This is the class blog for ENG 350, an undergrad & graduate course in Visible Rhetoric, at Illinois State University.
ENG 350 is a writing-, analysis-, and production-intensive course that explores how visual elements work within different “texts” and global and local cultures. Specifically, we study the growing interdisciplinary inquiry of visual rhetoric—drawing upon theory in rhetorical, technical communication, cultural, visual culture, graphic design, art history, advertising, psychology, and usability studies—and investigate theories, histories, principles, practices, cultures, and ethics of representation, color, typography, document design, image (re)production, and branding & packaging of consumer products (including information and technology products). Based upon this inquiry, we analyze existing print, material, and digital compositions and create and analyze our own visual compositions using a variety of older and newer media (from button making to Photoshop).
Among other things, this course interrogates:
• what “visible rhetoric” means, what “visual rhetoric” does, and how professional communicators (broadly understood) use visual design theories and principles to make documents work
• the rhetorical situations of a variety of visual media experiences in mass media, institutions, academia, workplaces, and communities
• the varied effects visual elements have on diverse communities of readers/viewers/users
• the relationships between visual rhetoric and visual literacies
• the textuality and materiality of visible rhetoric
• what it means to see, look at, analyze, and (re)produce elements of visual media and document design
• the relationships between culture, power, and constructing meaning via images
• how we construct our own identities and the identities of others with our design choices—and how we are constructed by the designs of others
• how narratives of gender, race, ethnicity, class, religion, generation, sexuality, and (dis)ability are constructed via visual design
• visible rhetoric as ethical action.
Ultimately, ENG 350 promotes creative and critical strategies and tactics for solving real-world information problems through design by providing a learning environment that supports improved critical thinking and communication skills required of professional writers and designers—as well as scholars in rhetoric, composition, technical communication, and visual arts and culture.
ENG 350: Visible Rhetoric (Fall 2010) 
I will be writing on commodity fetishism, branding, and use value vs. exchange value.
I’ll be looking at fetishism as it is covered in PRACTICES OF LOOKING, “Advertising, Consumer Cultures, and Desire” (p. 280) which is a different take than what crystalperson looked at in her post on fetishization. Commodity fetishism is the phenomenon whereby we the consumers lose sight of, or more specifically chooses to ignore, what went into the making of a product (person — man, woman, child — hours, working conditions — sweat shops, slave labor) in favor of acquiring the product because of its name brand and the status that comes with ownership.
It’s hard for me to imagine that there was actually a time when soap bars were placed in a bin with no marking that would tie them to a specific manufacturer, but it seems that branding originated in the 19th century (p. 289 PRACTICES OF LOOKING) when companies recognized the value of attaching their names to their products so as to distinguish them from competitors. Branding has evolved to the point where a successful marketing campaign is impacted directly by the decision-making that goes into designing and refining a brand. Sometimes companies find that their brands are so successful that any attempt for change can negatively affect the sales to the point that they must return to their original design, case in point the recent introduction of a new GAP logo that was removed in less than a week due to consumer outrage.
While this is not included in the terms listed on our blog site, I want to look at use value vs. exchange value. “Commodities [or products] have both use value, which refers to their particular use in a particular society and exchange value, which refers to what they cost in a particular system of exchange. (p. 280 PRACTICES OF LOOKING) The use value of such items as food and clothing is high because we need them to survive and function, but there is a wide range of exchange value for these items as food purchased at a drive-through is going to cost less than that purchased at a high-end restaurant. The authors point out that “the idea of use value is tricky, because the concepts of what is and is not useful are highly ideological.” I would argue that use value also has an historical context. The original play SEND THE LIGHT tells a series of stories about bringing electricity to the rural areas in the 1930’s under Franklin Roosevelt’s Rural Electrification Act. One of the vignettes shows a husband’s regret at not being able to afford the $5.00/month to pay for the service as he watches his wife talk of her dreams to have, among other things, an electric light bulb instead of the coal oil lamp. At that point in time the use value is outweighed by the exchange value, even though today there are government programs that step in to help people who cannot afford to pay power bills because electricity is essential (use value) in today’s society for a person to function.