WP3:

Authors Note

When I started the process of analyzing the art sculpture Ouranos, by William Tucker, I had a hard time getting started. When I first laid eyes on the sculpture I was worried. I thought it just looked like a big blob, and I was pretty sure it was going to be impossible to analyze and come up salient information about the sculpture. However, once I started to really look at the sculpture and give it some thought, ideas started to roll. It was crazy the type of ideas that where rolling onto the piece of paper. This process only increased after some research done on the actual structure itself. I learned that Ouranos was actually a god from ancient Greece. When this information was added to some of the ideas I had was able to come up with my argument that I was going to implement into my paper. I started to contemplate ideas of imperfection and perfection, and how a god could be depicted as imperfect.

In my first draft I talked a lot about the media. I touched on how the media played a big part in how we live our lives. More importantly how the media influences how we view ourselves and how we feel about ourselves. I think my first draft had a lot of good ideas that had to just be expanded upon. I thought that it was a good template for future drafts, but very raw and unpolished. I decided when I was going to write my final draft, that I would pretty much retype my paper, using the first draft to get my basic ideas.

First I scrapped the old intro, and decided that I would start my new intro with some context that I would carry on throughout the rest of the paper. I started with “In this day and age we are constantly reminded through media about our image and how to view ourselves.” This let the audience know where I was coming from and it made it easy to come back to that influence throughout the paper. I talked about The Classical period of art, and how old sculpture of gods and goddesses where depicted compared to the way that William Tucker depicted Ouranos. For example I stated, “The depictions of gods in that time period where always idealistic. They had over exaggerated muscles, and symmetrical faces. In this time this was the acceptable way to depict a god. This is the exact opposite style used in Ouranos.” This helped me expand on my argument, and gave salient information about the imperfection of the piece compared to the idealism of the Classical sculptures.

I also increased the length of my paper and ideas quite a bit. I cut out some of the ideas that where rough and expanded upon a few key ideas. For example I took out the bit about “Another kind of pathos that comes up when one looks at this structure is excitement.” And focused on the “This overall concept of imperfection, more specifically how it is more real than perfection and acceptable, brings up a great deal of pathos and emotion in the audience when viewing Ouranos. The most prevalent emotion would have to be that of comfort.” I also added some of the multimedia and hyperlinks that I was missing. Last but not least I made sure that I had my works cited included and cited my sources throughout the paper.

Statement of Purpose

Rough Draft

Final Draft

In this day and age we are constantly reminded through media about our image and how to view ourselves. All it takes is one look at the magazine rack to make us feel like we need to make some drastic changes. This idealism has been going on for as long as we can remember. It even dates back to the days of Greek gods and goddesses. When a god was depicted in the Greek culture nothing but perfection would be acceptable.(Kleiner) This is idea of perfection is extremely interesting when we take a look at the art sculpture I was assigned which is titled Ouranos. We see that the sculptor, William Tucker, took a total 180 on the idea of a Greek God. When we look through a rhetorical lens, and look at the concepts of ethos, logos, and pathos the argument of this sculpture becomes clear. That argument is that the concept of imperfection is more real, and should be more accepted, than perfection.

Ouranos was an ancient Greek god. He was at one point and time the ruler of the entire universe.(Ouranos) In this particular sculpture Ouranos is depicted as a boot planted in the ground. It is also believed that the sculpture is a torso, or an acrobat.(New York Times) The interesting aspect to all of these adaptations is the imperfection of the sculpture itself. It is very abstract, and when I first laid eyes on this sculpture I thought it was a big blob. This is a very interesting style when one considers how gods have been historically depicted through art. Specifically if we look back to the Classical period of art and juxtapose its sculptures to that of Ouranos, the contrasting styles become apparent. In the Classical art period art was become more progressive, people where becoming more lifelike, however one thing stayed the same, the depiction of the Greek god. The depictions of gods in that time period where always idealistic. They had over exaggerated muscles, and symmetrical faces. In this time this was the acceptable way to depict a god.(Kleiner)

This is the exact opposite style used in Ouranos. First of all the God isn’t depicted as a whole, he just shown as a boot, or foot.(New York Times) This is very interesting because when we look at a foot, it isn’t necessarily the model of perfection. Feet can be worn and displeasing, and at times have calices and odor. This isn’t the first thought that comes to mind when we think of a god. This style is a clear argument of imperfection. We see this new style of a god, no longer is the god depicted as this perfect being. He is now flawed, and more realistic than the old sculptures of gods and goddesses.

William Tucker decided to make this piece out of bronze, and give a rough texture. (New York Times) One could almost say that the sculpture looks like it is melting. This is once again different than the Greek’s sculptures. They would use marble, and make sure that each face was very smooth and symmetrical. This rough and uneven texture would not have been used, or even acceptable in that time period.(Kleiner) William Tucker wants us to notice this imperfection right off the bat. The texture of this object is one of the more noticeable elements of the sculpture itself. He wants you to embrace this concept of imperfection, and accept it as a reality. The material made to make this sculpture is another key element aiding in this argument of imperfection. When we think of perfection, we think of gold or a very valuable substance. In our culture, bronze is always third best. If we look at the Olympics the first place winner is always awarded with the gold medal, third always gets the bronze medal. The first place person would be the one who is considered perfect, because their achievement cannot get any better, on the other had the third place would almost be a little bit of a disappointment, because they are not perfect, they still have a ways to go before that is achieved. I think that the sculptor did this to show us that it is ok to not be the best. That you can be imperfect and it is acceptable. He makes the argument that it is more realistic that you will not be the best, but it is still acceptable to be one of the greatest.

