question. When the question was asked, I thought of argument as when two or more people share opposing ideas or thoughts. When some individuals shared their own opinion on what an argument is, we all came to the same conclusion: everyone is on the same track. No one had the same answer, always a variation from the person before them. In all honesty, is there really one definition for argument? Our teacher brought up a good point that an argument doesn't necessarily have to be with two people. Take example, a book on some political or personal matter to someone. The author hasn't compiled a 365 page book of dialogue between two people the entire time. In almost every case, the author cites his or her own opinion, and then backs it up with his or her evidence. That's another thing we talked about in class: evidence. Ms. Mandviwala pointed out that almost every argument has some kind of evidence as well as rhetoric (the "why" question) to it, no matter how idiotic the logic may be. She placed an example on the board and made her claim of "I am awesome." She had her evidence: I finger paint. When asked why she was awesome because she finger paints, her logic led her to her rhetoric answer of "anyone who finger paints is awesome." I'm rather positive that if a student in the class were to think of the word "argument," the opinionated definition wouldn't be what we had discussed in class. Almost every single classmate would have thought the word "fight" in place of argument. So by asking the class "what is argument," in all honesty our teacher got everyone to, in a sense, bullshit an answer. On another note, I just realized how ironic our required text is (Writing Arguments). It's a book arguing about what an argument really is.

Part B.

So I have read chapter three and am supposed to re-answer the question "what is argument?" Well the textbook argues that argument originate in an issue question. An issue question meaning a question that people can feed off of and share opinions and ideas, versus an information question. An information question just deals with knowledge-based answers. So by asking the question "what is argument?" nobody can actually argue a point across. It's an information question and just wants answers. Another point that the text made was the Logos, Ethos, and Pathos appeals (also known as rhetorical triangle). There are three appeals to any argument. The Logos has the logic side (or point, whichever way you view the triangle), the Ethos questions how the writer/speaker is to present their argument, and Pathos is all about emotion (boo hoo, woo hoo, etc.). Essentially, that IS what an argument is (or at least a point of): trying to persuade another to believe that their thinking is the "right way."