COURSE DESCRIPT ION ENGL 5614 examines the theories, research, and practices of visual rhetoric and document design, exploring how images and other visual methods of communication influence audiences. Whether we understand rhetoric as the “available means of persuasion” or meaning making practices more generally, the visual has long played a significant role in shaping both persuasion and meaning. We will focus on the visual across four general themes: spectatorship, representation, surveillance, and intervention. In doing so, we will explore visual rhetoric from multiple angles—as the viewer, the designer, and the subject of observation—and we will discuss the cultural, political, and ideological dimensions and impacts of visual rhetoric. Drawing from scholarship in rhetoric and writing studies, technical communication, cultural studies, communication, visual culture, art history, design, and film, we will consider the theoretical dimensions of visual rhetoric, and we will also compose a number of visual productions. In doing so, we will come to a better understanding of the complex considerations and processes involved in seeing as a way of knowing, imaging as a way of producing subjectivity, and spectatorship as symbolic action.

LEARNING OUTCOMES With successful completion of this course, you will be able to:

• Understand the relationship between visuality, persuasion, and the rhetorical production of meaning.

• Analyze the visual conventions deployed and/or endorsed by various institutions.

• Describe the social, cultural, and political impacts of visual rhetoric.

• Apply visual rhetoric principles to produce digital and visual media.

• Articulate the meanings and scope of visual rhetoric, including its pertinence to textual artifacts, cultural rhetorics, disability rhetorics and embodiment, ideology and power via rhetorics of surveillance and rhetorics of dissent, institutional rhetorics, research methodology, writing instruction, and technical communication.

VISUAL RHETORIC + document design

E N G L 5 6 1 4 | S P R I N G 2 0 1 8 | W 4 - 6 : 5 0 P M | T O R G E S E N 1 1 4 0

INSTRUCTOR Dr. Sano-Franchini

Shanks Hall 408

W 2-3 PM + by appointment

sanojenn@vt.edu

@jsanofranchini

540-231-6918

saw no frank KEY knee

PRONUNCIATION GUIDE

Sano-Franchini

REQUIRED TEXTS PDFs in Canvas > Files

ASSIGNMENTS a. annotated bibl iography (20%)

Each week, you will be required to submit annotations for each of the assigned readings. For each annotation, include:

1) a brief summary (not more than a few sentences), including the purpose, methodology, and 1-2 key points from the text;

2) a brief discussion of how the text connects to your academic interests, OR, how does the text take up, define, or deploy visual rhetoric?;

3) a compelling discussion question (optional).

Annotations should be no shorter than 4 sentences, and no longer than two paragraphs, give or take. By the end of the semester, you will have a full annotated bibliography on visual rhetoric that can be used to produce a literature review for an essay, as well as for future reference.

Your annotations will be graded based on the following criteria: • includes the components listed above (summary, connections, an optional compelling question); • demonstrates a clear, thoughtful, and engaged understanding of the text(s).

Due to Canvas > Discussion every Tuesday by 11:59 PM.

b. visualizing self (5%) For your first hands-on assignment, you will use Word, Pages, Photoshop, Keynote, PowerPoint, Prezi, Illustrator, pen and paper, and/or some other tool to create a visualization that represents who you are as a scholar, teacher, intellectual, and as a person. We will use these visualizations to introduce ourselves to one another.

Due to Canvas > Discussion by Wednesday, January 17.

c. theorizing visual rhetoric (5%) After reading several texts that articulate various authors’ understandings of visual rhetoric, you will use Word, Pages, Photoshop, Keynote, PowerPoint, Prezi, Illustrator, pen and paper, and/or some other tool to create a visualization that demonstrates your understanding of what visual rhetoric is or is not, what visual rhetoric does, or does not do.

Due to Canvas > Discussion by Wednesday, January 31. �2

ACCESSIBIL ITY If you need adaptations or accommodations because of a disability (learning disability, psychological, physical, etc.); if you have emergency medical information to share with me; or if you need special arrangements in case the building must be evacuated, please make an appointment with me as soon as possible. To receive accommodations for any disability, you may also contact Services for Students with Disabilities (310 Lavery Hall, 430 Old Turner Street; 231-3788; ssd@vt.edu).