This overall concept of imperfection, more specifically how it is more real than perfection and acceptable, brings up a great deal of pathos and emotion in the audience when viewing Ouranos. The most prevalent emotion would have to be that of comfort. Especially considering the day and age we currently live in. As I had mentioned before we only have to take one look at a magazine rack to instantly feel insecure, and negative about ourselves. This idea that we can be imperfect and we can be ourselves is very comforting in this media driven world. The media wants us to think that we have to dress a certain way, and act a certain way to be happy. Since the 1980’s males have been depicted as rawer, and more chiseled. There have even been studies done that showed when a teen-age girl views a commercial with a model in it, they become angry, and dissatisfied with their current weight, and body image.(Media's Effect on Girls) When we take a look at William Tucker’s sculpture we see what is usually the height of perfection, a god, depicted as imperfect and more real. This is comforting that we can think of someone who is generally so highly regarded to be flawed. It makes us take another look at our own flaws and imperfections. If something so powerful and great can have imperfections, maybe it is ok for us as humans to be imperfect too. The argument takes away some of the almost overwhelming standards, and lets you think of them in a different perspective. The sculptor is exalting imperfection, and throwing this idealistic mentality out the window.

I think it is clear how important the argument for Ouranos truly is. We have some pretty tough expectations when it comes to being perfect in this world, and at times those can be very overwhelming. It is estimated that 8 million Americans have eating disorders.(South Carolina) This is a terrifying statistic. We need more influences like that of Ouranos when we look in the mirror. We need this reminder that we can see ourselves in a positive light. I think if more people would accept that imperfection is a reality we could cut down a lot of eating disorders, and people who are generally unhappy about themselves. I think that the argument that William Tucker is trying to get across is one that needs to be heard by everyone. People need to take this argument and apply it in their everyday lives, so that they can try and live without that media influence. In conclusion, I think that Ouranos is a model example of how imperfection is a reality, and that it is acceptable to be imperfect, and one should embrace it in their everyday lives.

Works Cited:

Kleinder, S., Fred. Gardener's Art through the Ages. United States: Wadsworth Cengae learning

"Media's Effect On Girls: Body Image and Gender Identity." National Institute on Media+The Family. . 2009. 14 December. 2009 <http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_mediaeffect.shtml>

"Ouranos" 1 Dec. 2009<http://library.thinkquest.org/17709/people/ouranos.htm>

Brenson, Michael. "ART WILLIAM TUCKER AND HIS GREEK TITANS." 1987. The New York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/02/arts/art-william-tucker-and-his-greek-titans.html>

"Eating Disorder Statistics." South Carolina Department of Mental Health.< http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm>

wp3:rough draft 1

The art object I was assigned was titled Ouranos, and it was made by William Tucker. This is an extremely interesting sculpture, and has a very important argument that it is trying to make. I think this becomes blatantly obvious when is looked through a rhetorical lens. When you take into consideration the rhetorical terms of logos, context, and pathos, the main argument of this art object becomes apparent. That argument is that concept of imperfection is more real, and should be more accepted, then perfection.

Ouranos was an ancient Greek god, and in this particular adaptation of the god he is depicted as a boot planted in the ground. It is also believed that the sculpture is also a torso, or an acrobat. The interesting aspect to all of the perceptions is the message of imperfection that the sculpture itself emits. The sculpture is abstract and is deformed which is very interesting considering it is of a Greek god. In most history, and throughout Greek sculpture, the concept of a god idolized. This means that the god was supposed to look perfect. They would sculpt them to have perfectly symmetrical faces, and features that no real human would ever have. The fact that William Tucker decides not to do this enforces his argument of imperfection.

The texture of this object is different from most of the art objects I have viewed in my time. When you look up close the object looks like it is melting, or as if it was a sculpture made out of rock. This is interesting when you compare it back to some of the Greek’s adaptations of gods. The Greek god’s where most of the time made to look very smooth. The melting and rough texture of Ouranos would have most likely been looked down upon by the general public in Greek times. This is an excellent way that William tucker gets his argument across. He takes the concepts that were used so long ago, and throws them out the window. He does the exact opposite of what a Greek artist would have done. He wants you to look at the imperfection. He takes something has highly regarded as a god, and makes imperfect just like you and me.

The location of this sculpture fits perfectly with the argument about imperfection and perfection. First of all the sculpture is on a little bit of a hill. It is almost elevated higher up than any of the other sculptures that surround it. I believe this is because the sculpture wanted you view imperfection in a different light. It wants to exemplify it and make it ok. This also works with the atmosphere of a college setting. We have all this media attention, and pressure to make us think that we should look a certain way, or that you need to be perfect. This concept of a Greek god being imperfect makes you think the exact opposite. It lets you know that it is ok to be imperfect, and be your own person.

It is very interesting that the author would choose bronze material to make this sculpture. Bronze isn’t necessarily the flashiest of materials. It is kind of dull and isn’t exactly the material that screams look at me I am a god. This is used to help further the argument of imperfection being ok. The idea that you can use this material that isn’t flashy helps this argument that imperfection is more acceptable than perfection. The author puts in this material that he knows isn’t necessarily impressive, and it is ok and it is accepted by the art world.

