# 1, page 908: The visual argument I find most appealing is Stephanie Heyman's "Everyone a Part, No One Apart." on page 904. I find this argument most appealing because it uses the brightest colors of all of the arguments. I also was drawn to and like the play on words "everyone a part, no one apart," and how she uses basically the same words in two very different ways to portray two very different messages. I also like the fact that it looks like a collage and the words and letters look like they are cut out individually from a magazine. The visual argument I found least appealing is Melanie Frost's "Embracing Diversity in University Residences," on page 905. Although after looking at it a little more I discovered that the tree is made up of arms and hands, which is very cool, the argument did not pop right away like the other one did. It has very muted colors and is just kind of boring to look at until you realize the tree is made up of body parts.
#1, page 921: In the first argument on page 917, the argument being made is that it doesn't matter how you meet the means or requirements to get into college; as long as you do, you will be admitted. The boy does not meet the height requirement without shoes on, but with shoes on that say "racial" and "preferences" on them, he meets the requirement and is admitted. In the second argument on page 918, the argument being made is that the argument is extremely ironic. The supreme court pictured is made up of all white people, mostly men, and one African American. The poster reads "the supreme court considers whether race should be taken into account to promote diversity...", with a thought bubble above the African American reading "the irony escapes me...". I think what the argument is trying to portray is that the Supreme Court says they take race into account to promote diversity, yet there is only one person that is not white in the picture. In the third argument on page 919, affirmative action is being portrayed through a child that grows up with hardships and is accepted into college because of it. There is a woman complaining and asking why the boy gets all the breaks. I think it is trying to portray that people are frustrated because it seems as though if you have a hard life, you are automatically offered admission to college. In the fourth argument on page 920, there is a line of people that all got into college with the reason why they did get in written below them. On the right, there is a boy who didn't get in and is pointing to the boy labeled minority and saying that it is the minority's fault that he did not get in. I think the argument being made in this one is portraying that people feel like if you are a minority, you will automatically be offered admission into a college because you are a minority, even if someone else is academically more qualified than you are because colleges are trying to prove that they do not discriminate against races. In the fifth argument also on page 920, it is trying to portray that simply getting accepted into a college is pricey. You must go through tutoring, SAT classes, and summer programs just to cross the finish line, which is representing college.
I find the 4th argument to be most effective because I admit that I have been guilty of making the same argument. I think that any Caucasian that does not get into a certain program, etc. is going to assume that the minority person that did get in did so because of their race/religion/sex, etc. I think that a lot of people feel that affirmative action is taken too literally in the United States.
The argument I find the least effective is the first one because it is just not as visually appealing as the other ones. Although I do think the message being portrayed is good, the artwork does not "pop" as much as the other arguments and there is no use of color or anything that would attract the eye right away.
No comments:
Post a Comment