"Snake Arm" - Judy Chicago

This image by Judy Chicago, entitled “Snake Arm”, is from a series of glass works by Chicago, “Chicago in Glass.” Chicago is known for pioneering “Feminist Art”, which conveys messages of women’s equality, rights and strength. This entire series of “Chicago in Glass” expresses the power of the human hand and how gestures can show meaning. In order to understand this piece of art, the rest of the series must be acknowledged: hands are used to express various emotions and mind-sets and also stand as a symbol of vulnerability and mortality. Differences in hand gestures are used to illustrate choices made, such as reaching out or pushing away. Glass is used because of the transparency, which allows us to see through to what is “underneath the skin.”

This particular piece of work combines a raised fist with an encircling golden snake. The raised fist is a sure symbol of unity, power and uprising, while the symbol of the snake may have controversial meaning. Often, a snake symbol is associated with feminism and fertility, and also of medicine. In this perspective, the snake would be presented positively. However, the snake has also been known to suggest negativity, problems and evil. In the case of this art, the snake resembles a bracelet that is a reminder of powerful women, such as fertility goddesses, biblical Eve and the Greek goddess Athena of wisdom and war. Gold is a symbol of beauty and wealth, and giving the snake this color creates the idea of beautiful, powerful women. Upon looking at this peace, and with background information on the artist and the series, we can come to a fairly complete conclusion about the piece. Though it is no hybrid piece of art (it contains no text), we gather the message the artist is conveying: women have a very powerful, righteous place in society and need to rise above inequality and gender stereotypes. Because of the awareness of Chicago’s purposes in art, it is easier to understand in interpret. Feminism, the cultural context of this piece, is represented in the artwork. By putting together separate components of the human hand and the encircling snake, a piece of rhetoric concerning feminism is created.

www.etchmaster.com

www.thespec.com/article/257895

www.judychicago.com

www.brooklynmuseum.org

Winston Cigarette Ad

This Flintstones advertisement for Winston cigarettes conveys the idea that smoking is cool, with absolutely no health precautions, disclaimers or warnings. We can see from the video the drastic changes that have occurred in both technology and attitudes since the time this commercial was aired in 1961.

The ad features Fred and Barney Flintstone enjoying a smoke while they lazily watch their wives hard at work. In attempt to sell their cigarette, Winston uses the cartoon to endorse smoking this particular brand. The characters claim the cigarette has the best taste (“the way a cigarette should be”), a pure filter, and comes from the finest selection and process of tobacco. The advertisers use a popular cartoon to promote their product and reach out to the television audience.

Today, a commercial such as this would raise much controversy and likely be banned from television. It could be argued that this particular commercial was targeting a young audience, since the Flinstones is a program typically viewed by children. In the sixties, this concept was not thought twice about – for one, we were not aware of the dangers of smoking, and secondly, programs aired on television were much more liberal. In some perspectives, we have come a long way since this time: obviously, we know the effects of cigarette smoking and ads such as this are banned. Children are not targeted (at least not up front), and it is mandatory that cigarette ads provide health warnings. Endorsement by such entities would provide a bad reputation, while in the time of this ad it was an effective way of sale. Still, we often come across ads or programs that give the idea that smoking is “cool.” While it may not be as direct as this ad, cigarette companies are still finding ways to promote their deadly product to audiences of every kind.

How I Go - Yellowcard (Big Fish)

Yellowcard’s “How I Go” was written about the movie “Big Fish” after its release in 2003. The hit film tells the story of a young man who feels his father’s life has always been a mystery; the elder (Edward) is known for his extensive tales about his adventures in life. The son, William, is determined to find out who his father really is, and as his dad is dying he begins to finally piece his life together. He asks his father’s help in revealing his true self, only to get the usual response that he has already told of his life through his stories.

In this video, the song is put to clips of the film to depict the story. Though the clip shows only a glimpse of the movie, we get a strong sense of the story through the words that go along with the clips shown. The song takes us through Edward’s adventures while his son attempts to sort fact from fiction. We see scenes from Edward’s experience with giants and circuses, and his endless quest to win over the girl he knows he is supposed to be with.

The line from the chorus of the song, “… this isn’t how I go” stems from Edward’s story of how he once looked into a witch’s glass eye and saw his death. This is another tale he tells his frustrated son; even on his deathbed he is “telling tales.” However, we can gather from the song the true moral behind the story: “Son, I am not everything you thought that I would be… but every story I have told is part of me.” Without watching the movie, we see the story through the combination of the song and clips. Edward may have elaborated his life to make it more interesting, but William soon learns that not all his father told was lies. The clip, and also the movie, ends with Edward’s funeral, where William sees characters from many of his father’s tales come to honor their friend.