If you do not have a documented disability, keep in mind that other support services, including Innovation Space, the Writing Center, and Cook Counseling Center, are available to all students. Your success in this class is important to me. If there are circumstances that may affect your performance in this class, let me know as soon as possible so that we can work together to develop strategies for adapting assignments to meet both your needs and the requirements of the course.

Participation10%

Final Project20%

Instr Media5%

Interface15%

Infographic15%

Concept5%

Viz Rhet5%

Viz Self5%

Annotated Bib20%

d. concept visualization (5%) For this assignment, you will produce a visual representation of a concept from one or more of our readings up until this point. For example, you might produce a visual representation of: spectatorship, representation, the gaze, image vernaculars, visual politics, etc. as articulated within the readings.

Due to Canvas > Discussion by Wednesday, February 28.

e. scholarly infographic (15%) You will design an infographic that presents the purpose and key points of one scholarly book on visual rhetoric (see Appendix A: Book Options for Scholarly Infographic). Your infographic should identify the purpose of the book, its audience(s), its methodology, its contributions to one or more areas of scholarship, its contributions to your understanding of visual rhetoric, 2-3 key points or concepts, 2-3 key quotes.

Examples: Thinker/Thought; Judith Butler Explained with Cats

Due to Canvas > Discussion by Monday, March 19.

f. interface analysis (15%) For this assignment, you will produce a conference-length (8-10 page) paper that performs a visual rhetorical analysis of a digital interface of your choice.

Due to Canvas > Assignments by Wednesday, April 4.

g. instructional media re-design (10%) For the Instructional Media Re-design, you will use what you have learned in class up until this point to (re-)design some teaching material(s). You will also need to include a brief description of the goal of the re-design. If applicable, you might include a before/after comparison. For example, you can:

• Use readings and discussion from class to re-design a handout or set of documents for a class that you teach to more purposefully consider the visual rhetoric and accessibility of those materials.

• Design a module or lesson for a writing course that aims to introduce students to the theory and practice of visual rhetoric, design, and/or visual literacies.

• Create a handout or infographic designed to teach students who come to the Writing Center or who you otherwise work with some helpful concepts about the theory and practice of visual rhetoric, design, and/or visual literacies.

Due to Canvas > Assignments by Friday, April 27.

�3

Design gives students’ work social and political impact and allows them

to learn how to represent new forms of knowledge. To establish a balanced rhetorical approach…we must

offer students experiences both in the analytic process of critique, which scrutinizes conventional expectations and power relations, and in the transformative process of design, which can change power relations by creating a new vision of knowledge.

In terms of visual rhetoric, students need to learn the ‘distanced’ process of how to critique the saturated visual

and technological landscape that surrounds them as something structured and written in a set of

deliberate rhetorical moves.

h. final project: (re-)visualizing your professional self (15%)

For your final project, you will draw on our discussions, activities, workshops, and assignments over the course of the semester to produce a digital professional portfolio. In addition, you will write a reflexive critique of your portfolio that details your understanding of visual rhetoric, the decisions you made in creating the portfolio, what you learned over the course of that process, and any ambivalences you may have with the product at this point. Regardless of what your digital portfolio looks like, it should exhibit deep engagement with the texts and ideas discussed throughout the course.

Required deliverables: CV Re-Design, Work-in-Progress Presentation, Digital Portfolio, Reflexive Critique

Due to Canvas > Assignments by Saturday, May 6, 1:05 PM.

i . participation (10%)

The success of this class depends on your participation and open communication. Ten percent of your grade will be based on your contributions to class discussions and your engagement in class activities. Participation includes coming to class everyday, on time, and prepared, having completed the required readings and assignments, and ready for thoughtful and active engagement with each other. Participation also includes asking questions, attending office hours, sharing helpful links and media, providing feedback about the course, and engagement via email. All students are expected to participate in an active, open, and respectful manner, in small and large groups.

You are expected to be present at all class sessions. Because you must be present in class to participate, excessive tardies and absences will negatively affect your final grade. If you must be absent, please let me know in advance.

Here is a rough rubric of how participation grades will be distributed. Please note that the rubric cannot account for every example or situation, so take it as a guide:

A Student is clearly attentive to what is going on in class. They actively contribute to the class on a regular basis, and their contributions are helpful, insightful, and nuanced, at times encouraging us to think about the texts, the work, and/or the topic in an unexpected way. The student has not been absent more than once, and/or they provided notice of the extenuating circumstances that resulted in their absence.

