For this assignment you must identify a specific complex visal artefact or close

For this assignment you must identify a specific complex visal artefact or closely related group of visual artefacts that would benefit from rhetorical analysis. Ideally, these artefacts would be drawn from an area where you either have special expertise or substantial interest in learning more about how the artefact(s) set(s) about persuading the(ir) intended audience(s). We’ll provisionally term this artefact or group of artefacts “X” and your final project is, at root, “The Visual Rhetoric of X”. “The Visual Rhetoric of X” should be understood as a sustained and scholarly critique and analysis of how and whether the visual rhetorical choices within your chosen “X” are effective for the intended audience(s) or not, with recommendations for improvement being a possible approach to your conclusion.
This project will involve three deliverables: 1) an in-class pecha-kucha . presentation directed at your fellow students in WRIT 3671; 2) a speaking script for the presentation with full citations for all texts that contributed to your argument; and 3) a brief (roughly 750 word) reflection on the visual and design choices you made in your presentation, and why you believe them have been effective for your intended audience(s). Though the format of this project may be non-traditional, my expectations for depth of analysis, clarity, and effective citation practices remain high. For example, I expect that your analysis will be grounded in one or more of the analytical tools we’ve been studying (e.g. Aristotle’s appeals, Phillips’ and McQuarrie’s matrix). Further, I expect you to use one of the existing and recognized systems for scholarly citation (and not simply provide links or URLs). As you prepare the elements of your project, please keep the following guidelines in mind:
Your goal is not to show that something is persuasive or effective in the abstract. Rather your goal is to show an artefact is persuasive or effective for its intended audiences. The more you can show or prove or demonstrate about that audience, the better.
Ground your claims. Take steps to ensure that every claim you present has the amount and kind of support needed to connect with your intended audiences.
Describe in order to argue. Description — especially in a time when readers can often be offered easy access to the artefact you’re examining in screenshot form— is of limited value. Description that is needed to set up an argumentative point is valuable for your readers. Pure description untethered to an argument is, perhaps, not.
Your presentation may be recorded or live. In either case, you will be at the front of the room for the duration of the presentation and field questions and comments for 3-5 minutes after your presentation.
Also, note: I will be assessing the effectiveness of your visual presentation of your argument. I will be evaluating the surface of that argument. That said, I will not be evaluating the hours spent achieving particular visual effects or wrestling with a complex software program. Be mindful of the time spent chasing the “just so” visual or multimodal effect. Make sure that these expenditures of time and effort do not come at the cost of a clearly presented argument.
To maximize your opportunity for a successful project, I will be requiring a project proposal. A successful proposal should be a solid, weighty paragraph with the following elements clearly articulated:
1) The topic and artefact that fills in the blank in “The Visual Rhetoric of ________________” and whether you are pursuing synchronic (snapshot in time) analysis, diachronic (over a stretch of time) analysis or some other structure.
2) The recognized rhetorical tool or tools that you anticipate using to analyze and interpret the visual artefacts you have selected.
3) The core argument you anticipate making about the topic you have selected (I expect this will evolve and change as you develop the project).