viz.
Rhetoric - Visual Culture - Pedagogy
Tags
advertisement
advertising
architecture
art
assignment
Barack Obama
Comics
design
fashion
film
Hillary Clinton
Humor
In-class Exercise
information design
Iraq
Maps
news
Pedagogy
pedagogy examples
photography
photography
photography
Political Propaganda
politics
Propaganda
video
visual art
Visual Rhetoric
Writing Exercise
youtube
DisclaimerThese blog entries represent the views of their authors, not necessarily those of the CWRL, the University of Texas at Austin, or any of its affiliated entities. |
Reply to commentReplyYour contribution to the blog: Please Read Before PostingThe viz. blog is a forum for exploring the visual through identifying the connections between theory, rhetorical practice, popular culture, and the classroom. Keeping with this mission, comments on the blog should further discussion in the viz. community by extending (or critiquing) existing analysis, adding new analysis, providing interesting and relevant examples, or by making connections between that topic and theory, rhetoric, culture, or pedagogy. Trolling, spam, and any other messages not related to this purpose will be deleted immediately. Comments by anonymous users will be added to a moderation queue and examined for their relevance before publication. Authenticated users may post comments without moderation, but if those comments do not fit the above description they may be deleted. |
Recent comments
|
I was wondering the same
I was wondering the same thing (about a possible lawsuit). In fact, I hesitated to post about the cartoon because I didn't want it take away from me! I think the case can be made (and you, John, and I are all making it) that this is a very different product. Of course, our modern copyright code does not look so kindly upon what Lawrence Lessig calls "Mickey Mouse creativity" as it once did.