A- Student seems to be attentive in class, and engages every so often. Their contributions are helpful, insightful and/or nuanced, at times encouraging us to think about the texts and the topic in an unexpected way. They have not been absent more than three times, and/or they provided a reasonable explanation of their absence.

B Student usually seems to be attentive in class, but engages minimally, perhaps contributing to the class only a few times over the course of the semester. Their contributions could do more to advance the class’ understanding of a text, concept, or technology in a helpful way. They seem to have done their work, but they do very little to positively contribute to the experience of others. They have not been absent more than four times, and they at times provided notice of their absence.

C Student is often inattentive during class, and rarely engages. Moreover, the student’s inattentiveness is at times distracting to others. They may have missed more than a month (five class sessions) of class sessions, usually without any explanation.

D Student has attended class only a few times, and has not contacted the professor about their absences.

F Student has never attended the class.

�4

�5

GUIDELINES FOR CLASS CONDUCT All course participants are expected to be respectful of academic and personal differences that are present in this classroom and in our conversations, discussions, and interactions with one another. Anyone who exhibits disrespectful behavior will be asked to leave, and I will strongly recommend your removal from the course. In addition to a general standard of mutual respect in this classroom, all participants are asked to adhere to the following classroom policies:

Respectful and Empathic Listening Effective dialogue hinges on our ability to listen with the goal of understanding and building connections—even if we disagree with what is being said. To work toward understanding, we will respect that each person’s perspectives are valid, and that they come from a legitimate place. If we don’t understand those perspectives, we will ask questions and avoid making silent judgements.

Personal Responsibility We will use "I statements" (such as "I believe that…) rather than generalizing or provoking (but don't you think..?).

Collective Responsibility We will speak for ourselves and not for others (including groups to which we belong). Likewise, we will respond to content rather than personalize comments that are made.

Mindfulness We will be mindful of our personal impact on the group. Dominating discussions, interrupting others, arriving late, texting on your phone, checking Facebook, and eating or drinking noisily are examples of having a negative impact.

Confidentiality Any sensitive information about individuals shared during class discussion remains in the classroom.

Ongoing Development We will review our classroom protocol regularly to insure that we are meeting our expectations, and to determine if additional guidelines are needed.

*Adapted from presentation by Michelle Deramo, Assistant Provost of Diversity Education.

PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY All members of this course are expected to adhere to Virginia Tech’s Principles of Community http://www.diversity.vt.edu/principles-of-community/principles.html:

• We affirm the inherent dignity and value of every person and strive to maintain a climate for work and learning based on mutual respect and understanding.

• We affirm the right of each person to express thoughts and opinions freely. We encourage open expression within a climate of civility, sensitivity, and mutual respect.

• We affirm the value of human diversity because it enriches our lives and the University. We acknowledge and respect our differences while affirming our common humanity.

• We reject all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including those based on age, color, disability, gender, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veteran status. We take individual and collective responsibility for helping to eliminate bias and discrimination and for increasing our own understanding of these issues through education, training, and interaction with others.

• We pledge our collective commitment to these principles in the spirit of the Virginia Tech motto of Ut Prosim (That I May Serve).

HONOR CODE The Undergraduate Honor Code pledge that each member of the university community agrees to abide by states:

“As a Hokie, I will conduct myself with honor and integrity at all times. I will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor will I accept the actions of those who do.”

Students enrolled in this course are responsible for abiding by the Honor Code. A student who has doubts about how the Honor Code applies to any assignment is responsible for obtaining specific guidance from the course instructor before submitting the assignment for evaluation. Ignorance of the rules does not exclude any member of the University community from the requirements and expectations of the Honor Code.

For more information about the Honor Code, visit honorsystem.vt.edu/.

STUDENTS PERCEPTION OF TEACHING I encourage you to complete the Student Perceptions of Teaching (SPOT) survey at the end of the session. Your feedback is important for improving this course, as I often use students’ feedback to make adjustments in subsequent semesters.

�6

COURSE CALENDAR

introductions

Week 1 ∙ ∙ ∙

1/17

Introductions + Syllabus + How to Read for Grad School

Activity: Visualizing Self

Assignments Due - Visualizing Self

what is visual rhetoric?

