Short Essay 2

Bill Schaff

Writ 1122

Professor Leake

February 20, 2013

“Faces of the Day”… Analyzed

           

            Andrew Sullivan on his blog forwards an article from Andrew Cush and Jakob Schiller. The blog post is called “Faces of the Day”. This article is about a man named John Schnabel who, back in the 90’s, was taking photos of planes from the end of the runway. It was about how this was acceptable back then but would raise some controversy in today society. In this article, Sullivan compares the writings from Cush and Schiller to show the meaning of two photos but does not include his own opinion on it.

            The photos in the article are the entire story. While yes the article does a great job of describing the picture, the text does not have the same power that the picture has. In Sullivan’s article, the pictures are placed at the very top of the article, right below the title and above the text. By doing this, Sullivan is showing the importance of these pictures. If the pictures were placed on the side or bottom, they would not have the same meaning. Having the pictures at the top makes readers think about the pictures and what they might mean or represent. It leaves some uncertainty for the reader so they are intrigued as to what the photos may represent. This makes the reader want to continue reading the article and find out the whole story.

            Next is the importance of the connection between the photos, article, and the readers. At the time these pictures were taken, they would not raise any problems but that changed with time. “John Schnabel took these eerie stills using means that might have landed him in jail or an interrogation room today,” notes Andy Cush. Back when the photos were taken there was, as Cush puts it, “not the same kind of suspicion of cameras.” People in this time would not see a man taking photos as something bad. Whereas in today society, if a man was seen at an airport taking photos of planes, he would be assumed to be plotting something bad. When the reader understands this part of the article they get a different feeling toward the photos. The reader will look back at the photos with a new understanding. Because the photos and the article are together, it allows the reader to constantly look back at the photos as he or she is reading it. This gives the reader a way to constantly connect with the photos.

            Lastly is the importance of the pictures and the caption, or lack there of. By Sullivan not putting a caption under the photos, Sullivan wants the reader to question what the photos is and what it means before he or she reads the article. The idea is that the reader will see the photos and make his or her own opinion on it before he or she actually finds out what it means from the article. Most likely, because of today society, individuals will look at these photos and assume something bad. He or she will assume that the photos were discovered in a plot to take down a plane or something along those lines. Because there is no caption, it allows the reader to make his or her own opinion before finding out the true meaning of the photos from the article.

             All in all, the photos have a huge connection between the article and its readers. From the placement of the photos to how a reader will be able to reference the photos as they are reading it and even the meaning of not having a caption. Without the photos in this article, the article would not have the same deep meaning to its readers.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/24/face-of-the-day-103/

Are the 1000 Words Associated with Pictures True?

           Morris notes in his article, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire”, that the relationship between images and beliefs are completely changed when there is a caption versus not having a caption. Without a caption on the image there is so much room for interpretation. For example, when I looked at the image of the ship with no caption in Morris’s article, I really had no feelings about it. It was just another ship, I thought it was possibly the Titanic but was not sure. But, when he added the caption The Lusitania and put a description to it, the meaning completely changed to me. Now this was not just another ship but it was one of the reasons that we entered WWI. I now felt a sense of compassion and sadness when looking at this photo. My beliefs changed entirely when just a simple caption was added to the photo.

            I have had personal experiences when dealing with photos with no captions. When I was around 14 years old my family had a bunch of photos that we had not put into albums yet. They were photos of my brother, sister, and I. There was a separate pile of photos for each of us so we knew which were the ones of ourselves. I spent a lot of time looking through the photos of my young childhood because I could not remember a lot it. The photos were a way of recreating the memories for me. But, as I found out a few years later when we made the albums, almost half of the photos in my pile were of my brother and not me. I had no idea of this. For almost two years I was looking at photos of by brother and thinking that the activities he was doing was me.

            In reading the New York Times after reading Morris’s article, I came across an article that was about $50,000,000 worth of diamonds being stolen from an airport when it was being loaded onto a plane. Because I had just read Morris’s article I looked at the picture before reading the article and it just looked like men putting up a barrier along an already existing fence. After reading the article and looking back at the image I felt more of a connection with the picture. The article explained how armed men disguised as police officers drove onto the tarmac armed to a teeth and stole the diamonds. Luckily no one was hurt but now when I look back at the image of the men building the barrier, I see the purpose behind it. I understand the need for the barrier (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/world/europe/thieves-steal-millions-in-diamonds-at-brussels-airport.html?hp&_r=0).

            With out a caption or previous knowledge a picture can be just as informative as it is uninformative. It can miss lead you, like in the picture of the Lusitania, or it can not tell you the whole story, like in the picture of the men building a barrier. I believe that without captions or text to go along with pictures, the meaning should only be loosely understood. 

Taking an Approach

            In Joseph Harris’s book Rewriting; Harris explains his idea of Taking an Approach. This idea of taking an approach has two meanings behind it, a week and a strong way to take a approach. A week approach is when someone adopts the ideas of another writing using quotes. Harris defines this as someone who is, “adopting (rather than adapting) the moves and interests of another writer.” A strong approach is basically the same thing as a week but with out using quotes. A person will transform an entire piece of writing and use the writer as an influence.

            There are three basic ideas on how a writer can take an approach. They are Acknowledging Influences, Turning an approach on itself, and reflexivity.

