LASIK

I don't think I've very found anything with quite such a direct tie to visible rhetoric. On July 9, I had LASIK eye surgery. Today, 20 days later, I can see better than 20/20. (My contact prescription previous to the surgery was in the -5.5 range.)

What does this mean for visibility for me? I can see! Anyone who has suffered through life with contacts or glasses can appreciate how entwined they become in one's life. I still reach for my glasses every morning. On occasion, when my eyes are dry, I have to remind myself not to scoot my contact around to a more comfortable position. The world is actually legible without aid. I feel naked ... and free! (Although I admit that every once in a while after a long day, I sort of miss being able to take out my contacts and let the world fade away.)

As far as the visible rhetoric surrounding LASIK, I think there is much to be analyzed. First of all, the various advertisements for LASIK are fascinating. They all seem to circle around one central point: clarity. The ads demonstrate and overtly mention that basic tenet. They also seem to gravitate toward themes of independence/strength, for obvious reasons. I may post more later on these ads and how they function.

In terms of the surgery itself, the visible rhetoric is striking. The doctor is not necessarily placed in a privileged position. Rather, she is very much part of a team; every member of that team is necessary. She is seated behind the patient, while other members of the surgical team are standing and seem to be busier than she is. My mother had LASIK a week after I did, and during her surgery the doctor encountered problems with a suction device. One of her assistants insisted firmly that the device was not attached and surgery could not be performed, and her opinion was respected. Although it is difficult for me to analyze the visible aspects of the surgery itself (given that my eyes were occupied), I can imagine the interaction of the staff and how it was visibly efficient and equal.

For those who are curious, I will also include a brief description of the LASIK procedure.

*****

The doctor will have you lie down on a surgical table in a sterile surgical suite (which, in my case, was very cold). An inflatable pillow ensures that you won't move your head too much. There are two machines in the suite, and the table is capable of rotating between them. The doctor first places a suction device on your right eyeball. This really isn't a big deal for contact users; it just feels like putting a contact in combined with a pressure sensation. Close your eye and press on your cl0sed eyelid; that's the extent of it. Then the doctor will place you under one of the machines, which attaches to the suction device (add a little more pressure here) and cuts a flap in your eyeball. (This is using the intralase method, not a blade.) You may feel a slight burning sensation, but no pain. The doctor then disengages you from the machine and suction device and you can close your eye. So far, about 22 seconds have gone by. Next, the doctor will put an eyelid clamp in place to keep you from blinking. (I was extremely worried about this, but it was no big deal. When you need to blink, you just go ahead and try. You obviously can't, but your brain thinks you did and it's taken care of. No pain or even discomfort.) Then you have the actual LASIK treatment. For me it was about 40 seconds; my mom needed more than 60. Again, a slight burning sensation is the worst of it. Then the eyelid clamp is removed. The whole process is repeated for the other eye.

The worst part is about 30 minutes later when the numbing eyedrops wear off. Your eyes will burn a bit, which makes them tear up, which makes them burn more. This lasted about 2 hours for me. After that, it was just a matter of remembering not to rub my eyes until they healed. I could see pretty clearly when I got up from the surgical table, by the way, and was better than 20/20 by the following morning.

Ah, technology and visibility. What an interesting time we live in. :)

Welcome back?

I'm more than a little embarrassed that it's been so long since I've posted anything. I got caught up in my last semester of master's studies. On the bright side, that means I have new and interesting visual rhetoric news to report. I finished a portfolio rather than a thesis to earn my master's, which means I was able to utilize visibility in a way that would not have been possible otherwise. I'm so impressed with ISU for allowing this option. The portfolio, which is online, can be found here. Check it out! I'm continuing to research in the areas it highlights and so am always interested in constructive feedback.

Coming down the home stretch ...

