Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Thursday's (1/22) Readings
Hey everyone: Let's start thinking about context in these texts as it relates to the the other elements of rhetoric. Y'all did an amazing job in class on Tuesday (my colleague was impressed!) and I think we can keep the ball rolling with the same kind of analysis on the texts for 1/22.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was very entertained by the video portion of this week’s assignment. The Peta video, I had already seen, but enjoyed viewing it from a more analytical perspective. As it presented all the reasons for people to not eat meat, I actually laughed. It seemed to be trying to appeal to all of the viewer’s feelings and senses at once. From mad cow disease, to living to die, to free, to murder, to wrong, to ethical treatment, to bloody filthy and chicken poop the commercial seemed as if was trying to appeal to all my feelings. Specifically, appealing to the fear that was in society when this video came out.
ReplyDeleteEven more entertained by the Hillshire Farms site… too much to click on and so many funny distractions. One thing I clicked on even said “When conversations going South, just pop a smoky in your mouth” I had never thought that an add campaign would use so many obviously sexual innuendos while at the same time trying to appeal to families.. Whether it’s soccer moms or dad’s watching sports the focus was on cheerleaders and cheers that in my mind seemed to be a little dirty when talking about meat. “Go meat!”
“The Meatrix” informative, but probably most entertaining for someone into “The Matrix”. Peter Singer’s definition of “Vegetarianism” nicely brought in some history to help in understanding the concept.
I found the video clips and commercials for this assignment particularly interesting and engaging to watch and analyze from the point of view of context. When watching the video The Meatrix, it was important that you understood the context the producer was utilizing, namely the fact that the move The Matrix was incredibly popular at the time and the sequel, The Matrix: Reloaded was released in the same year as this animated short. It is a good use of intertextuality and, I think, a great analogy for the meat industry. In the meatrix, they specifically mention antibiotics in the meat supply. I think that lately this has been a growing concern in the United States. Companies such as Chipotle advertise that their meat does not contain antibiotics. Before this time, I don’t think it was something a lot of people paid attention to. Also, this animation was not just produced by some random individual on the web, it was produced b GRACE’s sustainable table program in conjunction with Free Range Studios. Grace is: “a community based solutions for the production and consumption of food and energy. Working with research, policy, consumer and grassroots communities, GRACE raises public awareness and advances innovative solutions to create an economically and environmentally viable future, and eliminate practices that are harmful to the environment and public health.” (taken from the Meatrix website).
ReplyDeleteThe reading “Vegetarianism” by Peter Singer was a bit difficult to follow, and I think that this has a lot to do with the context of this text. He kind of goes about talking about vegetarianism from the point of view of philosophy and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, or philosophy in general for that matter, is not an incredibly popular topic and I think that is why I had a hard time relating to the text. It has a very academic tone to it and this might have something to do with the fact that it was published in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.
In terms of context I was intrigued by Peter Singer and his writing entitled, “Vegetarianism.” The author used a more strict and religious tone with his writing, that provided a different prospective than a more confrontational writing. The fact that the author’s writing was included in the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, shaped and dictated Singer’s word choice. Singer brought interesting points up by connecting various religions to vegetarianism. Singer’s audience was people who wanted more spiritual reasons to convert to vegetarianism. The purpose of Singer’s writing, was to make a vivid connection between religion and not eating meat. The strategy that Singer used was a strategy in which he was non confrontational about going meatless, yet still connected and presenting his point.
ReplyDeleteI was disturbed by the PETA video which showed animals being viciously handled. However, PETA was able to get me to think deeply about the treatment of animals. The major context of the video was that the PETA organization created the video. PETA is widely known for considering the treatment of animals. The audience of the video, was people who were concerned about the rights and treatment of animals. The purpose of the video was to get people to not eat meat. The strategy the creators of the video used was a strategy in which the video was explicitly violent which appealed to the audience’s emotions of caring love.
The Meatrix video was comical and effective in terms of getting me to think about the treatment of farm animals. A huge factor of context is that the video poked fun of the movie, “The Matrix.” A thought that arose after viewing the video, was that if I was able to become more aware to the treatment of animals, I could stop the cruel treatment that took place. This is similar to when Neo stops the bullet via believing in himself. I thought if I could believe in the movement of better treatment of animals, I could stop all obstacles. The audience of the video was people wanting to learn more about animal treatment, while taking a more comical approach. The purpose of the video was to provide information about the treatment of animals, via using the characters from the movie, “The Matrix.” The strategy the creators of the video used was a strategy in which the video was shown in a cartoon format in order to appeal to kids and young people.
When you think of the context of the "Meatrix" it obviously comes from the movie series of the "Matrix" which was a fairly popular series. The deep and scary voice of the cow, who is dressed up in the black suit and black glasses, gives you an impression that something is very scary: the way that we process meat. The pig is basically portrayed as the audience here and his voice is high pitched and he seems afraid and oblivious to what is going on. It's made to seem like we are pigs and if we don't do something about it, then we may die, which is a little ridiculous but it provides a point. The whole tone of the commercial builds up in an attempt to get you in the fighting state of being and tries to make you get up and do something about the way in which we process meat.
ReplyDeleteIn the "Go Meat" commercials, they mainly appeal to guys and imply the "Tough guys eat meat" slogan. The grills that they cook on are very nice and big and the sausage commercial even has a sort of patio by the grill. They are all rural areas that have yards, sort of like a middle class appeal.
The beginning of the PETA movie gives off serious and grim vibes. They show a few faces to make it seem like the viewer is the only person who is not on their side. They show pigs hanging which noone obviously wants to see and paints a bad picture for meat. The commercial also has diversity in the voices. There is a white man, a white woman, and a black woman to show that all are affected. They make meat sound a lot worse than it actually is to try to get people to turn to vegetarianism.
