Last week I received these two videos by email.
Video 1
Video 2
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS BEFORE READING
I had to watch these videos several times. After watching them the first time, I immediately started looking at them from the rhetorical perspective. Now, that I just finished my reading on chapter 5, the logical proof, I thought they were pertinent for the discussion. In my opinion, they support their argumentation on the logical proof only. We can see that they used two of the four methods of reasoning proposed by Aristotle. (159). They use scientific demonstration and rhetorical examples.
Apparently, they don’t seem to be using scientific truths. However, they use our own experience to demonstrate us that the argument they are using is true. Both videos are designed in such a way that they make it evident to us that we’ve missed the details. After experiencing both videos we end up with the conclusion that it’s true; that if we are not aware of cyclists we won’t be able to see them easily on the road.
Additionally, our experience of the videos is also a rhetorical example. As you can see the videos don’t say much about cyclists. They don’t give us statistics of bikers killed by drivers, nor do they tell us the probabilities of a cyclist being killed on the road. They just mention cyclists in one sentence at the end. What we experience watching the videos is the example itself. Us not seeing the changes or the bear is the example of what happens when you are not looking for something, or looking at something else. You can easily miss objects that are right in front of you such as a biker may be. Crowley and Hawhee affirm that “the brief argument from example works because people respond to the specificity of examples” (173) and I think this is a good example of it.
Finally, the videos also use rhetorical reasoning because they involve human action. Their objective is to move us into action when driving. They intend to make us aware of bikers next time we take the road.
Furthermore, I think that this campaign is the result of an exhaustive process of invention. Anyone could say “Off course, it is very creative!”. But it is not just that. The important point is that they found the real cause for drivers not seeing cyclists on the road. It is not that they are bad drivers, or that cyclists are distracted. It is that we as drivers are trained to look at traffic lights, stop signs, other drivers but not cyclists. I believe that in order to get to the underlying cause of the problem, the creators used stasis theory. They used conjecture questions to determine the cause, the origin and the nature of the problem. I am sure they defined the problem and qualified it as right or wrong. This process allowed them to explore their opponent’s (the drivers) point of view and anticipated that their argument most probable would be, “I didn’t see it!”.
Most importantly, when confronted with policy questions and if some action should be taken they came up with this advertising campaign. This set of videos are part of a campaign by the governmental office Transport for London. I checked the page and I found that off course kayros is present as well. The page states that “London has already seen a big rise in the number of people cycling, the potential for cycling in London is huge. We're targeting a 400 per cent increase in cycling by 2026 compared to 2001 levels”. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15459.aspx) So, it is pertinent to talk about bikers safety in this moment in London.
All in all, this is a very well done campaign that, in my opinion, achieves its objective by using the rhetoric methods of invention.
Another example that I found interesting to show the use of logos is a renaissance painting by Masaccio. The painting is called Tribute Money and was made in 1420’s.
Video 1
Video 2
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS BEFORE READING
I had to watch these videos several times. After watching them the first time, I immediately started looking at them from the rhetorical perspective. Now, that I just finished my reading on chapter 5, the logical proof, I thought they were pertinent for the discussion. In my opinion, they support their argumentation on the logical proof only. We can see that they used two of the four methods of reasoning proposed by Aristotle. (159). They use scientific demonstration and rhetorical examples.
Apparently, they don’t seem to be using scientific truths. However, they use our own experience to demonstrate us that the argument they are using is true. Both videos are designed in such a way that they make it evident to us that we’ve missed the details. After experiencing both videos we end up with the conclusion that it’s true; that if we are not aware of cyclists we won’t be able to see them easily on the road.
Additionally, our experience of the videos is also a rhetorical example. As you can see the videos don’t say much about cyclists. They don’t give us statistics of bikers killed by drivers, nor do they tell us the probabilities of a cyclist being killed on the road. They just mention cyclists in one sentence at the end. What we experience watching the videos is the example itself. Us not seeing the changes or the bear is the example of what happens when you are not looking for something, or looking at something else. You can easily miss objects that are right in front of you such as a biker may be. Crowley and Hawhee affirm that “the brief argument from example works because people respond to the specificity of examples” (173) and I think this is a good example of it.
Finally, the videos also use rhetorical reasoning because they involve human action. Their objective is to move us into action when driving. They intend to make us aware of bikers next time we take the road.
Furthermore, I think that this campaign is the result of an exhaustive process of invention. Anyone could say “Off course, it is very creative!”. But it is not just that. The important point is that they found the real cause for drivers not seeing cyclists on the road. It is not that they are bad drivers, or that cyclists are distracted. It is that we as drivers are trained to look at traffic lights, stop signs, other drivers but not cyclists. I believe that in order to get to the underlying cause of the problem, the creators used stasis theory. They used conjecture questions to determine the cause, the origin and the nature of the problem. I am sure they defined the problem and qualified it as right or wrong. This process allowed them to explore their opponent’s (the drivers) point of view and anticipated that their argument most probable would be, “I didn’t see it!”.
Most importantly, when confronted with policy questions and if some action should be taken they came up with this advertising campaign. This set of videos are part of a campaign by the governmental office Transport for London. I checked the page and I found that off course kayros is present as well. The page states that “London has already seen a big rise in the number of people cycling, the potential for cycling in London is huge. We're targeting a 400 per cent increase in cycling by 2026 compared to 2001 levels”. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/15459.aspx) So, it is pertinent to talk about bikers safety in this moment in London.
All in all, this is a very well done campaign that, in my opinion, achieves its objective by using the rhetoric methods of invention.
Another example that I found interesting to show the use of logos is a renaissance painting by Masaccio. The painting is called Tribute Money and was made in 1420’s.
The painting shows Christ and the 12 apostles arriving at Capernaum and being confronted by a roman tax gatherer who demanded their payment of the tribute to be able to enter the city. When this happens Christ tells Peter that he will find the money in the mouth of a fish in the river. Following Christ’s instructions Peter goes to the shore, catches the fish, get the money and pays the tax.
The interesting part of all this is that the painting was made in Florence, when the government had just introduced the first income tax in history called catasto. The reason they did this was because they were under attack by the Milanese who were going to invade them and the government needed money to create and organize an army to defend themselves. Art Historians think that the Florentine government may have ordered this painting to persuade the citizens to pay this new income tax.
The use of logos that I find in this painting is enthymemes. The major premise would be Christ and the apostles paid their taxes. Minor premise: Everyone, no exceptions, even Christ has to pay taxes. Conclusion: Florentine citizens should pay their taxes. Kayros was important as well having into account that the tax was a new device in this city and people may have been resisting it in some way.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the use of rhetoric by governments through out history and its use in different media such as video and painting.
No comments:
Post a Comment