Week 2 ∙ ∙ ∙

1/24

Bal, M. “The Commitment to Look” Barthes, R. “Rhetoric of the Image” (Excerpt) Blair, J.A. “The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments” Boone, E.H. “Aztec Pictorial Histories: Records without Words” Foss, S. “Theory of Visual Rhetoric”

Activity: Designing with Type; Document Design Basics

Assignments Due - Annotations for Bal,

Barthes, Blair, Boone, Foss due Tues 1/23.

what is visual rhetoric?

Week 3 ∙ ∙ ∙

1/31

Goggin, M.D. “Visual Rhetoric in Pens of Steel and Inks of Silk: Challenging the Great Visual/Verbal Divide”

Kress & von Leeuwen, Ch. 1 “The Semiotic Landscape: Language & Visual Communication” Olson, L.C. “Intellectual and Conceptual Resources for Visual Rhetoric: Examination of

Scholarship Since 1950” Scott, L.M. “Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric” Wysocki, A.F. “awaywithwords: On the possibilities in unavailable designs”

Activity: Theorizing Visual Rhetoric

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Goggin, Kress & von Leeuwen, Olson, Scott, Wysocki due Tues 1/30.

- Theorizing Visual Rhetoric

spectatorship, technology, & subjectivity

Week 4 ∙ ∙ ∙ 2/7

Berger, J. Ways of Seeing (Episode 1 & Episode 2) [Available on YouTube.com] Benjamin, W. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” Brueggemann, “The Coming Out of Deaf Culture and American Sign Language: An

Exploration into Visual Rhetoric and Literacy” Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” (Excerpt)

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Berger, Benjamin, Brueggemann, Mulvey due Tues 2/6.

spectatorship, technology, & subjectivity

Week 5 ∙ ∙ ∙

2/14

Berger, J. Ways of Seeing (Episode 3 & Episode 4) [Available on YouTube.com] hooks, b. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators” Rosner, M. ”Theories of visual rhetoric: Looking at the human genome” Vizenor, “Fugitive Poses”

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Berger, hooks, Rosner, Vizenor due Tues 2/13.

�7

“A naive but useful preliminary description of what a movie camera does would be to say that it registers a part of the world and projects what it registers onto a screen where we, as spectators, can share the protected vision enjoyed by the camera. The first qualification of this description would be to point out that the camera frames a particular vision; it subjectivises its registering (a word with strongly objective connotations) by such things as the distance it takes from objects, angles of vision, use of filters and colour, and the way it moves. The camera’s mobility in particular exposes it as a moving presence within the world it films, not an immobile eye with the privilege of seeing the world from some superior ‘outside’ position. But this very implication in what it registers not only deprives the camera of any presumed objectivity; it also means that what the spectator may think of as the passive object of his seeing is also looking at him. The voyeuristic enjoyment of being ‘let in on’ a world the camera has generously made available to our protective vision is naively unreflective; we are in reality confronted, looked at, by a point of view, a world already interpreted. And we are in turn interpreted, identified by that interpretation. The camera’s point of view on the world it films necessarily includes assumptions about the spectators of that world. Those who will watch the film have, in a sense, already been created by it. That’s how the camera looks at us; it imposes on our looking an identity already invented for us.”

—Dutoit & Bersani, Forms of Being: Cinema, Aesthetics, Subjectivity (144-5)

representations: photography

Week 6 ∙ ∙ ∙

2/21

Cloud, D. “To veil the threat of terror”: Afghan women and the clash of civilizations in the imagery of the US war on terrorism.”

Dolmage, J. “Framing Disability, Developing Race: Photography as Eugenic Technology” Edwards & Winkler. “The Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima

Image in Editorial Cartoons” Finnegan, C. “Recognizing Lincoln: Image Vernaculars in Nineteenth-Century Visual Culture” Frosh, P. “The Public Eye and the Citizen-Voyeur: Photography as a Performance of Power.”

Activity: Photoshop

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Cloud, Dolmage, Edwards & Winkler, Finnegan, Frosh due Tues 2/20.

representations: typography

Week 7 ∙ ∙ ∙

2/28

Brumberger, E.R. “The Rhetoric of Typography: The Awareness and Impact of Typeface Appropriateness”

Lupton, E. Selections from Thinking with Type Mackiewicz, J. “Audience Perceptions of Fonts in Projected PowerPoint Text Slides” Nichols, G.W. “Type Reveals Culture: A Defense of ‘Bad’ Type.” Lacher. “I’m Comic Sans, Asshole” (Online) NBA letter about Lebron James leaving Cleveland Cavaliers in Comic Sans Virginia Tech Brand Guide

Activity: Designing with Type II

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Brumberger, Mackiewicz, Nichols due Tues 2/27.