Work on my portfolio proposal is going very slowly, so I've been concentrating on a related paper for another class. I decided to apply to present that paper at the New Directions Conference next year, so I worked up an abstract to submit. I'm really hoping that having that abstract in hand will provide a little inspiration for my other projects! The abstract is as follows:

The experience of pregnancy has changed in modern times, and one of the biggest changes is the advent of fetal ultrasound. Expectant parents look forward to the ultrasound as confirmation of a pregnancy and a chance to “meet” their child. The purpose of fetal ultrasound has undergone a massive shift; it was once used sparingly as a detector of fetal abnormality and now is most often considered a social event. Almost all modern women in the United States have at least one ultrasound scan over the course of carrying a baby – but therein lies a fundamental problem. This paper will examine the reasons women choose to have those scans, and it will further posit that popular and medical rhetoric does not adequately inform women about the potential effects of fetal ultrasound, and thus influences them to have the scans. I will analyze the situation via several different analytic approaches: the societal perception of fetal ultrasound, the messages of media targeting pregnant women, physicians’ rhetoric to pregnant patients, the patriarchal tendency to support the use of fetal ultrasound, women’s reasons for consenting to fetal ultrasound, and, finally, the ethical implications of the intersections in these areas. Those intersections may also be complicated more by the application of feminist and rhetorical theories. Although this paper is not yet complete, I expect to conclude with a number of ways in which the medical community could be more transparent and ethical in its presentation of fetal ultrasound to potential users.

This text is within at least three frames ...

Framing is really all about creating context, and I enjoyed the parts in Graphic Design that pointed out how often we use those contexts every day without even realizing it. One piece of example work, in fact, was made up entirely of the frames we constantly use on computer screens (pg. 100). The text you're reading here is framed - at least - by the computer screen, the window you have pulled up with your Internet brower, and the design of this web site.

A grid, as described in Thinking with Type, is basically a network of related frames. Any sort of grid divides a given space - which is likely a frame itself - into a network of smaller frames within which a designer will then work.

I also enjoyed thinking about the different ways gridding and framing can work. In TT, Lupton discussed how typography can be a frame. "Typography is a form designed to melt away as it yields itself to content" (115). This observation goes back to the most basic principle of design: Good design is invisible. The most effective frame is one that viewers don't even notice. (Of course, this changes if the frame is actually the subject of a piece -- but, in that case, the frame is performaing an additional function besides framing that supersedes framing.) If a non-designer viewer stops to notice a frame when attention should be directed inside the frame, that's an error. (Have you ever noticed the frame on the Mona Lisa? Didn't think so.) Framing, then, is the beginning of design. It has to occur first, and the rest of the piece will flow into and around it.

Choices I can't choose

I'm really struggling with my final project for this class. (For anyone reading who's not in the know, I'm writing a proposal for my master's portfolio.) I've always suffered from a general lack of direction in terms of career. I never wanted to pick an undergraduate major, and I still stutter around quite a bit when people ask me what I'm going to do with my master's degree. So, my main dilemma is that I don't know how much to focus my portfolio. My two major interest areas are medical and visual rhetoric. The biggest paper in my portfolio will be on the visual rhetoric of ultrasound -- a neat combination of the two. (Chapter 8 of Practices of Looking is tailor-made to be a source for that paper.)

Thus far, I've spent time thinking about the final format of the portfolio as well as what I want its ultimate purpose to be (aside from getting that master's degree). I hope to use my portfolio -- which will take shape as a web site -- for the very practical purpose of getting a job I will love. I also want it to be something I can add to so that I can chronicle my academic work in the event that I start work toward a doctoral degree in the future. With the format and purpose decided upon, the content is making me draw a big blank. Right now, I'm thinking I'll create sections within the portfolio -- maybe something like "Visible Rhetoric," "Medical Rhetoric," "Journalism," and "Other Professional Writing Projects." I also think I'd like to include a section about my teaching experience, minimal though it is. Something like this might be ideal.

Suggestions, anyone?

