Ridolfo and DeVoss: “Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery”
It was intriguing to learn from Ridolfo and DeVoss’ article how creators today must think so far ahead when it comes to the content they make, particularly regarding rhetorical velocity. They have to consider how their work can be used and remixed by others in the future. Reusing and remixing content has become an almost natural part of the digital world, with platforms fostering an environment where things are shared, edited, and re-expressed in new ways. I had just watched a few edited videos of a newly released movie trailer while reading their article, which made the concept of remixing even more relevant. I particularly liked how Ridolfo and DeVoss described remixing as re-expressing something that has already been mixed. It emphasizes creativity in expressing one’s interests or views.
However, this brings up the question: Where do we draw the line between remixing and straight-up plagiarism? Given that remixing is so common today, determining what constitutes fair use versus what is simply copying seems more complicated than ever. Is it about the intent or the transformation of the original work? Or should the focus be on the amount of original content versus reused elements?
As the article discusses, when composing content that others may reuse or remix, there’s a sense of anxiety that comes with protecting intellectual property. You have to anticipate everything: audiences, reactions, outcomes, timing, and context. This seems like a lot to juggle for content creators, and yet it’s a necessary consideration in our digital age.
This brings me to the idea of introducing Rhetorical Velocity to students. While I agree that it’s essential for students to understand the potential impact of what they post online, I wonder how we would go about integrating it into the classroom? I think there’s value in teaching students how to engage with their digital world more thoughtfully, but the challenge is that many students may not care much about the consequences of their online content yet. Still, exposing them to this concept would prepare them for the reality of digital communication as they grow older.
Cummings: “Introduction to Machine Rhetorics”
In Cummings’ article, the discussion about Machine Rhetorics caught my attention. The article defines Machine Rhetorics as the study of the available means of machine persuasion, that looks beyond prompt design to encompass a broader range of techniques to shape AI responses and behaviors.”
While AI continues to evolve, humans still play a critical role in how AI systems understand and respond to us. This concept reinforces that even with advanced technologies, human expertise is essential. We’re actively shaping how AI communicates and interprets information. It makes me think about how dependent we might become on these systems as they get better. Will actively shaping AI lead us to become more dependent on its use in our daily lives? As we refine AI communication, we might find ourselves relying on it more for decision-making, problem-solving, and creativity. The more we interact with AI, the more it becomes integrated into our routines. This raises the question of how much autonomy we might lose to these systems in the future.
Comments
3 responses to “Week 2 Post – 9/5”
The line between remixing and plagiarism is whether or not there is proper credit being given. The thing about the Ridolfo and DeVoss article is that I don’t see much of a difference in what they are saying and what people are already doing. You said it yourself: “Reusing and remixing content is such a common thing nowadays.” When we write a research paper, we gather sources to remix with our words. We are trying to add our voice to the conversation that the existing works are already talking about. Doing that already composes for the hope that someone else will continue the conversation. I guess I just don’t see how we can control what others will remix our voice into besides doing that.
You bring up a really interesting question about where the line between remixing and plagiarism lies. I think that plagiarism is more about giving credit where it’s due, and if credit is given in the process of remixing, then there’s no issue there. However, an issue arises when we think about the difference between remixing and simply copying one’s work, making a small adjustment, and calling it remixing. One question that I would pose is where do we draw the line between remixing a piece of media and simply copying it and calling it one’s own?
To answer your question about where we draw the line between remixing and plagiarism, I would say it is based on what the author says their work is. Are they creating a piece and saying, “This is brand new, I did it all by myself, there are none like it!” or are they saying, “I was inspired by a piece of art and created this”, “I took pieces from this and made it my own”, or just straight up citing the original work as well. If they claim it entirely as their own, yet there are obvious traces back to the original work, then it is safe to call that plagiarism.