These examples of imperfection bring up a lot of pathos and emotion. The first emotion I feel when I look and think of this concept of imperfection is comfort. It makes feel ok and good about me. I have like so many others succumbed to the media at times and get down on myself. This concept that it is ok to be imperfect and have my own flaws reminded me that what the media shows is near impossible. I also get comfort in the concept that a god can be human. That even someone who has extreme power can make mistakes, and that in fact they are not perfect. This can be related into our everyday lives, so that we can remind ourselves that even our superiors can have their own flaws and imperfections.

Another kind of pathos that comes up when one looks at this structure is excitement. It is exciting to thin k that someone who could hold so much power, and be so highly regarded, to have so many flaws about it. Many have described this statue to be elegant and flowing. It might not look that way to everyone but for the consensus to be that way adds excitement for us and our everyday lives. Excitement also comes up when you think about imperfection itself. In the fact that you can be yourself, and accept who you are.

In the end I think that the argument is clear for the statue Ouranos. This argument that being imperfect is ok is very important in our everyday lives. We can use this argument to improve the way we think of ourselves. We don’t have to listen to the media and they way they try and push perfectionism on us all. We can look at ourselves in the mirror and be happy for who we are as people. I think it is clear that this sculpture gets across a very important message that is relevant to everyone.

Statement of Purpose

My art object, Ouranos, is a very interesting art object. It brings up a lot of interesting thoughts when looked through a rhetorical lens. There are many different ways one can approach this comic and analyze the true meaning of this comic. I think that the argument that is trying to be made here is that it is ok to be imperfect; in fact imperfection is normal and better than perfection.

I think the main thing to solidify this argument would have to be the context of where this object is located, and the audience that is here to look at the art related object. The location of this object is in a perfect place for the creator to get his argument across. The college setting is a great place to talk about imperfection. The audience will be able to relate, because we as people are imperfect. I think that this object being outside and right by a path also helps the argument. You will get college students, and people walking into campus, walking on this path every day. You are definitely maximizing the expose of the art object.

The object also looks like it is on a hill, so it is brought up higher, almost on a pedestal to once again maximize the expose. I think there are a lot of positive and negative things that can come from my word project. I think one the more difficult things to be able to get across is how I see the object. Since the object is very abstract and very deformed, it is hard to get across your argument and the way you view the object to your audience. I think if I supply enough photographs, and solid examples through research, I would be able to help cement my argument, and help get it across to my audience.

I think probably the most positive outcome I could get from this project is a lasting impact on my audience. In the world we live in today we are all hyped up to be this perfect mold of a person. We are almost brainwashed through the media to look a certain way. Perfection is a word that is thrown out all the time. If I can get the argument across to my audience maybe I can change the way they view themselves and enrich their lives. I think that I could let my audience know that it’s ok to be imperfect. I could let them know that their imperfections are normal, and you shouldn’t strive for these perfections that are absolutely impossible.

As you can see this art object has a very solid argument that it is trying to get across to its viewers. I think that it is an important message that we should live by day to day. If I can keep heading in this direction and take into consideration my audience, and I can help them relate to the message, then I could get a solid grade, and help someone learn an important message. If I can get my audience to think that they are ok the way they are then I have done my job.

Wp3: pre writting 5

After researching information on the art object, Ouranos, by William Tucker, I learned a lot of new information that I hadn’t known in the first place. I learned about the meaning of the word Ouranos. I learned that it was actually named after an ancient Greek God. I learned about its background, and its significance. Apparently Ouranos was the first ruler of the universe.

I also learned that the object is in fact supposed to be a boot. So in the end this would confirm my first idea that it supposed to be a boot. The new information about the legend of Ouranos has made me think about the sculpture in a different way. If Ouranos was supposed to be a god, and supposed to be the ruler of the Universe, I would imagine time to be very big and very powerful. I think this could be represented in the large scale of the boot. I think that this boot could be a representation of Ouranos’ foot.

I think that since Ouranos would be big because he is a god, the boot could be just a small representation of his whole power, and mass. I also learned that he is supposed to be the son, and husband of the god of the earth. So this makes me some sense to why it would be located outside. The god’s ties to the earth make it a perfect choice for the sculpture to be placed outside, amongst the earth.

The sculpture’s ties with a god of the universe explain its placement on campus. Since this god was extremely significant, it makes sense that it is in a place that everyone can see. It is by a path, so it is apparent that the people who run the museum wanted people to see it. It also makes sense now why the sculpture is almost put on a pedestal. This is once again because of the ties to the god of the universe.

I also learned that the William Tucker also made 2 other sculptures to go with Ouranos. In fact, two other statues that where made with this statue where also made out of bronze. I really don’t know what to think of this. It really takes away from my first idea of the baby shoes. I don’t think that he wanted make that comparison about memories, and preserving those memories. After this research, I have some new ideas to why this could be on campus. One of those would have to be that the sky is the limit. I think this because if this statue is representative of the god of the universe, I think its significance on campus would be that you can do anything you set your mind to. That there is no limit to your potential, and maybe someday you can be a very important and significant figure in the world.

Works cited:

"Ouranos" 1 Dec. 2009<http://library.thinkquest.org/17709/people/ouranos.htm>

Brenson, Michael. "ART WILLIAM TUCKER AND HIS GREEK TITANS." 1987. The New York Times. < http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/02/arts/art-william-tucker-and-his-greek-titans.html>

wp3:pre writing 4

After listening to the song we listened to on Tuesday, I have been able to see my project in a whole different light. I never thought that things could be looked at in that kind of way. I had never heard music made that way, and I have never thought to look at art objects in the same type of way. After listening to the song, I started to think about how my object could be expanded, in what ways could my art project I was assigned be expanded upon. In other words how could I take my art object and rethink the way I look at it.

The first thing I thought about with my project is what it represents. To a lot of people it might look like some giant blob, but right off the bat I thought it looked like a giant boot. It had some characteristics to that of a boot, which made me think even more about how unique this object really is. When I did some expansion, and looked at it at other angles, it looked different in every angle. This was especially evident when I compared the two sides of the boot; one side looked more deformed than the other side.

This made me think of the possibility that it could in fact represent a rock. It has as certain textural quality to it which looks like a rock. Since it has that deformity to its structure, I look like it could be some sort of giant mountain that happened to be shrunk down to fit on campus. I also thought about why it would be located where it is. It is located towards the back side of the museum, and is right by a path. It is apparent that when the museum was looking for a place to put this object, they wanted people to see it.

Then I had to think of why one would want to look at this. It is necessarily aesthetically pleasing. I bet to most people it just looks like a giant rock, or piece of poop. Then I came up with a couple different ideas that could explain why this object is where it is. I first thought it could represent some sort of a journey. That it was there to represent the journey that we take when we are in college, and into life itself. This would help explain that it is right next to a path. It could also help explain its location being right out in the open for all to see. We can all relate to the sculpture, because we are all on some sort of journey. I also noticed that this object is on top of a hill. It is almost like it is on top of a pedestal. I think this is so that once again people will take a solid look at this object. It stands out from the flat ground and would have to have some sort of significance.

wp3:pre writting 3

In last Thursday’s class, they way I thought of music were forever changed. I had never thought of music as being silent. I have never thought to question sound, and think of sound itself in a totally different manner than we normally do. I can take this type of thinking and apply it to the way I think of my sculpture. Once I look through it in a different light, I can answer many different questions that arise when I look at my sculpture. It is critical for me to think in this manner so that I can better understand my project as a whole.

One of the first questions that come to mind when I think of my object, is the fact that it is outside, and not inside. I think one of the main things you have to take into consideration is the way you can look at it. There are really no restrictions. I say this because when you are inside, you have a limited view of the object. When you are outside, you can look at it from as far away as you want, or you can look at it at any angle that is physically possible for you. A lot of times when you are inside a place you can’t touch the object itself. When the object is outside you have the ability to touch it, and actually get a feel of the object. I think the artist does this, because they really want for the texture of the object to play a part in its argument.

The concept of the sculpture being outside also makes me reconsider the outside world itself. It almost adds some sort of synthetic element to the outdoors, and nature. With my sculpture I find that it looks similar to that of a boulder. So it is curious to why they would have a boulder like object outside that is made out of bronze. Why wouldn’t they just put out a boulder that was shaped like a boot? I think the reason couple be many different things. The first would have to be the issue of durability. Even when I was looking at the statue for the first time, I think I might have noticed some erosion around the bottom part of the sculpture.

Another not so obvious reason could be the fact that they want to add that man made synthetic item to nature itself. If you look around campus you can question what is truly natural around the campus. All the trees are planted by man, all the grass was planted by man. So if that is the case then it would not necessarily be natural. If you would argue that it is, then you can argue that the statue itself is natural because it is outside. I think maybe this could be a parody of nature. If you look at it from rock standpoint, then it is curious to why it needed to be made out of bronze. Isn’t natural occurring granite strong enough?

Wp3:pre writting 2

There were a lot of rhetorical techniques that I found when looking at my sculpture Ouranos. The first thing I found that stood out to me was the shape of the sculpture. Though it was abstract it had a distinct shape of a boot. It wasn’t exact, but it did have a distinct shape to that of a boot. Another thing I notices was the texture of the object itself. It looked like some sort of Miniature Mountain, shrunk down to fit in the UNL campus. The reason I say this is because all around the structure has many different divots, and it looks like the surface of a rock.

Another aspect that stood out to me would have to be the context of the object. I had a lot of different questions when I was looking at this piece. I came up with a lot of different reasons that answered the question, why would this piece be on campus, and what is it trying to say. The first thing I thought of was how this could relate to us college students who are on campus and who see it every day. The first thing that came to mind was that we walk all the time all around campus, so that would make some sense to why there would be this boot looking thing on campus.

Then I decided I would take that idea and look into it even further. I thought about how the boot could represent the journey that we have not only in college, but in life. The reason I thought about this was because of the worn nature of the boot. The journey of life is not an easy one, and you have to put in a lot of hard work to come to your final destination. This would justify the fact that the boot is worn and looks like it has been through a lot.

Another aspect I noticed when I was looking at the object was what it was made of. I noticed that it was made from bronze, and this raised a lot of questions on why they would decide to make it out of this material, and not something else. The first thing that came to mind would have to be a bronzed pair of baby shoes. In some cases parents will take their child’s shoes when they are a little kid, and bronze them to preserve the memory of their child.

I thought that this could relate back to my observation of the shoe being some sort of representation of the journey of life. The object could be telling us that we need to take all the moments we make in college and further on and preserve them. We need to make sure that we never forget them, and that they are precious to us. I think in the end I made a lot of good observations, and have a fairly good grasp on the rhetorical techniques that the sculptor is trying to make. I just think I need to refine my ideas a little more.

wp3:pre writting 1

My experiences with art with art related objects. I guess I just never really go that much into art. I think this can be linked back to my experiences as a little kid. When I little and growing up in North Platte, we never went on any field trips to any art related places. This would probably have to be due to the fact that there really wasn’t any kind of place we could go to view art related objects. When I moved to Lincoln, that all changed. There were many more places I could go and visit that had art objects in them.

Even though I had these opportunities, I never really pursued them. I don’t really like art in the first place. I am more into music and sports. I have always thought as art as dumb, and a lot of the more abstract things I really don’t get. I think a lot of it I can do myself, and don’t get why people would pay top dollar for a lot of this stuff. My parents were also never really into art, so it was never a big factor in my house. We would never go to art museums and look at art related objects. I drew a little bit as a kid, but that was the closest I ever really got to pursuing an interest in art.

I think analyzing an art related object is going to be difficult. I had some trouble analyzing Breach, and I think other art objects will give me the same trouble. I think it is going to be hard to analyze an object that really has no words to go with it. I think the more abstract objects are going to be especially difficult. I have trouble seeing anything in them. Most of the time I look at art and take it face value. I think I am going to have to get myself in a different mindset, maybe even look at some art, to get a better understanding on how to analyze art related objects.

Wp2:Final Copy

Authors Note:

The writing process for the second word project was a very interesting process. First of the process of picking a comic was a very hard process. I never thought I was going to have to analyze a comic in my life, so I didn’t know where to start. I looked around the internet, and looked at a bunch of different sights that I knew of, but there was nothing that stood to me. Then I went to a medium of comics that I knew very well, graphic novels. Ever since the craze of graphic novels being made into movies, I have taken a liking to them. The comic excerpt I chose was from one of my favorites, a graphic novel named V for Vendetta.

There was a lot of revision that took place from the first draft to the second draft. One thing that really stands out to me is the fact that I thought through a lot of the ideas that I had from my first draft. For instance in the first paragraph, and talked about the face of V wasn’t drawn in a “cartoonish” fashion, and how this “makes the audience see the comic in a more serious light.” I also added that the emphasis on the words “Kill”, ”Idea”, and “Bulletproof”,” add legitimacy to the argument, and drives it home, making sure it stays with the audience.” Last but not least, I moved the comment about the cold war in the introduction. I thought it would better suit the last paragraph because it refers to a historical context and a talk about communist Russia in my second to last paragraph.

The revisions made between the second draft, and the final copy that were very drastic. I changed up a lot of arrangement throughout the piece, moving different paragraphs to make more sense. Some examples would have to be that I moved the paragraph that starts “V’s words and face make him seem like he is not human, like he is just an idea,” just after the paragraph where I talk about the words “Kill”, “Idea”, and, “Bulletproof”. I thought that this would make more sense because they are all talking about words, and how V is an allegory.

I also changed up the argument that I thought the comic was trying to make. I change it from “Ideas and concepts cannot be killed by force,” to “Ideas and concepts are mysterious, and complex, and cannot be killed through bullets and force.” I felt that this better embodied some of the rhetorical concepts I was using to help support the authors argument. Finally I cited my sources, and gave people credit when I used their information. I made sure that I had a works cited at the end of my paper. I also made sure to cite my sources in my paper. When I talked about McClound, and quoted him from my essay, I made sure to give him credit by putting his name after the quotation. As you can see there was a lot that I had to do to get to my Final copy. It was an interesting process, and a lot of fun.

Wp2:Rough Draft 2

Wp2:Rough Draft 1

Wp2:Statement of Purpose

Final Copy:

The Comic I chose was an excerpt from the Graphic Novel V for Vendetta by Alan Moore, and David Lloyd. The graphic novel itself is one about freedom and revolution. It depicts the main hero of the graphic novel, V, and he is standing holding a man who is just trying to kill him. He makes a statement about how there is not, “flesh and blood under his robes, there is only an idea”. Then he goes on to state that, “Ideas are bullet proof.” There are many different rhetorical concepts, like the representation of V’s facial region. There is also the aspect of the allegory of V not being a human but an idea, cementing the main purpose of the comic. That argument is ideas and concepts are mysterious and complex, and cannot be killed through bullets and force.

One of the most critical arguments in the comic would have to be the realistic representation of V’s facial region. There are many abstractions and many different rhetoric terms that lie in the facial region. A lot of times we see comics that have drawings that are more cartoonish. I think the author wanted to stay away from that because the message he wasn’t to portray needs to be taken seriously. He wants his message to be brought into a different light than most comics. These concepts helps the audience take the message more seriously, and solidify his argument.

The concept of V not being a person, but embodying and idea, is an excellent example of an allegory. This is a very interesting concept; I think that the author put this in so that they can cement their argument of an idea being indestructible. You see in the first panel that V declares that he is not made of flesh and blood, but an idea. While he is saying this you see what looks like a gun. It is apparent at this point that the man he is holding in the comic was trying to kill him. As you can tell he is unsuccessful, but V reiterates the fact that an idea cannot be killed through those conventional methods. V himself embodies the idea, but even if he was killed, the idea would continue to live on and exist. V is like a symbol to the idea, not the idea itself.

