"Seeing the Text" in an argument from Stephen A. Bernhardt that favors, or at least focuses, the importance of the way the text is seen visually, leading to a more appealing hierarchy for readers to follow and easier organization for the writer to deal with to academic writers who believe that the text itself is the main aspect of writing overall. Using this "graphic potential" (ROW, 36), papers could then be organized to whatever fits the written material, so if someone wants to create a scientific paper on a particular subject, or write a flyer for religious purpose, then the two pieces do not have to conform to each others rules so thoroughly, because as Bernhardt comments, the true purpose of such information of such work "suggests that visual perception works to pull out figures out of the background, to give them definition against the undistinguished field in which they are located." (ROW, 39) In other words, the figure compliments, or supports, the text in a way the words themselves cannot on their own.
This idea returns to Greene's "Argument As Conversation," where Green talks about on how conservations, as arguments, are meant to be communicated to a more social surrounding; bringing the material to a bigger setting beyond the writer himself. Bernhardlt's answer to bring such writing to that surrounding is to craft forms to support whatever text is needed for a specific organization, while Greene would say that the illusion of dialogue (through framing, identification, research, and the understanding of the material) is plenty to get by. However, while their forms are different, both their conclusions reach the same conclusion: to craft creative writing, the connections between the communication of readers and the author himself will entirely depend on whenever or not the author can successfully explain his position on an argument as effectively as possible through any means necessary.
To take an example, there's Monday paper for The Post. In the article "Athens voters still lean left, data shows," 10 paragraphs are created to support the headline that Athens voters still believe in a more Democratic government, and to communicate the info, the paragraphs arrive at their point through economic means, arriving at their point efficiently as possible for the reader to understand the material on a whole. Just in case the text can't communicate, an image is present, where one color overwhelms the others in a southeast corner. And to explain the colors that are communicated in the image, information and percentage on few of the counties are used to support the purpose, making sure the information reaches to the reader and doesn't come away from the article with any sort of confusion about Athens voters.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling
To Bernhardt, the biggest advantage for using partitioning is that the reader can process the materiel is any way that appeal to him (or her), reading at a non-linear pace that will eventually arrive at the overall purpose and be satisfied with the outcome, instead of following the dictation of the author and feel like there was no control towards the text. As for the writer, if used correctly, partitioning can reveal divisions for the whole passage, lending the author to focus on sublevels of the text without losing the overall purpose; the more he splits the material into a easily formed structure, the easier it will be for the purpose to come through. As such, headings without writing might be appropriate to use if its' used to reveal what the text means as quickly as possible, summarize the entire text in an effective sentence that who reads the material can understand before reading, or be the entire text for the reader to grasps the attention of the reader to learn more about the subject.
Applying and Exploring Ideas
In the article, Bernhardt summarizes on how to be "visually informative" with (visual) gestalt as such: If used correctly, gestalt will bring variation of the surface that "offers aesthetic possibilities," "attract or reader through the shape of the text," "laws of equilibrium," "good continuation," "good figure," "closure," and "similarity" (ROW 43). Knowing these terms, the article shows me that Berhandt wants me to look at text in a more visual level, where instead of judging academic writings by the structure of the text, I should really take into consideration the context of formation, where it's really the way I perceive the length of the paragraphs that will determine on whenever or not future papers will hold my interest. As for the article itself, it explains why Bernhandt argues in favor for the form of the text rather than the complexity of the material presented to me.
After You Read
Thinking back to McCloud's point that pictures, though fluid, change their meaning by appearance, leading to readers to either see either ideas, themselves or someone else, I would say that McCloud would represent Bernhardt's point by, perhaps, expressing approval of a more pictorial style, where readers can see the ideas, or themselves, much more clearly. As such, McCloud's whole purpose, his words that speak for him, is now in the forefront, despite Bernhardt's argument being aimed towards the text than a transition of words to icons. The result would probably be an amusing comic on how the form of the text means to the audience, leading to how artists will draw the pictures--along with putting the effort of corresponding the text with the images--to make audiences see themselves and make the material more appealing to them somehow.
Meta Moment
Now what do I think is most appropriate for particular visually thinking contexts? As I mentioned before, a newspaper has to communicate info to readers efficiently as possible, so if, say, a heading is needed for a reader to completely understand the forthcoming article, I have no trouble calling it necessary. There's also graphic novels, where in a primary visual business, the text has to create visuals that supports the attention of the readers, or else the whole core will have to support itself through means beyond the material based on the writings. McCloud's comic about using cartoons for the expression of the self, other, or idea brings visual thinking into a presentation of text that relates to this article, where the theory of who presents the matter is not important, but the expression of the ideals of the author that related to the ideals of the reader is could bring the presentation to a much more easily understandable aid; the reader can now see the his/the author's point instead of figuring out for itself what exactly the point is through his own imagination.
All in all, I can see why Bernhardt argues so hard for more visuals means of text. The looming rumors of the newspaper's demise are still in the air, and from my experiences, the complaints of reading book for school purposes are still as loud as they were decades ago. Even the length of any kind of work could determine on whenever or not I (and for that matter, anyone) will pace myself, so I'm guilty of visual means myself. Is that a bad thing? Does the problem lie with the predilections of television (or for my generation's taste, Netflix streaming, with Youtube videos on the side) around my area? I'm not sure, but if Bernhardlt is suggesting that text should follow in the wake of the appeal of what can be seen for text, I cannot say I blame him for thinking that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment