RCL #9: Ted Talk Reflection


When preparing my speech, I created my outline based on my essay. After I tried making the slideshow for the speech, I quickly realized that it wasn’t going to work. Because of this, and Professor Campbell’s comments, I rewrote my speech to follow a better path that was more chronologic.

With a well thought out outline, I could now rehearse my speech. To prepare for the recording I practiced my speech 4 times and fixed little comments here and there.

When the time came to record in the One Button Studio I was very confident and believe that I proved myself as a speaker. I made some minor mistakes, but very noticeable mistakes at the least.

My favorite part of my speech is the information I proved. In my speech, I have many relatable and relevant examples throughout my slideshow to make my points about packaging and the old system of beverage distribution.

The second question is “If you could do it again, would you change anything”? The answer is yes because I did. Our volume didn’t work for our group’s videos, so we re-recorded it with changes made to better the speech. Therefore, I changed the way I introduced my sources in a way that is understandable to the audience who I was referencing and where they came from.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Rules Are Meant To Be Broken, Right?

Welcome back to the longest (only) photography blog I have ever written. The first 5 posts laid down the skills necessary for a photographer to start taking truly, easy stylized photos!

There are two main rules to photography: The Rule of Thirds, and there are no rules – when done correctly.

The Rule of Thirds is very simple yet very effective. Imagine two horizontal and two vertical lines intersecting on an image and separating it into a 3×3 grid. The subject of the photograph should be positioned at the intersection points. For a visualization, here is an example from a photo I took of a stranger in Urban Outfitters:

As you can see, the subject is on the edge and on the intersection points of the horizontal and vertical lines. However, the Rule of Thirds only works for portraits like this when the talent, or person posing, is facing away from the side of the frame he or she is on. Otherwise, it will create what’s known as negative space. For example, here is a similar photo without the talent facing the correct direction:

The photo is visually confusing. Where do you look? Your eye is supposed to look where he is looking, but there’s nothing there so you try to focus on the right edge and the tree at the same time.

The second rule: there are no rules. The Rule of Thirds is just one rule to follow in order to allow a photo to tell a story or at least imply that one exists. Although photographers can keep this ‘tried and true’ rule in their back pocket, much more stylistic photos can be taken by breaking or bending the rules. The only catch is that the photo has to draw the eyes somewhere specific.

The Rule of Thirds teaches photographers the positioning of talents and the surroundings. Using these techniques, one can venture off into other types of photos without using this rule.

To visually explain, I went out last night and took photos of a friend. I took these photos at night, while it was snowing, and in the most unflattering lighting, I could find. If you read the other 5 posts, the ‘taken at night’ aspect should already make you think about having to change the settings to even show anything on the camera.

Essentially, I took photos in the worst settings I could find but used some posing and positioning techniques to make them look much better than they could have been otherwise.

The first photo was positioned using “leading lines”, or natural lines in the surroundings of a photo that point to the subject of the photo. Here are two examples, see if you can find straight lines that point to the subject:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the first picture, the vertical lines in the door point down to the talent in the middle or possibly help to point up to where she is looking. In the second photo, the lines on the sidewalk and the line between the road and the snow point to the center of the photo (where the talent is).

You can break the rule of thirds by using visible lines to guide you instead of imaginary ones. One trickier technique is to use what’s known as “framing” to very obviously tell the viewers where to look by blocking the subject in some sort of shape like in these photos:

The talent is blocked inside some sort of shape which directs the viewer’s eyes.

In conclusion, even photos taken in terrible conditions can be made to look great if you follow some rules … or maybe even break them.

I’m sorry to say this is my last blog post on this topic. Thank you for reading, I just feel bad ending so abruptly and with only a few techniques for actually taking better photos … alright, you convinced me, I’ll give you a bonus technique.

To add some flair to any photo, simply put some sort of light in the talent’s eyes or on their glasses. It will automatically appear to be a better photo (and you look like a more talented photographer). Here are some examples:

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Speech Outline for Paradigm Shift on Global Warming

Speech Outline

  1. Introduction

When people think about who or what causes climate change, many are quick to call out automobiles for their gas emissions, crowded cities for their light pollution, and more recently the focus has shifted almost solely onto society for using and throwing away such copious amounts of plastic. All of these evident causes of pollution come from the consumers’ habits and how they choose to live their lives, right? Well actually, they all stem from the producers of these materials. Most people when they hear about a movie set in the 1900s imagine a milkman with glass bottles of milk, but today do not think twice about where their plastic milk jugs come from. The change in the production and reproduction systems of most packaging companies fundamentally shifted the societal consensus on the causes of climate change and global warming due to inflation, capitalism, and corporate power.