The word bubbles themselves add the concept that V is almost not human. In most comics when someone is talking you have your basic world bubble; it is a basic oval, or circle. Then you also have your basic thought bubble, which is that of the shape of a cloud. When V is speaking in the comic his bubble is neither. It looks like it is a combination of the two, like what he is saying isn’t exactly word, but isn’t exactly thought. It adds to the allegory that V is not necessarily supposed to embody a human, but an idea. This idea that he is embodying isn’t necessarily physical, so it doesn’t deserve the regular word bubble that we see in most comics.

There is also a unique way the author bolds and italicized some aspects of the comic. The words “Kill”,”Idea”, and, “Bulletproof”, are all italicized and bold. This makes you look at these words first. Since the author chose to do this, there is more emphasis on these words themselves. It makes the words more important. These are all words used in the main argument, about how hard it is to kill an idea. It also helps add to the mystery of the concept of an idea, and adds to the mystery of V not being real. These words are the main concepts that are represented by V himself.

V’s words and face make him seem like he is not human, like he is just an idea. When you look at the comic you will notice that V’s face is mostly in shadows. In the second panel you can see his eyes; they are engulfed in darkness which adds to this illusion of him being almost inhuman. This style almost embodies ideas themselves. An idea isn’t always straight forward and clear. This goes back to the main argument of the complexity and mystery of ideas. This goes back to the original argument that ideas are complex, mysterious, and hard to kill. All these rhetorical concepts come together to inspire pathos.

In the McCloud essay, he states that “We see ourselves in everything.” and that “We make the world over in our own image.” (McClound) This is apparent in the comic. The author wants us to be able to relate to the main character. This also inspires more pathos through the comic. Since we can see ourselves in V, we can relate to his allegory of V embodying an idea. We can see ourselves in the face of V, the audience can take more from the argument and it can have more meaning. However, there are also other types of pathos that can be found throughout the comic.

Another type of pathos that is established is that of hope. Because V says that an idea cannot be killed or destroyed by bullets, this makes you the audience hopeful for the ideas that you have yourself. It relates back to the main argument about how ideas are mysterious, complex, and hard to kill through conventional means. It gives you hope that even if some people try and stomp out your idea, that your ideas are too powerful for one person to try and destroy. Your ideas can live on, and be there to inspire others to initiate them and carry them through.

We don’t even have to look very far back in history to see how this comic can relate. Many different wars and conflicts where caused by ideas, and a lot of times these ideas were never killed a carried on till this day. One that is apparent to me and, is still being practiced today is the idea of communism. When this comic was made communism was in full swing in Russia, and many people did not like the idea. The United States was in the cold war, and the threat of doomsday was ever eminent. During the 90’s when the Russian communist party formally disbanded, the idea did not die here. The idea of communism was not destroyed and is still practiced in countries today such as Cuba, and North Korea. (Wikipedia)

In the end I think it is clear that the statement of purpose is achieved. This argument of an idea being complex and bulletproof should be taken into consideration when one is coming up with ideas. The fact that we can come up with ideas that we don’t necessarily understand at first, but can fester into something great is our right as a human. One should not be scared about an idea no matter what the circumstances. You need to stand up and take a chance on your idea. People may be against and you may even be punished, but just know that how hard they might try, your idea will not be killed. If you look at examples through many different revolutions over the course of time, you can see that a lot of those ideas have been used and carried on today. Your idea will carry on, and hopefully one day achieved.

Works cited:

"Communist Party of the Soviet Union"Nov 17. 2009<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union>

"Communist Nations"Nov 17. 2009<http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_communist.html>

Moore, Alan, and David Lloyd.V for Vendetta.Us:Dc Comics, 1982

Wp2:rough draft 2

The Comic I chose was an excerpt from the Graphic Novel V for Vendetta by Alan Moore, and David Lloyd. The Graphic novel itself is one about freedom and revolution. It depicts the main hero of the graphic novel, V, and he is standing holding a man who is just trying to kill him. He makes a statement about how there is not, “flesh and blood under his robes, there is only an idea”. Then he goes on to state that, “Ideas are bullet proof.” The comics compiled to make this novel was published from 1982-1989. I think through the rhetoric terms of the abstract concepts and realistic representation of V’s facial region, whether it is the complexity of the artwork, or the simplicity of the mask V is wearing. There is also the aspect of the allegory of V not being a human but an idea, cement the main purpose of the comic. That Ideas and concepts cannot be killed bullets and force.

One of the most critical arguments in the comic would have to be the realistic representation of V’s facial region. There are many abstractions and many different rhetoric terms that lie in the facial region. A think this is so the author can add legitimacy to his argument. A lot of times we see comics that have drawings that are more cartoonish. I think the author wanted to stay away from that because the message he wasn’t to portray needs to be taken seriously. The face that he stays away from that cartoonish type of drawing makes the audience see the comic in a more serious light.

I notice another point being made in the comic when I compare V’s face to the face of the man he is holding in the first panel. The man’s face in the first panel seems very complex and very detailed. V’s face though complex, doesn’t have as much detail as man that he is holding. I this is so that no matter who the audience is, we can see ourselves in the face of V. In the Mccloud essay, we try and see ourselves in almost everything. This is apparent in the comic, the author wants us to be able to relate to the main character, and for us to accept the idea that he is trying to implement.

