Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film by Michael Moore that was released in 2004. Among other claims, it includes the charge that George W. Bush's campaign essentially stole the 2000 election, that Bush was unprepared for 9/11, and that Bush and his top officials mislead the American public while pushing for war with Iraq.
The film has plenty of interesting rhetoric, some of which is a little controversial. For example, after the film's opening credits, the screen goes blank and the audience is left to hear audio recorded during the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. It produces a stunning effect, even for someone who has heard the audio before. Dissociated with any visual cues, the audience is forced to conjure up images themselves when they hear the panicked audio. However, immediately after this isolated audio, Moore begins his charges against Bush's preparedness for the attacks. I personally felt like this was sort of a cheap trick to play to the audience's emotions. Obviously the attack was a catastrophic event that changed the course of American history, but Moore uses audio from the event to get the audience worked up, then attacks Bush. I feel like there was enough factual evidence in the movie to make people angry about Bush's handling of the attacks, and that this device was really unnecessary and probably drew more criticism to the film than was really necessary.
Speaking of the factual evidence, Moore has lots of it. He spends almost twenty minutes of the film documenting the Bush family's business ties to the Bin Laden family. It's an interesting point that raises questions about how much contact the families had prior to and following the attacks. More importantly, all of it is made using actual documents and facts, which I feel is more unilaterally effective than Moore's emotional appeals, because those tend to come off as cheap and tawdry. Much of the opposition to this film came from people who thought that Moore was kind of a bully, which honestly, I can understand. That shouldn't get in the way of the good points that he makes, but unfortunately, it does for some portions of the audience.
That's not to say that the film doesn't have sincerely powerful moments. At the end of the movie, Moore follows a mother whose son died in Iraq as she visits the White House for closure. She breaks down weeping, giving a face to some of the human suffering that has been a result of the war in Iraq. It's extremely touching, and is enough to get anyone to at least reconsider the war effort. Regardless of political affiliation, one must take this woman's pain seriously and recognize it as genuine. The fact that there are many more mothers who have lost children in the war only strengthens Moore's argument that war should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. Obviously Moore believes that the Iraq War is not necessary, and his arguments center around that. The effect of the emotional appeal at the end of the movie is likely conditional upon the political beliefs of each viewer, but in no way can the woman's pain be ignored.

Flow

This commercial was created by Gatorade in 2009. Its use of flow is interesting, because the flow of the commercial is directly tied to its music. There are no spoken parts except at the very end. Instead, the focus is on the combination of music and video to reach the audience. Because there is no verbal solicitation to buy the product, much of the commercial works implicitly. It has shots of athletes participating in their sports, and mixes obscure footage with famous footage (like Michael Jordan's shot to beat the Cleveland Cavaliers in the 1989 NBA Playoffs and David Tyree's spectacular catch in Super Bowl XLII).
The video moves very quickly from shot to shot with the beat of the music. It is mostly aimed at catching the viewer's attention and bombardic them with athletic actions and achievements. Though none of the athletes are seen drinking Gatorade, there are shots of people slamming down Gatorade bottles inter-cut with the actual athletic shots. This combines to imply that drinking Gatorade will make the viewer more athletically-inclined. By showing shots of the best athletes in the world and associating them with Gatorade, the company is hoping that anyone hoping to undertake in any athletic endeavors will go to Gatorade for their thirst-quenching needs.
Overall, I love the way the music and video work together in this ad. They not only allow for the unique flow, but also set the tone that Gatorade wants: that of intensity. The music is intense, the visuals are intense, and Gatorade hopes that its product will also be seen as intense.

