I feel like I should direct everyone to the blog I wrote
last week. Solomon was published; so,
apparently, I was on to something (just saying). However, I think it should stay in last week.
I would like to dissect how the graphics are incorporated into the
writing. In Martin Solomon’s piece there
are more graphics than text (thanks Doug)!
But what we are really seeing here is a form of critical photo essay. Specifically,
I like how Solomon still uses graphics to display the quotes for his argument.
He shows us two different styles of graphic quotes.
The first one (figure 6) is large and easy to read. With a
quick cast of the eyes, the quote and the graphic are understood; this style
can be best utilized with shorter “quicker” quotes that are quickly recognizable
to the reader. What is important to note is how the quote steals your attention
being placed inside a rectangular box. We can consider a quote a form of
graphic that we use constantly within writing, but this style develops is a
multi-layered eye catcher that extends its rhetorical effect. It seems more prominent;
it commands more attention; it forces you to undeniably acknowledge the quote.
This is the biggest stylistic lesson that I will take away from Solomon’s
format.
The
second graphic quote is radically different in style. I acknowledge that this
was not his intent, but regardless the style is present. The graphic (figure 7)
has a much more cluttered feel to it. There are to large bold number figures
that draw your eyes away from the quote originally. The quote itself is smaller
and condensed within yet another layer (designated by the line just above the
quote, and the line just below it). This graphic requires much more of our
attention. Not only are there multiple, overpowering distractions, we are
forced to focus closer on the text. I believe this technique can be used to
draw the reader into “deeper” more involved quotes.
I must admit that I have become so used to seeing graphics included in the pages of texts that I have quit considering their rhetorical value as I should. I am glad that you point out the importance of these graphics and what they can do for readers. In many ways, withdrawing information from within the main textual body makes me think of it as important and in need of further explanation. Therefore, I devote more attention to an analysis of a graphic than I might for traditional text. Perhaps I should consider illustrating my own key points with graphics in certain situations for the sake of explanations and emphasis.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do have one question I would ask concerning the use of graphics embedded in text. Is there a point at which they become too overwhelming? For me, Solomon's widespread use of graphics became less interesting due to the graphics' constant appearances.