- Concept Visualization

S P R I N G B R E A K : 3 / 3 – 3 / 1 1

representations: charts + graphs

Week 9 ∙ ∙ ∙

3/14

Dragga and Voss. “Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations” McCloud, Scott. “Time Frames.” Mueller, D. “Grasping Rhetoric and Composition by Its Long Tail: What Graphs Can Tell Us

About the Fields Changing Shape” Walsh, L. “The Visual Rhetoric of Climate Change” Yau, N. “How to Spot Visualization Lies” (Online) xkcd. “Heatmap” (Online)

Activity: Illustrator

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Dragga & Voss, McCloud, Mueller, Walsh due Tues 3/13.

- Scholarly Infographic due Mon 3/19.

representations: digital interfaces

Week 10 ∙ ∙ ∙

3/21

Knight, Rife, et al. “About Face: Mapping Our Institutional Presence” McLuhan. “The Medium is the Message” Sidler and Jones. "Genetics Interfaces: Representing Science and Enacting Public Discourse

in Online Spaces" Selfe and Selfe. “The Politics of the Interface” Tufte, E. “PowerPoint is Evil” (Online)

Activity: Interface Analysis

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Knight, et al., McLuhan, Sidler & Jones, Selfe & Selfe due Tues 3/20.

surveillance: visibility, power, and the state

Week 11 ∙ ∙ ∙

3/28

Beck, E. N. “The Invisible Digital Identity: Assemblages in Digital Networks.” Foucault, M. “Panopticism.” From Discipline and Punish. Ohl, J.J. “Nothing to See or Fear: Light War & the Boring Visual Rhetoric of US Drone

Imagery” Ornatowski & Pottathil. “Digital Communications Surveillance: A Challenge for Rhetoric

Studies” Towns, A.R. “That Camera Won’t Save You! The Spectacular Consumption of Police Violence”

Activity: Workshop Interface Analysis Papers

Assignments Due - Annotations for Beck,

Foucault, Ohl, Ornatowski & Pottathil, Towns due Tues 3/27.

�8

This syllabus is inspired by the suggestions & course designs of Jason Helms, Meredith Johnson, Chris Lindgren, Derek Mueller, Cheryl Naruse, Thy Phu, & Michael Salvo.

interventions: visual rhetorics of resistance

Week 12 ∙ ∙ ∙ 4/4

Douglas, N. “It’s Supposed to Look Like Shit: The Internet Ugly Aesthetic” Gallagher & Zagacki. “Visibility and Rhetoric: The Power of Visual Images in Norman

Rockwell’s Depictions of Civil Rights” Mecenas, J. “Beyond ‘Asian American’ and Back: Coalitional Rhetoric in Print and New

Media” Sheridan, Michel, & Ridolfo. “Kairos and New Media: Toward a Theory and Practice of Visual

Activism.” http://enculturation.net/6.2/sheridan-michel-ridolfo

Assignments Due - Annotations for

Douglas, Gallagher & Zagacki, Mecenas, Sheridan, et al. due Tues 4/3.

- Interface Analysis

visual methodologies

Week 13 ∙ ∙ ∙

4/11

Rose, G. Selections from Visual Methodologies Foss, S.K. “A Rhetorical Schema for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery” Gries, L.E. “Iconographic Tracking: A Digital Research Method for Visual Rhetoric and

Circulation Studies” Kennedy & Long. “The Trees within the Forest: Extracting, Coding, and Visualizing Subjective

Data in Authorship Studies.”

Activity: Data Visualization Studio (Newman 2030)

Assignments Due - Annotations for Rose,

Foss, Gries, Kennedy & Long due Tues 4/10.

visual rhetorics in/and the writing classroom

Week 14 ∙ ∙ ∙

4/18

Barry, L. Selections from Syllabus George, D. “From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing” Haas, Toward a Decolonial Digital and Visual American Indian Rhetorics Pedagogy” Hocks, M.E. “Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments” Ott & Dickinson. “Visual Rhetoric and/as Critical Pedagogy” Westbrook, S. “Visual Rhetoric in a Culture of Fear: Impediments to Multimedia Production”

Activity: Workshop on Designing Accessible Instructional Materials with Mark Nichols, Senior Director of Universal Design and Accessible Technologies and Hal Brackett, 4-5 PM.

