On 2015-05-13 16:34, Susan Hagan wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> When I read your tips below, I was impressed. It seemed to me that you
> were expressing much of what I would think of as good rhetorical
> moves. If I’m reading your post correctly, your distain for the
> concept of rhetoric, or maybe just the word, seems to go against what
> you have written. As a rhetor (and a designer), I would never advocate
> claims without proof. That is not rhetoric. Hyperbole is also not good
> rhetoric. It seems to me that you’re defining argument/rhetoric as
> “mere rhetoric,” while I think of rhetoric as the “good person
> speaking,” certainly involved in rational thought (as well as
> emotional claims that also have proof, and claims to authority that
> also have proof) while again if I’m reading this correctly, you see it
> as BS. The snippet you use from Enbo’s post, in order to make your
> argument, also seems unfair to his larger concern.
>
> As I see it, it’s important not to put rhetoric into the “they create
> BS" category, just as it is important not to put design into the
> advertising category, or the “they make it look good” category. Design
> is so much more than that, and to have to fight the reductive
> assumption over and over is exhausting. We might need to do that
> professionally, but in academic settings, my colleagues in rhetoric
> should know better than to be reductive about design (and sometimes
> they aren't). Similarly, when it comes to rhetoric, a field in which
> critical thinking helps to move an audience from existing to preferred
> states (to borrow from Herb Simon), it makes me sad to see designers
> reduce it to BS.
Dear Susan,
I think what you are calling "rhetoric" is actually just the "logos"
part (but at the same time you are pulling off a bit of ethos, in the
form of the argument from authority).
Since rhetoric is your field, you are certainly aware of the dictionary
definition:
"speech or writing that is intended to influence people, but that is not
completely honest or sincere"
Anyway, I wasn't even bashing rhetoric per se, which I have nothing
against. What I was calling BS was the common use marketeers make of
rhetoric, which in general has much 'pathos', much 'ethos' and little
'logos'.
Fortunately, your reply illustrates my point about people usually having
difficulties in being objective.
Please take another (closer) look at my post. I believe you misrepresent
much of it (for rhetorical purposes?).
It took me hours to read the thread and write that post. I went to bed
at 3am for this. It is very frustrating to get this kind of shallow
reading and response. (can you feel the pathos?)
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|