  1. History
    1. Old System
      1. Garbage didn’t exist(Laibman)
      2. Too expensive to let happen (Walth)
    2. New System
      1. In the 1950s, Vermont banned throwaway bottles (Walth)
      2. Waste for everything “generation brand-name loyalty” (Laibman)
  2. Inflation
    1. Aluminum cans helped and some lobbied against returnable bottles (Walth)
  3. Capitalism
    1. David Laibman mentions that “we fight an uphill battle against capitalist social irresponsibility, which creates the ‘common sense’ context within which the problems do indeed seem insurmountable”
  4. Corporate Power
    1. The fear should be for “exclusive access to definite social positions [or] an exclusive right to produce or provide definite goods and/or services” (Kaminski)
  5. Conclusion

The transition from an old life-cycle system of containers to a new linear disposal system acts as a paradigm shift because of its effect on society and its view on the causes of global warming. Previously, organizations were held responsible and accountable for the disposal of their products and waste because there practically was none. However, because companies were able to remove themselves from the equation through their monopoly, society made a connection between the consumers’ purchase of the item and their immediate disposal of said product. The causes of climate change used to be the creation of waste products The only question is how to fix the wrongs that have been done. David Laibman said it best, forget the “Keep America Beautiful” campaigns, “the blame must be placed on an industrial system that generates so much waste in the first place”.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Sometimes Photography Can Just Make You Shutter

Personally, essential photography (general ability to take well-composed photos) lends itself to two major factors: ISO and f-stop. After one understands those two, it becomes easy to stylize photos to tell a story. One such way is through shutter speed.

Shutter speed can create a stylized look to your photos depending on what you would like to capture. Before we go over the pros, let’s discuss the cons. When you use quicker shutter speeds, less light can be captured because the lens is not open as long, which can dim your image. On the other hand, when you use slower shutter speeds more light can be captured due to the length of time the camera takes in information. Do not be daunted by this, because you have all the tools you need to correct these effects.

In order to utilize shutter speed for style, the subject must be determined first. Let’s look at some subjects:

The three subjects include skateboarding, stars, and flowing water. To start off, Skateboarding as a subject can come in many different varieties.

If you want a still shot of skateboard with normal shutter speed, the left would be your best shot (no pun intended). If you want to take an action shot, then you need to be able to CAPTURE a moment very quickly (faster shutter speed). As you can see from the picture below, changing the shutter speed allows for a more stylized and storytelling photo.

As another example, take a look at the difference between the two pictures of stars. The top photo was taken with a slow shutter speed to pick up the details of the night sky. The bottom picture was taken with a, yes, even slower shutter speed. Because the earth spins, it appears as though the stars spin around us on the surface. By changing the shutter speed you drastically change thy style and feel to a photograph like this photographer did to create those swirling circling constellations.

While looking on my stock photo website, I found a photographer that took a picture of the same river in two different styles to drive home the effect it can have. The top photo pictures fast-moving water, which would require a quick shutter speed and does not add too much stylistically. The bottom picture was taken with a much slower shutter speed which intentionally blurred the motion of the image. In doing so, the photographer can make the previously gloomy and boring photo of the water into a whimsical silky, watery, haven.

If these examples did not prove the effect of shutter speed, then I do not know what will. I hope you can find a chance to use these techniques! If you do send me some photos!

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

How to Sound Smart in Your Analysis of a TEDx Talk

The TEDx Talk by Will Stephen exemplifies good use of slides and exceptional delivery, the main criteria to look for in the analysis of a TED speech. To explain, Stephen’s thesis is in the title, “How to sound smart in your TEDx Talk”. The speech itself contains multiple bits of humor, which add to the overall idea that this is a template and not a legitimate researched speech.

To begin the analysis, Stephen’s Organization is unmatched in the TEDx community. Will starts his speech with an attention grabber by asking the audience a rhetorical question – “Do you hear that? That’s nothing” – immediately followed by his introduction to his thesis saying “I have absolutely nothing to say whatsoever” but explains that he will make it appear as though he does through his manner of speaking.  Stephen comments on the cliche of giving a personal anecdote and asking the audience a question. This leads to the body of his speech, the slides. Will uses slides to give more information on his ‘nothingness’, all the while repeating his main argument of not having anything to speak about. The conclusion wraps up his points, explains his delivery, and reminds the audience of the thesis telling the audience that “It was nothing, and still is nothing. Think about that”.

In addition to the masterful organization, Will Stephen utilizes powerpoint slides to build his argument. The powerpoint slides reveal one point at a time. In doing so, the speaker can direct the audience’s attention and hold it where he wants (the essential skill of comedy). Comedy comes from leading the audience straight ahead and at the last minute forcing them to make a sharp left turn to somewhere unexpected. For example, Stephan explains what he is doing by revealing one word at a time on his slides explaining they are simply “Me… Buying… Time”. This allows him to make the audience laugh but does so by utilizing his use of powerpoint slides. Stephen also clicks on to numbers individually and portrays every point as unrelated. As the last example of an exemplary slideshow, he enhances his argument of speaking about nothing by explaining vague pie chart templates and irrelevant data.

Lastly, Will Stephen delivers his speech with dramatic theatrics. To illuminate, he combines physical and vocal aspects of delivery to drive home his thesis. In terms of vocal delivery, Will Stephen adds emphasis to specific ideas that have little to no meaning. By adding this emphasis, the audience feels as though what he is saying is important when it is actually not. Furthermore, towards the end of the speech, he starts to slow down his speech and adds space between each word spoken to change the tone. This drastic drop-in speed allows the audience to recognize the conclusion and become emotionally attached to what Stephen is speaking about. In terms of physical delivery, the author appears as intelligent and his speech seems well-rehearsed. The intelligence comes from his glasses that “are just frames”, which he wears to make himself look smarter. To add more emphasis and give off the impression of a rehearsed speech, Stephen employs a multitude of different hand motions and physical movement such as pacing or fixing his glasses.

As a TEDx Talk to be analyzed for Organization, use of PowerPoint, and delivery, Will Stephen’s “How to sound smart in your TEDx Talk” attacks all three categories from many different angles and with a plethora of examples.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Paradigm Shift Ideas

My first example of a paradigm shift is that of the mindset surrounding global warming and or climate change. I think that the blame was shifted from companies producing Plastic Products to us as the consumers who continue to buy them and throw them away. Essentially, consumers are flooded with information about how to reduce your carbon footprint. Although these tips will help the problem of climate change, the main issue is that companies do not want to spend enough money to recycle their glass products, thus shifting the blame on to us. The idea of the paradigm shift comes from how much power consumers had over the companies and how much power companies now have over the consumers.

This example alone indeed lends itself to a paradigmatic category, But this shift can also be paralleled to such ideas as capitalism and corporate personhood as well as the difference in humanity between the producers and consumers. Capitalism runs Our Lives and almost every aspect of Civic life. Capitalism runs political campaigns, judicial decisions, and almost any scenario that involves personal choice. Some tend to say that corporations Lose their Humanity when it comes to the bottom line of money. because of this, corporations can get away with doing horrid things, While most humans could not think of it. That is why most consumers do not push the blame towards the corporations, but rather to themselves.

My second example of a paradigm shift is the change and how Generations view their possible future. I believe that past Generations have settled their roots in one place and found no reason to move from it. That being said, current Generations, and hopefully future Generations as well, decided that they can move from home and explore different opportunities that they would not have taken otherwise. the idea behind this paradigm shift is in the regrets of past Generations, and doors not opened. Another topic to be explored is the level of relocation and philosophies/ history of previous generations.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

F-Stop, Collaborate, and Listen

Before you start messing with the settings on an expensive camera (any camera for that matter) it helps to learn what those settings mean. In previous blogs, I have mentioned what photography is and means to me and some techniques such as aperture size and exposure (known as F-stop and ISO).

As one may have guessed from the title, today we will talk about F-stop; aperture size. If you look at the two photos above, you can see the difference in focuses. The picture on the left captures detail about every speck of light in the view of the camera, some cameras even have an infinity focus to be able to take clearer photos of the night sky. On the other hand, the picture on the left focuses only on the talent’s face and parts of her hair, it almost cuts out of focus by the time your eyes reach her shoulder.

This contrast in focus is not from where you tap on your iPhone or where you twist your lens to focus on your DSLR camera (digital camera). The effect comes from a setting known as the F-stop.

F-stop is the size of your aperture or how much light is being let into the camera. These numbers come in inverses, which can be confusing. For example, an f-stop of f/8 means the shutters are open 1/8 of the size of the lens. The bigger the f-stop, the smaller the aperture size, the less light that comes in.

Similar to how changing the ISO changes the quality of the photo. Changing the F-stop also changes the Depth of Field. As a quick explanation of Depth of Field (DOF), it is simply how much of an area is in focus to your camera lens. A larger f-stop (smaller aperture size) gives us a deeper depth of field. If the DOF is deep, then more of the image is in focus, very similar to the picture of the stars from the beginning. If the DOF is shallower, then less of the object or talent is in focus, like our portrait photo of the girl on the right.