The concept of V not being a person, but embodying and idea, is an excellent example of an allegory. This is a very interesting concept; I think that the author put this in so that they can cement their idea of an idea being indestructible. You see in the first panel that V declares that he is not made of flesh and blood, but an idea. While he is saying this you see what looks like a gun. It is apparent at this point that the man he is holding in the comic was trying to kill him. As you can tell he is unsuccessful, but V reiterates the fact that an idea cannot be killed through those conventional methods. V himself embodies the idea, but even if he was killed, the idea would continue to live on and exist. V is like a symbol to the idea, not the idea itself.

V’s words and face make him seem like he is not human, like he is just an idea. When you look at the comic you will notice that V’s face is mostly in shadows. In the second panel you can see his eyes; they are engulfed in darkness which adds to this illusion of him being almost inhuman. This style almost embodies idea’s themselves. An idea isn’t always straight forward and clear. Like I have stated before ideas themselves are complex. The mystery surrounding the hero of this comic only embodies it through the shadows surrounding his face.

The word bubbles themselves add the concept that V is almost not human. In most comics when someone is talking you have your basic world bubble; it is a basic oval, or circle. Then you also have your basic thought bubble, which is that of the shape of a cloud. When V is speaking in the comic his bubble is neither. It looks like it is a combination of the two, like what he is saying isn’t exactly word, but isn’t exactly thought. It adds to the allegory that V is not necessarily supposed to embody a human, but an idea. This idea that he is embodying isn’t necessarily physical, so it doesn’t deserve the regular word bubble that we see in most comics.

This symbolism inspires rhetorical terms, one of those being pathos specifically hope. Because V says that an idea cannot be killed or destroyed by bullets, this makes you the audience hopeful for the ideas that you have yourself. It gives you hope that even if some people try and stomp out your idea, that your ideas are too powerful for one person to try and destroy. Your ideas can live on, and be there to inspire others to initiate them and carry them through.

There is also a unique way the author bolds and italicized some aspects of the comic. The words “Kill”,”Idea”, and, “Bulletproof”, are all italicized and bold. This makes you look at these words first. Since the author chose to do this, there is more emphasis on these words themselves. It makes the words more important. Since all these words are part of the main argument that the author is trying to make, it is important they are written the way they are. It helps add legitimacy to the argument, and drives it home, making sure it stays with the audience

We don’t even have to look very far in history to see how this comic can relate. Many different wars and conflicts where caused by ideas, and a lot of times these ideas were never killed a carried on till this day. One that is apparent to me and, is still being practiced today is the idea of communism. When this comic was made communism was in full swing in Russia, and many people did not like the idea. When the communism was finally finished in Russia, the idea did not die here. The idea of communism was not destroyed and is still practiced in countries today.

In the end I think it is clear that the statement of purpose is achieved. This idea of an idea being bulletproof should be taken into consideration when one is coming up with ideas. One should not be scared about an idea no matter what the circumstances. You need to stand up and take a chance on your idea. People may be against and you may even be punished, but just know that how hard they might try, your idea will not be killed. If you look at examples through many different revolutions over the course of time, you can see that a lot of those ideas have been used and carried on today. Your idea will carry on, and hopefully one day achieved.

Wp2:rough draft

The Comic I chose was an excerpt from the Graphic Novel V for Vendetta by Alan Moore, and David Lloyd. The Graphic novel itself is one about freedom and revolution, so it makes sense why the excerpt I have is in the novel itself. It depicts the main hero of the graphic novel, V, and he is standing holding a man who is just trying to kill him. He makes a statement about how there is not, “flesh and blood under his robes, there is only an idea”. Then he goes on to state that, “Ideas are bullet proof.” The comics compiled to make this novel was published from 1982-1989. During this time there was the struggle of the cold war, and many ideas of communism and freedom. I think through the rhetoric terms of the abstract concepts and realistic representation of V’s facial region, and the allegory of V not being a human but an idea, cement the main purpose of the comic. That Ideas and concepts cannot be killed bullets and force.

One of the most critical arguments in the comic would have to be the realistic representation of V’s facial region. There are many abstractions and many different rhetoric terms that lie in the facial region. As we see V’s face is more complex than what we normally see in most comics and cartoons. I believe that this is because the author wants to convey that an idea itself is very complex. The concept of an idea has many parts, and most of the time and some are very difficult to be broken down. This complexity is here because the author wants you to know how difficult it is for an idea to be destroyed.

I notice another point being made in the comic when I compare V’s face to the face of the man he is holding in the first panel. The man’s face in the first panel seems very complex and very detailed. V’s face though complex, doesn’t have as much detail as man that he is holding. I this is so that no matter who the audience is, we can see ourselves in the face of V. In the Mccloud essay, we try and see ourselves in almost everything. This is apparent in the comic, the author wants us to be able to relate to the main character, and for us to accept the idea that he is trying to implement.

The concept of V not being a person, but embodying and idea, is an excellent example of an allegory. This is a very interesting concept; I think that the author put this in so that they can cement their idea of an idea being indestructible. You see in the first panel that V declares that he is not made of flesh and blood, but an idea. While he is saying this you see what looks like a gun. It is apparent at this point that the man he is holding in the comic was trying to kill him. As you can tell he is unsuccessful, but V reiterates the fact that an idea cannot be killed through those conventional methods. V himself embodies the idea, but even if he was killed, the idea would continue to live on and exist. V is like a symbol to the idea, not the idea itself.