The author of "Vegetarianism" took a more serious and religious approach to meat and vegetarianism. By bringing in facts from the Bible, and even taking a historical approach, the purpose is to appeal to the spiritual side of meat eaters and perhaps guilt them out of eating meat. The context is a philosophical one, especially since it was published in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The history of the text helps the audience better understand the roots of vegetarianism and makes his arguments seem based more on facts then opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe videos were very entertaining yet, informational and heart-warming. I nearly broke down into tears while watching the "Chew on This" video; I was so repulsed and disgusted that I was about five minutes away from never eating meat again. All the reasons for vegetarianism were completely one sided and biased. While some of them were valid, other reasons were merely acts of forced opinion and views on the audience.
I was disturbed and remorseful while watching this PETA video, and I think that was their purpose, along with scaring and disgusting people away from meat consumption. The purpose was also to appeal to the emotional side of its viewers. The audience was obviously PETA advocates and people who had the same views as PETA does.
The sarcastic and mockery of the movie "The Matrix," was hilariously and evidently shown with the video "The Meatrix." I think the purpose was not only to make fun of "The Matrix," but it was intended to be informational as well. Not many people, including myself, are aware of the callous and horrifying treatment of animals in factory farms. The cartoons and the spin-off of "The Matrix" was a strategy used to appeal and engage younger audiences.
The Hillshire Farms "Go Meat" videos were absolutely hilarious. The context is up-beat/tempo and sort of gives the audience that back-yard Barbeque feeling. The voice-overs and the people in the commercial were chanting and gives that "take me out to the ball game" feel and atmosphere that relaxes the audience. It gives off the impression that the taste of the meat and the fact that it comes from "Hillshire Farm" makes the meat even more up-scale, hearty, and delicious.
The Peta video was a little much...I watched the whole thing but it seemed to drag on and on and on. Some stuff is pretty nasty but animals are animals...they died fairly quick in the video...although dropping cinder blocks on there heads is pretty barbarian like it got the job done fairly quick. If all americans quit eating beef then many would be with out jobs and obviously everyone would switch to vegetables which would be used up and run out pretty quickly...causing food shortages in my opinion at least. I dont really care if there is a tiny bit of chicken poop in each package of chicken....you are supposed to watch the chicken anyways and the extreme heat from the oven gets rid of any bacteria so...and the poop is sooo small (if that fact is true) that one can not taste or notice it.
ReplyDeleteI think the hillshire farms video is pretty goofy and corny...i saw it a few weeks ago on TV.
The meatrix video is alright its kinda of funny Again I am not going to start or aid in the meatrix revolution though so...I love my chicken and beef so I am perfectly content with the way things are.
The definition of vegetarian was kind of interesting learning about different views of vegetarianism leading back to the ancient romans and beleiving that humans and animals shared a soul etc. The rest was again along the lines of animal cruelty and etc....I really dont care....I hunt animals so no sympathy really...Its not like they stab the things and let them just bleed to death...
i liked New Grub street as it is the history and background info on organic foods and foods in general.
I also enjoyed the mass amount of videos we watched. The PETA video, while it was horrible to see animals treated that way, also had some ridiculous statements. The claim that meat and dairy make you fat is not a completely true statement at all. I read in a fitness magazine this week actually that drinking milk after working out helps you BURN FAT! I really liked the Go Meat! commercials. I thought they were funny. I did notice in one that all of the people that were cooking meat were men. This directly relates to our discussion in class about how meat was aimed toward men.
ReplyDeleteThe article I found the most interesting was the one titled Vegetarianism. I always had an understanding about it and what it meant to be a vegetarian. What I did not know was where it came from or the start of the whole thing. It actually made me think a lot more about my meat intake when I read the line, “…vegetarianism may be based on the view that we violate the rights of animals when we kill them for our food, or on the more utilitarian grounds that, in raising them for our food, we cause them more suffering than we gain by eating their flesh.” I feel that with more awareness being spread and research about what exactly is the healthiest road to take. I understand that people need some animal meat to be healthy but on the other hand people are not at all aware about where it came from. Not to mention if it is causing more harm then good. I feel that I am becoming confused with all these different articles convincing me of different things.
ReplyDeleteI found the article by Peter Singer to provide a well look into the past perceptions and the philosophical roots of vegetarianism. Although vegetarian seems to be a new age thinking, it actually has significant grounding in the past, which reinforces the argument of vegetarianism. In terms of context, Peter is appealing to academia and has phrased his writing to appeal to those accomplished in philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen this PETA video but numerous others with similar setups and messages. It seems PETA used facts and opinions and arranged them in a way to get inside your emotions and feelings. While some of the literal arguments were opinionated in my perception, the videos did display reality despite how unsettling they were. Using people that were giving off commands while flashing images and videos provided a lot of shock appeal to the audience. Bringing the reality of the industrial livestock system to your eyes seems to take away the blissful ignorance that some obtain. It was horrendous to see the fear and complete misery those animals have to go through, and growing up on a farm, I sincerely believe animals can feel fear, love, pain, and suffering, as much on a mental level as we can because emotions do not equate to intelligence.
After analyzing New Grub Street on Thursday, a few thoughts came to my mind. The article appears in the Columbian Review which suggests it is intended for an intelligent audience, however it uses such a high vocabulary and uses so many name references that I wonder if anyone can follow along with the entire article without having to look something up. In this strategy I think it shows the authors intelligence and the fact that they researched the subject, but can it reach the point that it is too much and the reader stops reading the article? Also who's to say what vocabulary a readership can handle? These were just a few questions that came to my mind after Thursday's class.
ReplyDelete