To most of you, you don’t have a camera that can handle a change in F-stop, but that does not mean it hurts to understand it. The truth is, all cameras have an f-stop. For example, the iPhone 8 has an f-stop of 1.8, which explains why you can zoom in on a photo taken on an iPhone and still see a lot of details in the background.

To bring this to a close, I gave a lot of information but it is all easy to understand. The f-stop changes how much light and how much of the image the camera can focus on and interpret. Depending on the photo you want to take, the change in the f-stop can help the photo tell a better story. If you cannot change the f-stop of the camera (like on an iPhone), my first two blogs should provide some help on how to adjust for it. I hope this helps, and I hope it inspires you to go out and focus on what YOU want to see.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Do, Re, Mi, Fa, ISO

In the last passion blog post, we discussed what a photographer is and what they do. Now we must talk about how they do it. Photographers employ many different techniques and can manipulate many different aspects of an image. To go over all of these right now would take too much time, so we are going to focus on ISO.

So what is ISO? Technically, it stands for the International Organization of Standardization, but that doesn’t concern us.

For the purposes of practicing photography, ISO is the relationship between light and quality of your photo. To expose more light, you must edit the photo, which creates digital noise or grain in the photo. To get the clear and crisp photo everyone wants, you need a lower ISO; however, this leads to less light.

If that didn’t make sense, it can be put simpler:

A higher ISO means more light, but bad quality.

A lower ISO means less light, but good quality.

When you take a picture you need to expose the image properly so your camera can process it. The best way to judge how to expose your image is to first identify what your subject is, once you do that, you can change the ISO accordingly.

For example, if you are taking a picture of a sunset, you need to have a lower ISO. The large amounts of light from the sun provide ample lighting.

As an added example, if you are taking a picture of a dark room changing the ISO would brighten the image and reveal more detail. That being said, if you did increase the ISO, then the image would be so grainy and would appear as though it were taken on an iPod nano.

To conclude, ISO refers to the amount of light the camera attempts to portray. Adjusting your exposure can create wonderful photos when done correctly. To understand how to do that, you must be able to understand your true subject.

P.S: As a general rule, you should keep your ISO as low as possible and use other techniques to draw out the light. As of now, we don’t know any others, but it will all make sense in the end!

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

RCL #5: Rhetorical Analysis Draft

By 1992, two hundred thousand U.S. citizens were dead or dying from AIDS, and almost a million more were infected. Some people noticed how much we necessitated better HIV and AIDS treatment, including AIDS activists Elizabeth Glaser and Mary Fisher. In 1992, both women delivered a speech at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions about the importance of joining the fight against HIV. Glaser and Fisher command attention from the crowd because of their masterful display of rhetoric. Glaser focused on creating a pathetic appeal with repetition and juxtaposition, while Fisher emphasized the tragedy of reality with the use of antithesis and personification. Although both speeches resonated with the audience due to their similar establishment of ethos with the utilization of Kairos and Commonplaces, they differ in their implementation of rhetorical devices.

To inaugurate, Elizabeth Glaser and Mary Fisher use their credibility, timing, and topic to make an impression on the audience.  First of all, ethos appeals to credibility, which both authors express quite efficiently. For example, Glaser used pronouns such as ‘we’ or ‘America’ while Fisher repeats “I am one with […]”. The two similar approaches achieve the same effect; giving the audience a sense of relationship with the author. Furthermore, both speakers either introduced themselves or were introduced by someone else. In Glaser’s speech, she introduces herself, her history with childbirth, and how the AIDS virus complicated the procedure. Before Fisher’s speech, she played a video to introduce herself and her children, explaining how all three of them contracted HIV and must live with the consequences. Therefore, both speakers demonstrate their credibility on the topic as well as why they are speaking on it.  As if the introduction did not suffice, they furthered their ethos with their kairos, otherwise known as a rhetorical opportunity. Glaser and Fisher gave their speech in the same year, 1992, less than twelve months after the death of Freddie Mercury (a public figure who passed due to AIDS-related pneumonia). The nation still mourned the death of one of the most common household names at the time. The speeches were also given in the same place, the National Convention for their respective parties. Thus, the audience of the speech already wanted change or action, which allowed the addresses to create a greater overall effect. Lastly, the speakers’ implored the ideology of commonplaces, shared beliefs amongst a community, to further their arguments. Both Glaser and Fisher related different subtopics to the overarching idea of gaining support for the treatment of HIV or AIDS. The subjects included relating children to their vulnerability to the disease, deaths of thousands and infection of millions, as well as more affordable healthcare. Children, death, and healthcare all connect with the audience and pique the interest of the viewers.

