For this analytic blog post I chose to reflect and dissect some of the meaning and theories that Christine Harold explored and stated in her article regarding pranking rhetoric. Throughout Harolds writings she focuses on “culture jamming” in the act of rhetorical protest. Culture jamming is defined as as a media tactic to subvert or disrupt the mainstream media culture. Basically, the ‘media pranksters’ deploy the tools that drive culture jamming and pranking rhetoric and take advantage of brands, businesses and any other noticeable media powerhouse with truths and exaggerations to open the eyes and bring attention to the public.

The logo above is one of the most noticeable and famous logos in America. The culture obsessed Starbucks. Most everyone who loves coffee loves Starbucks, but there are the haters. “The coffee isn’t hot enough.. I have to pay over $5 dollars for a regular cofffee.. why wouldn’t I just go to Dunkin Doughnuts?..’

These are all fair and revolving questions that I hear about Starbucks consistently.

Although I do find myself more often than not in the line at Dunkin Doughnuts rather than Starbucks, the above visual is an example of pranksters on the media using tools to exaggerate (really not an exaggeration) the price of a coffee from Starbucks.

Yes it is true that Starbucks costs a lot for a cup of joe, and it’s not “even that much more noticeably better than other coffee shops”, but for some reason even I find myself at Starbucks paying $5.50 for a large coffee. It’s a part of our culture but something we still don’t turn our backs on and abandon because it is so culturally accepted.

There are countless other refurbished brand logos that have been remodeled to expose the truth whether it be known, true or exaggerated regarding their brand and its management. All of the edits are examples of pranking rhetoric and culture jamming.

The online pranksters are using tools and the media to create visuals regarding our rhetoric terms to the mass media audience.

Culture jamming is defined as a tactic that subverts the power of media, government and corporations to control and distort information that they give to the public in order to promote consumerism.

The above image is a distorted picture of the Facebook logo. Instead of “Facebook” they changed the latter of the word to crack referencing the drug and how Facebook is an addictive social media platform.

This type of culture jamming causes destruction to the already world known and noticeable logo. Adding the slogan up under it, “Facecrack helps you waste time and stalk the people in your life,” throws criticism towards people who use Facebook for reasons other than keeping up with family members and old friends. There are over 2 billion Facebook users in the world and according to an undergrad study, nearly 98.83% of people are active on their Facebook account.

While Facebook is intended to be used for keeping in touch with old friends and family members, mass culture relates Facebook users to mindlessly scrolling through their news feed, sharing pointless videos, and stalking people you know and don’t know to see what they’re doing on the weekends and in their free time.

Although this is a funny way of culture jamming the use of Facebook, culture jamming also opens our eyes to the realities of products, corporations and brands.

For this blog post I have decided to do a more descriptive narrative analysis on my narrative assignment of “The search for the best chicken wings in Milledgeville.”

The images I used were the outer storefronts of the restaurants I had chose to be in my top choices. These were good images to use to show what the outer portion of the restaurants looked like, but a more engaging and better image that could have been used would have been the actual chicken wings. If I had used the images of the chicken wings I was referring to and narrating on, the comparison could have been more understanding and easier to follow. Images of the outside of the certain restaurants are good, but actual chicken wing images in the photography could have been great.

A key reference in Bossen and Freedman’s article was prior research. The first choice in my narrative was Buffingtons. The only reason I even considered going to Buffingtons for their wings when I first started my journey was because of a review I saw online when I was new to the area and looking for somewhere to eat. Yelp reviews and internet searches are good research to do when looking for local venues to eat and visit. I think that research is a good thing to do when using any image as narrative, whether it is a fun thing to narrate on like I chose to do, or a more pressing social issue. Research can help validate and solidify a good argument and story.

I am choosing to tie the next references together: questions and methods. In my narrative assignment I reflected on the questions that made the wings the best in my opinion. What were the size of the wings, amount of meat, sauce options and how was the atmosphere? By going through these questions I was able to methodically rate and rank each of my favorite places to go and eat wings.

Ultimately, the references and terms that were set in the article by Bossen and Freedman were helpful for more serious and research purposes. My narrative was fun and entertaining and I was doing my best to tie in their terms and steps into my previous narrative assignment.

This is the narrative about my quest to find the best chicken wings in Milledgeville. Chicken wings are my favorite food in the world, so when I came to Georgia College I began the journey to find the best wings in the area. My conquest took me numerous establishments and these are a few of the restaurants that I tried. I’m going to rank them starting with the worst and work towards my favorite.

One of the first I tried was Buffingtons. From this list, they are the last wings I would want to eat. There were not enough meat on the bone and the sauce options were not too good. 

The next is Amici. The wings aren’t bad, but they are very small.

Third place is Pickle Barrell. I chose Pickle Barrel to be in my top five purely for their sauce. Their islander sauce is SUPERB.