Globalization and freedom

In my opinion, Chapter 9 in Practices of Looking encompassed way too much materials. There's so much to talk about, and just not enough time to do it in the space of a single chapter. 

I'd first like to address the interaction of the terms the authors first introduce: globalization, convergence, and synergy. These concepts are often looked at with either unabashed zeal or fearful hesitance. Professionals in the media industry are particularly conflicted about this scenario. It means we can reach more consumers, but it will eliminate media jobs. This will decrease diversity, thus silencing some voices. Of course, the beauty of the Internet is that anyone can be a publisher -- but the truth of the matter is that one must have some sort of brand identification in this day and age in order to command an audience. Mere access is no longer enough. 

I was also intrigued by the discussion of First vs. Third world conceptions and uses of media. (And I found the original meaning of Third World particularly interesting -- I never knew it meant anything beyond "impoverished.") The idea of television being more powerful than a military force -- which it certainly is -- was frightening. I also never knew that an international convention had established airwaves as belonging to respective countries. I find this increasing rhetoric of ownership disturbing, although I can also see why it is necessary. 

Finally, my pet topic for this chapter: pornography. Sturken and Cartwright devote just a few pages to the issue of pornography, but I think it is vitally interesting. For all intents and purposes, pornography represents the most visible Internet-based battlefield out there. Feminist critics like the late Andrea Dworkin assert that pornography subjugates women, period, and that we must therefor wage war on pornography -- and free access to the Internet, by extension. Other feminists argue just the opposite -- that pornography is integral to women's liberation. I take my direction on the Internet censorship argument from a couple of landmark Supreme Court cases dealing with the dissemination of pornography (and those decisions are largely based on the First Amendment). Basically, we cannot censor material intended for the eyes of consenting adults. (Children add a new facet to the debate, but one case establishes parenting as the appropriate venue for censorship of Internet porn to children.) I think forthcoming court rulings on online pornography will likely illuminate the path all Internet content will eventually have to follow. This will have a profound affect on all the globalization and convergence currently occurring. 

A Return to Basics

The thing I most like about graphic design - besides the fact that it's just cool - is that it's really all about mastery of the basics. 

Lupton and Phillips seem to note this even with the title of their text: "Graphic Design: The New Basics." The sections on hierarchy, layers, transparency, modularity, grids and patterns confirm this. I have dealt extensively with all these elements in my short career - and I am by no means an expert designer. Yet my boss, a designer with 40+ years experience, bases his work on the same principles. (The one that most comes to mind is the grid. He uses a grid format, with story packages in modules, every day - but he can do things within that grid I can't - and, yet, the finished product is always immediately identifiable as our particular newspaper. So, I can really see how the grid can "encourage the designer to vary the scale and placement of elements without relying wholly on arbitrary or whimsical judgments" (175).)

While all the principles mentioned above are important, hierarchy stands out to me as the most important. Hierarchy goes far beyond the aesthetic, and often the consumer of a designer's material may not realize the designer has chosen what the reader's eye will see and when. Thus, hierarchy imbues design work with a serious sense of responsibility. (That's not to say those other elements don't; it's just that they all are subservient to where they are placed in the hierarchy of a piece.) 

Take, for example, rollover ads. Blogger Stephen Baker notes in this entry that such ads can be pretty unethical. He's right; these are the ads that expand into the space where you just clicked, and suddenly you're heading to a site you never wanted to see and downloading cookies you never wanted contact with. This morning, I visited the Peoria Journal Star's Web site and was confronted with one of these rollover ads. (It's already been removed or I'd post a link. The paper's site is pjstar.com.) While I understand that the rollover ad might be effective, the Web page designer at least has a responsibility to not let such an ad take up residence right on the front page, at the top, where most people will certainly be clicking on the headlines listed in the space the ad will expand into. (In this particular case, the designer's ethical duty may include working with an ad representative or even the advertising client to find an alternative solution.)