Despite the similarities between the speakers’ ethos, the speeches differ in the employment of rhetorical devices. Elizabeth Glaser primarily makes use of repetition to expose the urgency of the subject matter. Glaser begins her paragraphs with her patriotic phrase “I believe in America”  followed with a restriction of “but not one […]” (Glaser). The repetitive phrases change the pace of information dispelled and arguments made, both appealing to the audience’s recognition of time and timing. Serious matters usually connect themselves to urgency, convincing the audience that there is a sense of it present in the speech. In addition to repetition, Glaser deploys antithesis to build up her argument. Glaser mentions the current administration and the idiocy of their decisions because “while they play games with numbers, people are dying” (Glaser). She uses antithesis to unveil the stark contrast in President Bush’s actions and results. Mirroring the last example, Glaser describes the epidemic of HIV and AIDS as “not about being a Republican or an Independent or a Democrat. It’s about the future”(Glaser). The speaker contrasts the subjects of the argument with antithesis, thereby directing the audience to the, in the eyes of the speaker, true subject. Glaser employs repetition and contrasts with antithesis to cement the effect imposed on the audience.

Rather than Elizabeth Glaser’s repetition and antithesis, Mary Fisher pushes her focus onto parallelism and personification to enhance her argument. Parallelism allows the speaker to capture the audience’s attention and hold it while explaining her argument. To demonstrate, Fisher uses similar wording when saying that “we cannot love justice and ignore prejudice, love our children and fear to teach them” or when describing the infected as “not evil, deserving of our judgment; not victims, longing for our pity — people, ready for support and worthy of compassion.” (Fisher). By rearranging the phrases to follow a similar pattern, she reinforces her memorable effect on the viewers. Her arguments stand out and appear to lead or direct the audience towards her main point of supporting the fight against HIV. Manipulation of word choice changes the way the listeners hear her and is much different than changing the way they understand her. Fisher also incorporates personification to paint a visual for the audience. The author carefully models the urgency of her argument in saying “Tonight, HIV marches resolutely toward AIDS in more than a million American homes, littering its pathway with the bodies of the young” (Fisher). She visualizes the ever-present danger of HIV as an army marching toward something terrible, leaving a trail of the literal bodies of the young. Additionally, Mary Fisher characterizes the disease imploring parents “if you do not see this killer stalking your children, look again” (Fisher). The image exposed to the audience serves as a warning to illuminate the significance of Mary’s address. Fisher’s capitalization of the audience’s attention with parallel word structure and vivid personification combine to create a powerful rhetorical force.

Generally speaking, good use of language and timing helps to create an effect on the viewers or listeners. Elizabeth Glaser recognized this and focused on rhetorical strategies centered around word choice and appeals to time to strengthen her effect on the audience. In contrast with Glaser, Fisher utilized comparative language and devices to make her point and create an impact on the audience. Rhetoric connects multiple groups of people and can move mountains when used correctly.

____________________________________________

– Michael Magnotti

Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!

____________________________________________

Work Cited

“A Timeline of HIV and AIDS.” HIV.gov, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 16 Aug. 2019, https://www.hiv.gov/hivbasics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline.

Fisher, Mary. American Rhetoric: Mary Fisher — 1992 Republican National Convention Address (“A Whisper of Aids”), AmericanRhetoric.com, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/maryfisher1992rnc.html.

Glaser, Elizabeth. American Rhetoric: Elizabeth Glaser — 1992 Democratic National Convention Address, AmericanRhetoric.com, https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/elizabethglaser1992dnc.htm.

Introduction to Rhetorical Analyses

Earlier this year, Boston-based food company Toast received funding that totaled $250 million dollars, almost 30 million dollars more than AIDS treatment was funded in 1991. Some people took notice, including AIDS activists, Elizabeth Glaser, and Mary Fisher. In 1992, both women delivered a speech at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions about the importance of joining the fight against HIV. Glaser and Fisher command attention from the crowd because of their masterful display of rhetoric. Glaser focused on creating a pathotic appeal with repetition and juxtaposition, while Fisher emphasized the tragedy of reality with the use of antithesis and personification. Although both speeches resonated with the audience due to their similar establishment of ethos and utilization of Kairos and Commonplaces, they differ in their implementation of rhetorical devices.