Assignments Due - Annotations for

George, Haas, Hocks, Ott & Dickinson, Westbrook due Tues 4/18.

instructional material re-design + presentations

Week 15 ∙ ∙ ∙

4/25

Instructional Material Re-Design Dos and don’ts on designing for accessibility https://accessibility.blog.gov.uk/2016/09/02/dos-and-donts-on-designing-for-accessibility/

Assignments Due - Instructional Material

Re-design

presentations

Week 16 ∙ ∙ ∙ 5/2

Share Digital Portfolios-in-Progress Concluding thoughts, synthesis, lasting questions. Take something from this course that up until this point has remained in-visible, abstract, ephemeral, more felt than seen, and make it visible.

Complete SPOTs

Final Project Due to Canvas > Assignments: Monday, May 7 by 11:59 PM

�9

APPENDIX A: BOOK OPT IONS FOR SCHOLARLY INFOGRAPHIC Azoulay, A. (2008). The Civil Contract of Photography. New York: Zone Books.

Azoulay, A. (2015). Civil Imagination: A Political Ontology of Photography. Verso Books.

Barthes, R. (1978). Image-Music-Text. Macmillan. Chicago

Barthes, R. (1981). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. Macmillan.

Bersani, L. and Dutoit, U. (2004). Forms of Being Cinema, Aesthetics, Subjectivity.

Brown, E.H., and Thy P., eds. (2014). Feeling Photography. Duke University Press.

Brumberger, E.R. and Northcut, K.M. (2016). Designing Texts: Teaching Visual Communication. Routledge.

Campt, T. (2012). Image Matters: Archive, Photography, and the African Diaspora in Europe. Duke University Press.

Cartright , L. ( 1995). Screening the body: Tracing medicine's visual culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ciarlo, D. (2011). Advertising Empire: Race and Visual Culture in Imperial Germany. Harvard University Press.

Drucker, J. (2014). Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. Harvard University Press.

Dumit , J. ( 2004 ). Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton , NJ : Princeton University Press.

Engberg-Pedersen, A., & Maurer, K. (Eds.). (2017). Visualizing War: Emotions, Technologies, Communities. Routledge.

Finnegan, C. A. (2015). Making Photography Matter: A Viewer's History from the Civil War to the Great Depression. University of Illinois Press.

Fleckenstein, K. S. (2009). Vision, rhetoric, and social action in the composition classroom. SIU Press.

Fleckenstein, K. S., Hum, S., & Calendrillo, L. T. (Eds.). (2007). Ways of seeing, ways of speaking: The integration of rhetoric and vision in constructing the real. Parlor Press.

Hall, S. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.

Helms, J. (2017). Rhizcomics: Rhetoric, Technology, and New Media Composition. University of Michigan Press. http://www.digitalrhetoriccollaborative.org/rhizcomics/

Hidalgo, A. (2017). Cámara retórica: A feminist filmmaking methodology. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. Retrieved from http://ccdigitalpress.org/camara/

Kostelnick, C. and Hassett, M. Shaping Information: The Rhetoric of Visual Communications. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kozol, W. (2014). Distant Wars Visible: The Ambivalence of Witnessing. University of Minnesota Press.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.

Lynch , M. , & Woolgar , S. (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge , MA : MIT Press.

McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. William Morrow Paperbacks.

Mueller, D. (2017). Network Sense: Methods for Visualizing a Discipline. WAC Clearinghouse.

Murray, J. (2009). Non-discursive rhetoric: Image and affect in multimodal composition. SUNY Press.

Nakamura, L. (2008). Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet. University of Minnesota Press.

Ongiri, A. (2010). Spectacular Blackness: The Cultural Politics of the Black Power Movement and the Search for a Black Aesthetic. U of Virginia Press.

Phu, T. (2011). Picturing Model Citizens: Civility in Asian American Visual Culture. Temple University Press.

Pratt, M. L. (2007). Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. Routledge.

