After finishing both readings that were assigned it was interesting to see how differently they were written. One was quite straight forward in it's words and how it rhetoric was described, and one was questioning things more, really tearing rhetoric apart, and trying to figure things out.
In Meggs article there was a quote that was said by Hanno Ehses, "Broadly defined, rhetoric is the art that deals with the use of spoken or written discourse. Its object is eloquence, which is defined as effective speech. According to Aristotle, its concern is with 'discovering all the available means of persuasion in any given situation' either to inform (rational appeal), to delight and win over (ethical appeal) or to move (emotional appeal) an audience." I found this quote interesting because sometimes not all graphic design, or advertisements are any of those means of persuasion. Some are down right wrong, and send messages that the public could do with out. Such as, the typical fast food advertising. I can't see fast food advertisements being rational, ethical, or emotional. Maybe I'm thinking of it in the wrong way though. I'm thinking of this as more of the position of the graphic designer. So, making advertisements for McDonald's doesn't seem like a very ethical thing, because everyone knows that a McDonald's double cheeseburger and large fries can't be good for your insides. I could also be bitter, because I support those advertisements by visiting McDonald's every so often. It was also nice to have all the definitions right in front of me about all the different types of rhetoric there are.
Moving on to the Bonsiepe reading...
Within this article I found some of the points made were a bit of my head, and I had to read them a few times to really "get it". I really enjoyed how Bonsiepe brought some familiar definitions about semantics. It was nice to see the bridge being made between the two things we've learned. Rhetoric is semantics for the most part. All of the things involved are either indexes, symbols, or icons. Thinking of rhetoric in this way makes me really want to revisit all the things we did last spring semester, and figure out how I even thought about signs. One part did really get me going, "huh?" which was When Bonsiepe starts talking about how certain designers are "blinded by their effort to impart objective information. They cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that advertising is addressed information, and that its information content is often secondary if it plays any role at all." I can read what it's saying, but I can't really digest it.