"America, Seen Through Photographs, Darkly" -Susan Sontag

For class, we had to read an essay called "America, Seen Through Photographs, Darkly" from Susan Sontag's book On Photography. The essay focuses on the effects of photographs on the perceived importance of their subjects. Sontag argues that photography has gradually evolved from depicting idealized images to idealizing depicted images. In other words, photography has gradually equalized all of the things it depicts so that beauty can be found in any image. Sontag cites Walt Whitman's work as evidence of an emerging trend in democratizing all aspects of art. Whitmanesque thinking applied towards photography contends that photographs that are not of inherently beautiful subjects are more meaningful, because the beauty in them must be searched for.
Immediately after presenting this argument, however, Sontag brings up the work of Diane Arbus, whose work Sontag describes as "anti-humanist." Sontag explains that Arbus' intent was to ignore beauty altogether and depict the strangeness that she saw as inherent in the world, an ideology in conflict with Whitman's humanist opinion of beauty being in everything. Sontag argues that Arbus' views do not necessarily clash with Whitman's, however, because they both "rule out a historical understanding of reality" by depicting things that are different from what is typically perceived of as "normal."
Sontag then goes into great detail about Arbus' work and method of photography. At one point, Sontag describes Arbus' ideology as viewing the photographer as a kind of "supertourist," only briefly visiting the world of the weird and not attempting to give it any context within the rest of society. Arbus seems to have focused more on the experience of the photographer than on the actual subject of the photograph. The photographs of "freaks," as Arbus called them, were meant to convey the experience of the photograph being taken and then get the audience to empathize with the photographer's foray into the sub-cultural world the photographs were taken in. This kind of "photographer as character" was meant to shock audiences and react against the perception of cultural normality.
If all of that sounds complicated, it is. Sontag's assessment of Arbus' work is comprehensive in scope. It is clear that Sontag knows Arbus' work well. It was definitely an interesting read, because it profiled a photographer who basically challenged the purpose of art. Arbus was reacting against the status quo in all senses: politically, culturally, artistically. I wouldn't say I agreed with all of Arbus' ideas. The presentation of the artist as the central point of an artistic work is fascinating but only works to certain degrees. Sontag noted that once people see things they aren't used to enough, they become desensitized. Similarly, people eventually become desensitized to the artist's process and accept any irregularities as relatively normal. Nonetheless, it was a thoroughly interesting essay that presented challenging ideas not just about photography, but on the nature and purpose of art as a whole.

Visual Rhetoric Analysis

Today in class, we learned how to analyze pictures for visual rhetoric. Then, we were assigned to find our own image and analyze the visual rhetoric present in that particular image. Naturally, I forgot about this until about half an hour ago (9:15), despite the assignment being due at 8:00. As you can imagine, I was pretty bummed. I mean, this was my first assignment in the class, and I totally missed the bus! In a fit of dejection, I decided to check the website of one of my favorite bands so that I could delay this already late assignment even further. To my immense surprise, they had just announced that over the past five days they had recorded an album and released it for free on the internet! Don't get me wrong, I was still pretty mad at myself for forgetting the assignment, but this made my evening so much better! With this prologue of sorts in mind, I'd like to direct you to my image:

Image from Bomb the Music Industry!'s tumblr page (image link here)

This image is certainly not an example of photojournalism. It visual rhetoric is not inherently obvious, because visual rhetoric makes an argument about something. Because the image does not depict any event or zeitgeist, its rhetoric is subtle. It was released two days ago as a hint that the band was recording an album, something not announced until today. But this photo also provides insight into the band's recording process and mindset during this time. So, what kind of visual rhetoric does it use to convey these things?

Subject Matter- The first things the eye is drawn to in the photograph are the instruments (a guitar and a saxophone, plus another guitar that is harder to see) and the case for some equipment. Further inspecting the photo, one finds that, in addition to the music equipment, there appear to be many things one would find in a home: a bed, drawers, a large record collection. So, one can infer that the recording (at least a portion of it) was done in one of the band member's rooms! (For someone familiar with the band, that is not particularly surprising.)

Focus- The image's focus on music equipment instead of the room that the equipment is in reveals that the band is more focused on the recording process than the normal order of day-to-day life. It shows that the band is willing to sacrifice the comfort of the home in order to make music, which is particularly inspiring.

Audience- This is one of the most important parts of considering the photo's visual rhetoric. The intended audience is close-readers of the band's website (like myself). It was intended to provide a hint that the band was recording something. So its meaning is much more valuable to their fans than to someone who casually sees the image on a student's blog post.

Medium- This image was released online, allowing followers of the band to see it quickly and extrapolate that the band was recording. Had it been a physical photo, it is unlikely that anyone outside of the band would have seen it.

Context- The image had no real context at the time. It was released on line with no accompanying description. Now, of course, it is obvious that the photo was taken during recording.

Action/Static Shot- The image's static nature implies that the equipment in the room has some sort of permanence. Nothing is moving, which means that the space will not be ready to revert back to a simple bedroom immediately. This may speak to the feelings associated with the recording process. In order to record and release an album in five days, a lot of work has to go into it over that period of time. During the recording, it may have felt like it was a permanent process.

And that is the visual rhetoric of a picture I found on Bomb the Music Industry!'s tumblr page! Sorry for the lateness. (For the record, the album is excellent.)