Prelli, L. (2006). Rhetorics of Display. University of South Carolina Press. �10

Smith, S. M. (1999). American Archives: Gender, Race, and Class in Visual Culture. Princeton University Press.

Smith, S. M. (2004). Photography on the Color Line: WEB Du Bois, race, and Visual Culture. Duke University Press.

Smith, S. M. (2013). At the Edge of Sight: Photography and the Unseen. Duke University Press.

Sousanis, N. (2015). Unflattening. Harvard University Press.

Tufte , E. R. (1997/2003). Visual and statistical thinking: Displays of evidence for making decisions. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Van Dijck, J. ( 2005). The transparent body: A cultural analysis of medical imaging. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Vizenor, G.R. (2000). Fugitive Poses: Native American Indian Scenes of Absence and Presence. University of Nebraska Press.

Wyatt, C.S. and DeVoss, D.N. (2017). Type Matters: The Rhetoricity of Letterforms. Anderson: Parlor Press.

�11

APPENDIX B: OTHER RESOURCES Alberts and van der Geest. (2011). “Color Matters: Color as Trustworthiness Cue in Web Sites.” Technical

Communication, 58(2), 149-160.

Arola, K.L. “The Design of Web 2.0: The Rise of the Template, the Fall of Design.”

Bal, M. (2003). “Visual Essentialism and the Object of Visual Culture”

Barthes, R. Camera Lucida.

Beck, E. N. (2016). “Writing in an age of surveillance, privacy, and net neutrality.”

Brumberger , E. ( 2007 ). Visual communication in the workplace: A survey of practice . Technical Communication Quarterly, 16: 369 – 395.

Brumberger, E. R. (2005). “Visual rhetoric in the curriculum: Pedagogy for a multimodal workplace.” Business Communication Quarterly, 68(3), 318-333.

Buchanan, R. (1986). “Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demonstration in Design Practice.” In Victor Margolin (Ed.), Design discourse: History | theory | criticism (pp. 91-109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Buckley, C. (1986). “Made in patriarchy: Toward a feminist analysis of women and design.” In Victor Margolin (Ed.), Design discourse: History | theory | criticism (pp. 251-262). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cooke, L. (2003). “Information acceleration and visual trends in print, television, and web news sources.” Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(2), 155-182.

Del Barco, M. “How Kodak’s Shirley Cards Set Photography’s Skin-Tone Standard”

Deluca, Kevin & Wilferth, Joe. Image Events. enculturation 6.2 http://enculturation.net/6.2

Desjardins, Jesse. (2010). “You Suck at PowerPoint!” (Online)

Dobrin, S. “Through Green Eyes: Complex Visual Culture and Post-Literacy.”

Dombrowski, P. (2003). “Ernst Haeckel's ControversiaI Visual Rhetoric.” Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 303-319.

Dragga, S., & Voss, D. (2003). “Hiding humanity: Verbal and visual ethics in accident reports.” Technical communication, 50(1), 61-82.

Drell, L. “A History of Western Typefaces” (Online)

Elkins , J. (1996). The object stares back: On the nature of seeing. San Diego, CA : Simon & Schuster.

The Family Camera Network. http://familycameranetwork.org

Gries, L. (2015). Still Life with Rhetoric: A New Materialist Approach for Visual Rhetorics. University Press of Colorado.

Gross, A. A. (2009). “Presence as a consequence of verbal-visual interaction: A theoretical approach.” Rhetoric Review, 28(3), 265-284.

Hagan, S. M. (2007). “Visual/verbal collaboration in print: Complementary differences, necessary ties, and an untapped rhetorical opportunity.” Written Communication, 24(1), 49-73.

Halbritter, B. (2012). Lights, Camera, Symbolic Action: Audio-Visual Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. Anderson: Parlor Press.

Handa, C. Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook.

Hansen, J. (2010). “So You Need A Typeface.” https://inspirationlab.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/infographiclarge_v2.png

�12

Hawk, B. “Hyperrhetoric and the Inventive Spectator: Remotivating The Fifth Element.” The Terministic Screen: Rhetorical Perspectives on Film. Ed. David Blakesley. Carbondale: hmSouthern Illinois UP, 2003.

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style.

Helvetica.

Hidalgo, A. (2012). “National Identity, Normalization, and Equilibrium: The Rhetoric of Breast Implants in Venezuela.” Enculturation: A Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture, 13.

