buildings often work in ways that are rhetorical. Through our experiences of accessibility they can persuade us that we are welcome or unwelcome; through their visual style they can create conflict with or signal acceptance of aesthetic conventions and the cultures of other nations; they can express the vernacular or promote rules of decorum, reinforce class stratification, or define the spirit of an age. Although architectural language is separate from words, it is, nonetheless, an important expression of cultural identity and cultural exchange. Its visual rhetoric is crafted with purpose, and it invites reaction. Yet the visual dimensions of rhetoric have only recently become an important part of communication-related disciplines. Broadly defined as those symbolic actions enacted primarily through visual means, made meaningful through culturally derived ways of looking and seeing and endeavoring to influence diverse publics (Olson et al. 3), visual rhetoric is a significant part of architectural language, but it is by no means the fullest way to reflect the interaction between people and buildings. Spatial rhetoric is also important: the ways in which people engage physically with the built environment can define a societys attitude to a disability, and can even define disability itself. Just as studying visual rhetoric trains us to discriminate the commercial from the civic, the propagandist from the democratic, and the sentimental from the memorable (Olson et al. 4), so spatial rhetoric can determine the extent and purpose of personal functionality in ways that explain the value system of a culture and its modes of resistance.... ah! pliz nna ke itshamekela di game...mo gongwe mo ke 60 fela -_- Kevin Morapetsane
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:27:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015