V’s words and face make him seem like he is not human, like he is just an idea. When you look at the comic you will notice that V’s face is mostly in shadows. In the second panel you can see his eyes; they are engulfed in darkness which adds to this illusion of him being almost inhuman. This style almost embodies idea’s themselves. An idea isn’t always straight forward and clear. Like I have stated before ideas themselves are complex. The mystery surrounding the hero of this comic only embodies it through the shadows surrounding his face.

The word bubbles themselves add the concept that V is almost not human. In most comics when someone is talking you have your basic world bubble; it is a basic oval, or circle. Then you also have your basic thought bubble, which is that of the shape of a cloud. When V is speaking in the comic his bubble is neither. It looks like it is a combination of the two, like what he is saying isn’t exactly word, but isn’t exactly thought. It adds to the allegory that V is not necessarily supposed to embody a human, but an idea. This idea that he is embodying isn’t necessarily physical, so it doesn’t deserve the regular word bubble that we see in most comics.

This symbolism inspires rhetoric terms, one of those being pathos specifically hope. Because V says that an idea cannot be killed or destroyed by bullets, this makes you the audience hopeful for the ideas that you have yourself. It gives you hope that even if some people try and stomp out your idea, that your ideas are too powerful for one person to try and destroy. Your ideas can live on, and be there to inspire others to initiate them and carry them through.

Another rhetoric term that must be addressed in the comic is that of logos. Since there are multiple panels in the comic, there is arrangement that progress the comic itself. The progression is also apparent in the writing itself. This logos seems to help solidify and strengthen the argument being made. V talks in the first frame and address the fact that he is not flesh and bone, and in the second he has his one liner about ideas being bulletproof. You see this in a lot of other comics involving heroes. They will make a statement, and then finish it up with a one liner. This is a very effective arrangement to get the point across and solidify it.

There is also a unique style and ethos to the writing in the comic. The words “Kill”,”Idea”, and, “Bulletproof”, are all italicized and bold. This type of ethos adds a unique style to the comic itself. Because the writer chose to do this, you get some extra emphasis on these words. Thus these words become more important in the writing and should be looked at more. It adds to the argument that you cannot kill an idea through bullets and conventional means.

We don’t even have to look very far in history to see how this comic can relate. Many different wars and conflicts where caused by ideas, and a lot of times these ideas were never killed a carried on till this day. One that is apparent to me and, is still being practiced today is the idea of communism. When this comic was made communism was in full swing in Russia, and many people did not like the idea. When the communism was finally finished in Russia, the idea did not die here. The idea of communism was not destroyed and is still practiced in countries today.

In the end I think it is clear that the statement of purpose is achieved. This idea of an idea being bulletproof should be taken into consideration when one is coming up with ideas. One should not be scared about an idea no matter what the circumstances. You need to stand up and take a chance on your idea. People may be against and you may even be punished, but just know that how hard they might try, your idea will not be killed. Your idea will carry on, and hopefully one day achieved.

WP2:Statement of Purpose

My comic is clearly one of inspiration and hope in dark times. I think that it is trying to state that one person doesn’t make the idea, the idea lives on in the people who believe, and that idea will live on through person to person. That idea is one of hope and freedom. The idea that one person can kill an idea is very foolish. As we have seen throughout history that the people who have inspired many different ideas might have died but, we can clearly see that this idea lives on in many different people. Sometimes this can be a bad thing, or a good thing.

My comic is coming from a historical context. One instance that truly sticks out to me is that of idea of hate, inspired during World War 2. We might have killed Hitler and his Social Darwinistic ideal of anti-Semitism, and a perfect race, but they still live on today. We still have people who call themselves neo-Nazi’s and still go around preaching hate and anti-Semitic ideas. Even though this isn’t the most happy of examples, it is still clear that even though the person who inspired the idea is dead, his idea still lives on in the people who believe in it.

I think that my target audience is going to be very diverse. I think that my audience is going to be one that has felt some type of unfair oppression or anyone who wants to think outside the box and rebel against injustice in their government. Because of this my comic will be viewed by basically anyone old or young. I think the cut off would probably have to be that of a teenager, my reasoning is that the subject manner would be too intense for someone younger than that. My audience will be that of any walk of life, because I think we have all experienced some type of injustice in our government or everyday lives.

I think that my comic will be read just about anywhere. Because it is a small part of a graphic novel, one of the most obvious places it will be read at will have to be a comic book store. Another place would have to be a library, because you can check out graphic novels at libraries. Last but not least my comic would have to be read on a computer, and this could be just about anywhere if you take into consideration laptops.

There are many good things that could come from my comic. I think that it could help some people change the way that they look at their lives and what they handle certain situations. I can see it inspiring people to stand up for their ideals and change their certain living condition. It could drastically change people’s lives for the better, and help them strengthen their ideals. There is also some negatives that can come from my comic and writing. I think some people can get angered by my comic and my paper.

There are many people out there that do not like to “stir the pot”. They like everything the way it is, and get angry when people try to challenge and change the way things are. I can see those people taking one look at the subject matter of my paper and rejecting my argument right off the bat. I think if I also bring up some times historically where some touching subjects come up in terms of ideas and they still living today, could anger some people. There are a lot of bad ideas out there that have not died that probably should have. I think these can sadden some people and turn them off to my paper.