Howes, F. (2010). “Imagining a multiplicity of visual rhetorical traditions: Comics lessons from rhetoric histories.” ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies, 5(3).

Kimball, M. A. (2006). “London through rose-colored graphics: visual rhetoric and information graphic design in Charles Booth's maps of London poverty.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36(4), 353-381.

Kostelnick, C. (1996). ”Supra-textual design: The visual rhetoric of whole documents." Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(1), 9-33.

Kuang, C. “Why Should You Care About Typography?” (Online)

Kuhn, V. “Performing life: Whose Pictures are Worth One Thousand Words?” Enculturation 6.2 (2009). http://enculturation.net/6.2/kuhn

Lacher. “I’m Comic Sans, Asshole” (Online)

Laurinavicius, T. “Top 10 Fonts Web Designers Love” (Online)

Lebduska, L. “Racist Visual Rhetoric and Images of Trayvon Martin” Present Tense 2.3 (Online)

Lucaites, J. L., & Hariman, R. (2001). “Visual rhetoric, photojournalism, and democratic public culture.” Rhetoric Review, 20(1/2), 37-42.

Lupi, G. and Posavec, S. (2016). Dear Data. Princeton Architectural Press.

Meyer, R. (2006). “Gay Power circa 1970: Visual strategies for sexual revolution.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 12(3), 441-464.

McComiskey, B. (2004). “Visual rhetoric and the new public discourse.” JAC, 187-206.

Mignolo, W. (2003). The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization. University of Michigan Press.

Northcut, K. M. (2012, October). “Availability and uses of sensitive visual information: Protecting Diceros bicornis in South Africa.” In Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2012 IEEE International (pp. 1-3). IEEE.

Prebel, Julie. “Head Bumps to Brain Scans: A Visual Rhetorical History of Scientific Surveillant Looking.” enculturation. 2015.

Reynolds, C. “The 12 Basic Principles of Data Visualization” (Online)

Ridolfo, J., & DeVoss, D. N. (2009). Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 13(2), n2.

Seo, H. (2014). “Visual propaganda in the age of social media: An empirical analysis of twitter images during the 2012 israeli–hamas conflict.” Visual Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 150-161.

Stroupe, C. (2000). “Visualizing English: Recognizing the hybrid literacy of visual and verbal authorship on the web.” College English, 62(5), 607-632.

NBA letter about Lebron James leaving Cleveland Cavaliers in Comic Sans

Northcut, K. M. (2007). “The relevance of Feenberg's critical theory of technology to critical visual literacy: the case of scientific and technical illustrations.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 37(3), 253-266.

�13

Ongiri, A.A. (2010). “Black is Beautiful: Black Power Culture, Visual Culture, and the Black Panther Party.” Spectacular Blackness: The Cultural Politics of the Black Power Movement and the Search for a Black Aesthetic. U of Virginia Press.

“Red, White, and Blue: Eight rules about color palettes that everyone (including non-designers) should know.” https://medium.springboard.com/a-designers-guide-to-selecting-colors-for-your-product-9944756838d4

Salvo, M. “Visual Rhetoric and Big Data: Design of Future Communication”

Seo, H. (2014). “Visual propaganda in the age of social media: An empirical analysis of twitter images during the 2012 israeli–hamas conflict.” Visual Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 150-161.

Teston, C. (2012). “Moving from artifact to action: A grounded investigation of visual displays of evidence during medical deliberations.” Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 187-209.

Tovey, J. (1996). “Computer interfaces and visual rhetoric: Looking at the technology.” Technical Communication Auarterly, 5(1), 61-76.

Walls, D. (2008). “An ‘A’ Word Production: Authentic Design.” Kairos.

“When icons fail?” (Online)

Williams, R. (2005). The Non-Designer’s Design Book.

visual rhetoric bibl iographies DeVoss, D.N. “Type Matters: A Partial and Biased Bibliography” http://digitalwriting.org/type.pdf

Propen, A.D. “Visual Rhetoric Portal.” https://amypropen.com/visual-rhetoric-portal/

“Sources in Visual Rhetoric.” http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/visrhetbib.html

“Visual Ethics: A List of References” http://fsuvisualrhetoric2010.blogspot.com/2010/10/visual-ethics-list-of-references.html

image sources compfight.org

�14