My runner-up option is AJ’s Hot Wings on N. Columbia near Walmart. AJ’s wings just are better. Sauce and chicken completely trump all other chicken wings in the area.

But, the absolute best chicken wings in Milledgeville are AJ’s Hot Wings To-Go on S. Elbert Street. I ate these chicken wings almost every Saturday in the Fall 2017-Spring 2018 school year. They are essentially the same as the original AJ’S, but the To-Go pick up restaurant those wings just do something to me. I think it’s the tradition of eating them every Saturday with my friends and watching sports. We even coined the phrase, “On Saturdays, we eat AJ’s.”

For my blog post I chose to use Foss’ schema to analyze an image through his three step process.

The first step in Foss’ scheme is to identify the function that is being communicated in the image. In this case, the function of this image is expressing to the viewer that if an adult is abusing an animal that the child will be next. The first thing I see is a blatant abused animal covered in blood and then an adolescent with the words, “he’s next” under him. The following text says to report animal abuse to stop domestic abuse by calling 911. The image is bringing awareness that if you see animal abuse report it because you could stop the abuse of a child. If there was no text accompanied with the images we would be confused as to why an abused animal picture is next to the boy.

The second step is to determine how well the function of the image is being preformed. The blood covered dog and the transition into the child is stimulating emotion to the viewer by saying the child is next to be abused. The frightened looks in the eyes and faces of both the dog and the boy evoke an emotion that causes the reader to want to take action. Most everyone loves animals and no sane person would wish abuse upon a child so the pathos appeal to the viewer makes this image function well.

The final step in Foss’ schema is to analyze the legitimacy of the image. The function of the image is to bring attention to viewers that if you see animal abuse then report it because you could stop child abuse. The function is not completely legitimate. Not 100% of all animal abusers are harming children, but it is bring attention to the fact that if someone would harm an animal, then they could harm a child. Although it might not always be happening, it is better to be safe and report all abuse.

Looking over the post prompts, I decided to write my post over a memes and how they are examples of an enthymeme.

A meme is a viral sensation within social platforms and society today and are easily recognizable that can represent a wide variety of issues and subjects. They are the easiest way to grab someone’s attention because almost anyone will take the time to read a meme, no matter how bad or stupid it may be.

An enthymeme is defined as a syllogism in which the premise of the image is left out of the argument. Having a social norm or understanding about the image between the creator and the viewer is important so that the underlying meaning of the image can be be understood.

A trending social word easily recognizable in todays society is “triggered” and what better representation of the word with an enthymeme than the “triggered lady.”

This image is an example of an enthymeme because we can look at the image and get an understanding that the individual is upset and ready to blow off all the steam she has. This person has been a popular meme and has been defined as “the triggered lady.”

For this blog post, I chose the second prompt that was offered.

I will start my post by answering the first two questions of what is an image event and what is a mind bomb?

An image event is something staged or demonstrated to capture the attention of the media. A mind bomb is defined by Deluca, “an image event that explodes ‘in the public’s consciousness to transform the way people view their world” (1971, p.22, p.1).

I think the Greenpeace is a significant model for radical change because it was an early event that was captured of, “wow did that really just happen?”

It was a more old school sort of situation that showed that the thought for safety and threat towards the human life were not considered and it really caused so many people to explode on the individuals at fault. The more dramatic and controversial something is, the more publicity. Drama generates exposure and this was a prime example.

In todays society with so many smart phones, social media platforms, and vloggers, we are used to seeing images and videos of extreme events that cause an uproar and an act for change.

One recent example that comes to mind is the Fyre documentary. There was a Bahamian woman who had to spend her entire life savings to pay her employee’s or she would have likely been killed, all because she was lied to and manipulated by someone who claimed they were going to help and pay her back. She was filmed about her experience and she was flooded with emotion and you could really understand why she was so upset and so many people were compelled to rush and seek ways to help her. Soon, a GoFundMe was created for her and she received all the money back and then some. I feel as though that was an image event that called people to act on her behalf and a way that people could come together through a public image to help someone in need.

DeLuca claims that images can expand critical thinking and influence social change where Postman contends that the media is trash and we are complicit with it. While DeLuca expresses the power of images and the unity they bring to society, Postman argues that we are so caught up with what’s going on around us, we don’t pay attention to the objective truth.

I believe that Postman ideals undermine reasonable rhetoric while DeLuca’s claim to be more effective in that regard. Reasonable rhetoric is the art of speaking and writing effectively. If the most efficient way to generate power, change, and unity is through images on a social platform, then shouldn’t rhetoric practitioners focus on the best solution?

Images affect peoples emotions and minds. With so many users on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook daily, the amount of images we see are almost too many to handle. Whether memes, art, or factual images, everyone of them have a place and they all promote their own sense of relationships, conversation, and power.