            Acknowledging influences has three ways of looking at your own work to see if someone has influenced it. The first on is by Defining Concerns. When an individual defines concerns, he or she asks what kind of writing they typically write? What kind of questions does he or she ask? And what texts and materials tend to attract his or her attention. Second we have Characteristic Methods. In characteristic methods a writer looks at his or her work and asks how does he or she go about answering the problems posed or questions asked? Does he or she interview or observe others? And does he or she survey previous research? Lastly, there is Style. Style is simply what sort of person you sense behind the writing.

            Turning an approach on itself is simply reading a writing and then asking the same sort of questions that he or she asks about others.

            Reflexivity is defined by Harris as, “When a writer reflects on the choices that he or she has made in taking a certain approach or in making use of a particular term.”

            All in all, Taking as approach was best described to me through on of Harris’s examples. He explains how when a producer is taking a book to turn into a movie, the producer has to creatively use the book as an influence. The movie cannot be the same as the book because it would not sell. The producer has to expand on the ideas of the book to make the movie unique but still following the main points of the book.

            

A Pep Talk: Revised

A Pep Talk: Revised

By: Bill Schaff

The story I chose to rewrite is from Kid President’s post on his blog, A Pep Talk (http://kidpres.tumblr.com/). This piece is a short inspirational video to inspire young children of this generation to be different and to never give up. Kid President brings up a lot of points that are meant to inspire kids but I believe that the ideas can be applied to adults as well.

Many people may not see how an eight-year-old child could have inspirational ideas but a young boy named Kid President defies that. Kid President made a short inspirational video, called A Pep Talk, to help young kids get inspired to be different and never give up. I see this video as one to inspire every generation. His ideas may sound childish but they have a meaning for everyone to understand and to relate to.

Kid President starts his video by saying, “The world need to stop being boring because boring is easy”. While yes it is easy to be boring, there is a much more applicable message to this. He is saying that the world needs to be different. It’s the people who break the molds of a normal society that are truly happy and successful. By being different and unique, adults will find that your life is much more interesting and enjoyable. Next, Kid President explains how to not be boring, “Air coming through my nose, a heart beat, that means its time to do something”. Now besides the grammatical errors, Kid President is getting at that as long as we are alive and breathing we should never give up. For a parent, think of when your kid was growing up. There were definitely some hard times that you though you could not keep going but you did, you made it through This must be applied to every part of your life. Basically, if you still have a breath left in your body you will keep trying and it’s when you given up that you have failed and are being “Boring”.

Following this, Kid President makes the most important point, “Don’t stop believing… unless your dreams are stupid.” You need to follow your dreams but know your limits. If your dream is so outlandish, like living on the sun, don’t give up on dreams, keep searching until you find a new one. Then Kid President gives an example of this, “What if Michael Jordan quit in high school, he would not have made space jam, and I love Space Jam.” If you give up before you have given it your all then you are not reaching your potential. Think back to when you were in college during finals week, how many times did it feel like you had so much to do that it was impossible to get it all done. But, in the end you did get it done and made it through exams. Nobody knows what you will create or do in your lifetime but if you give up one thing is certain, you will never know where it could have taken you.

Next, Kid President says, “Life is not a cereal, well actually it is.” Besides the comical value in this, he is making a very realistic quote. Life is not like cereal where when you open the box and know exactly what you are getting. The only way to know what life is going to bring you is to “open the box”. Now think back to when you were 15, did you ever think you would hold the current job or position that you do? Did you ever think that you would end up in the city that you are living in? You have to try things and experience them to actually figure where they will take you.

            So after all that Kid President has said, I challenge you to this. You need to stop being boring because boring is easy. As long as there is air coming through your nose and a heart beat in your chest you have to keep trying. You can never ever give up on your dreams, if Michael Jordan would have given up, he would have never made one of his greatest things of his career, Space Jam. It’s time for you to make your “Space Jam” for the world. Also, don’t stop believing in yourself unless your dreams are extremely outlandish and if they are, find a new dream. The only way to figure out what life is going to give you is to “open the cereal box” and see where it will take you. Now everybody has a duty to give the world a reason to dance, so get to it. 

Countering

            Joseph Harris’s idea of Countering is not a way to only bash on an authors but rather a way to prove to them why they are wrong. It is showing the author that their ideas are “partial” and telling them how to make them “whole”. Harris has three main points to Countering and they are; Arguing the other side, Uncovering values, and Dissenting.

            Arguing the other side is showing why something the author has criticized is correct or why one of their arguments is not correct. In this method, Harris says that you are supposed to add to what the author is saying; you are not telling them why they are wrong but rather why it is incomplete.

            Uncovering Values is a way to explain words and ideas that writers have not explained in their writing. To me, this is a way to use writer’s own words against them. If they do not completely define or explain a word or idea, you can add your own meaning to it in order show why they are not correct.

            Dissenting is showing a shared thought in order to show its limits. I see this as a way to show that the author was on the right path but did not make the right conclusion in the end. You can show where the writer’s ideas went wrong and include your own to show how to make it right.

            In all of this I think that Harris is missing one key feature, over thinking. For example, in the idea of “Arguing the other side”, Harris uses the example of how Berger “Counters” Clarks writing about nakedness and nudity in paintings. Berger “Counters” how there is a deeper meaning to nudity in art but that is not what Clark was trying to say. While yes Berger was adding to the conversation and pushing the idea of nudity in paintings, he was adding a point that Clark never brought up. All Clark was saying in his writing was that there is a difference between nudity and nakedness in paintings, not that nudity has a much more underlying meanings to it. In this case, Berger was not “Countering” but rather “Building” upon what Clark wrote.

            The author of this blog post used an example of countering. The author understood what points Harris was making about Countering and added to them. He showed that there is a difference between Countering a text and Building upon a text.