Sarah Palin - Use of Logos

Moderator Gwen Ifill begins by asking vice president candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin “What promises, given the events of the week (the bailout plan), have your campaigns made to the American people that you are not going to be able to keep?” After a brief response by Biden, Palin is given the opportunity to prove herself to Americans. She opens with the statement, “The nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you he doesn’t tell one thing to one group and turn around and tell something else to a different group.” This is an attempt to show the audience that she and McCain, unlike Biden and Obama, will stick to their word; America will not have to worry about false promises within their campaign. Ideally for Palin, Americans will look at this contrast as a logical reason for favoring the McCain campaign. While this is an obvious logos appeal, Palin also appeals to the audience’s emotions with the use of pathos: she shows us that we, America, should never have to worry about false promises and with her and McCain in office, we are free of that worry.

Palin then launches in to a speech about an energy plan that Obama voted in favor of. This plan gave large oil companies big tax breaks. In response to this, Palin claims she “took on those oil companies and told them no way… that greed wasn’t going to happen in my state. I had to break up monopolies and say the people are going to come first, those tax breaks aren’t going to the big companies anymore – not when it adversely affects the people.” By these statements, Palin is attempting to show the audience, once again, the logic of voting in favor of the McCain campaign rather than the Obama campaign. She backs this idea up with the fact that Obama did indeed vote in favor of this particular plan. The audience can use their own reasoning to realize the obvious logic: under she and McCain, these tax breaks on large companies would not happen; the people would be more protected.

We can see another overlapping of rhetorical appears when Palin states that she had to break up companies “as governor of an energy-producing state, and undo (actions) in my own area of expertise: energy.” Here, Palin establishes her own authority, employing ethos, by mentioning her “area of expertise.” Still, her argument is rooted in logic. She continues to build on the idea, common in politics, that her side of the campaign is superior to the other (Obama and Biden). Palin closes her argument by stating “I don’t believe John McCain has made any promises that he would not be able to keep.” She leaves the obvious conclusion to the audience, once again. She has presented the facts about differences between her own campaign, alongside McCain, and Obama and Biden’s. The audience is to use this evidence to make their decision.

"Say It To His Face"

Upon being asked, “Are both of you willing to say to each others faces what your campaigns have said about each other?”, both political candidates are given prime opportunity to make use of rhetorical strategies to persuade us, the audience, that each is the better candidate. The interviewer begins by giving examples of each man’s negativity toward the other’s campaign: Obama has deemed McCain angry and out of touch; McCain has described Obama as disrespectful, dangerous, and dishonorable. Immediately, we look to see which candidate handles these remarks better; which candidate’s argument is more persuasive.

McCain begins by establishing his authority, applying ethos. By saying “I know from my experience in past campaigns…” McCain attempts to show us that he is knowledgeable in the area, perhaps more so than Obama. McCain then turns to pathos, playing on the emotions of the audience. McCain claims the allegations that he and Sarah Palin were associated with segregation and church bombings were “so hurtful” – the audience is expected to sympathize. He again uses this strategy when he claims that “Senator Obama didn’t tell Americans the truth (concerning public financing).” This is an attempt to make Americans feel that they indeed deserve the truth, and should not settle for less. McCain’s use of logos was apparent when he stated “it is a matter of fact that Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any other political campaign.” Whether this is fact of not, McCain uses the statistic to logically make Obama’s campaign look bad.

Obama takes a logical approach right off the bat, with use of logos. First, he says to “look at the record”: CBS conducted a poll where 2/3 of American people said McCain was running a negative campaign, while only 1/3 said Obama was. Next, he uses a startling statistic: “100% of John McCain’s campaign ads have been negative.” Though McCain remarks “it’s not true”, the audience will still take this thought into consideration. Obama then uses pathos to relate to the audience: “Americans are less concerned with our hurt feelings than addressing issues that matter most to them.” When Obama comments “Americans can’t afford four more years of failed economic policies – they deserve we talk about most pressing issues”, he is still using pathos to relate to the audience but also employs logos, speaking logically about the importance of the focus of the debate and politics in general. Obama and McCain both use ethos in the way they present themselves: both are already looked at as having authority, and the manner in which both listen and speak enhances their authority.

Both men use a comparison-contrast rhetorical arrangement. Most often, each is comparing himself to the other candidate, making points about which is the “better.” McCain comments that he “always repudiated” out of bounds remarks by Republicans, where Obama has not done so with hurtful remarks by Democrats. Obama, with his comment that “McCain’s campaign said if we keep talking about the economic crisis, we will lose… so we need to change the subject”, is comparing his integrity to McCain’s. He points out that what Americans deserve is to talk about these issues, and he will do so where McCain will avoid it out of fear of losing. Use of the comparison-contrast arrangement helps both men to appear superior to the other by pointing out each others flaws, while boasting about their own decisions and actions.