Goggin “argue[s] that the relationship between rhetoric of the word and rhetoric of the image is far more fluid both on synchronic and diachronic levels than the [visual/verbal] divide permits. This relationship is contingent on social, cultural, economic and technological domains in which existing semiotic resources for both creating/transforming and circulating/consuming meanings shift along axes of accessibility, purposes, subject positions, material conditions and practices…[C]urrent theories of meaning and communication continue to privilege logocentric approaches and perspectives even as they treat an ever-wider range of semiotic artifacts and practices apart from the scripted, printed and digital pages” (87). The divide “tends to behind us to theorizing and historicizing other kinds of semiotic resources and practices. As a result, the divide severely limits what counts as rhetorical practices and who counts in its production, performance and circulation” (88). Goggin analyzes the history of needlepoint to show this – she shows the move from needlepoint as invention to needlepoint as evidence of morality and discipline (and ways in which cultural, social and technological changes led to this shift); she also emphasizes that, regardless of whether the needlepoint was image or alphabetic, they both came from the same semiotic resources (the stitches).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Tags
All
|