Revision as of 12:20, 12 November 2018

Summary

I want to find out how a varying extent of content is changing the mediation of communication. Further questions, that may arise while working on this topic are:

How much communication is necessary?
And necessary for whom? For the sender, or the recipient?
What defines, what is exceeding the needful, what is unnecessary or what is missing to the needful?

These questions I do not only want to restrict to the written communication, but also extend to the visual communication. How is simplification or debauchery changing the visual appearance of content? From which point of the reduction or maximisation of content is distorting the content itself? On the example of translators - like for every other communication that is involving a third party - there is a risk, that para- and nonverbal signs may be terminated or corrupted. In which extent are there changes in the visual communication , that may have great impact on the reception? Whatever it may be: illustration, photography, moving image, interactive work and so on. These work results I want to visualise adequately. Afterwards I want to influence the reception by specifically changing the substance and therefore putting myself as a designer to the test.

Research

From ancient times to the modern era the rhetoric has been the binding and constant guideline of communication. Nowadays there is less new in the rhetoric, even though the complexity of content has increased. Also, there seems to be a dominance of the visual in the „screen-“ or „display culture“.

The brevity-dialogue itself is of course nothing new, but reaches back into the Roman age. In that a complete different speech situation was dominating: the monologue was letting the audience focus on the speaker. Nowadays this circumstance has turned due to the easy possibility to create ones own stage with YouTube, Podcasts or Instagram-Stories: The „User“ is „Producer“ at the same time – formally known as the audience. Aristoteles demanded in his rhetorics not categorical brevity, but in an appropriate manner – similar to Cicero and Qunitilian are defining the oration. Not the good or bad, but the moderate oration. Indoxa shall be skipped, because the listener can easily complete

Literature

BARTHES, Roland, 1978: »Rhetorik des Bildes« [1964 a], in: G. Schiwy (Hg.): Der französische Strukturalismus. Mode, Methode, Ideologie, Reinbek bei Hamburg, S. 158–166

FRIEDRICH, Thomas u. SCHWEPPENHÄUSER, Gerhard, 2010. Bildsemiotik – Grundlagen und exemplarische Analysen visueller Kommunikation, – Basel, Boston, Berlin.

HÄRTER, Andreas. 2000. Digressionen : Studien zum Verhältnis von Ordnung und Abweichung in Rhetorik und Poetik; Quintilian - Opitz - Gottsched - Friedrich Schlegel - München : Fink.

HOFMANN, Norbert. 1980. Redundanz und Äquivalenz in der literarischen Übersetzung : dargestellt an fünf deutschen Übersetzungen des Hamlet. – Tübingen : Niemeyer.

JÄGER, Dr. Maren 2007. Brevitas: Kürze in Rhetorik und Poetik MNDL/EUL-3: – 2011, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.

NÜSSLEIN, Theodor. 2014. Rhetorica ad Herennium : lateinisch-deutsch [E-Book] herausgegeben und übersetzt von Theodor Nüßlein. – 2. Auflage. – Berlin : De Gruyter

PAPE, Wilhelm. 1914 (bearbeitet von Max Sengebusch) Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache. Griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch. Band 1: A�K, Band 2: Δ–Ω. 3. Auflage, 6. Abdruck, Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig.

ROSA, Hartmut. 2016 Beschleunigung und Entfremdung: Entwurf einer kritischen Theorie spätmoderner Zeitlichkeit – 5. Auflage. – Berlin : Suhrkamp,

STREHLE, S. 2012. Zeichenökonomie und symbolischer Tausch. In: Zur Aktualität von Jean Baudrillard, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 On the example of translators - like for every other communication that is involving a third party - there is a risk, that para- and nonverbal signs may be terminated or corrupted. In which extent are there changes in the visual communication , that may have great impact on the reception? Whatever it may be: illustration, photography, moving image, interactive work and so on.
 These work results I want to visualise adequately. Afterwards I want to influence the reception by specifically changing the substance and therefore putting myself as a designer to the test.
+=Research=
+From ancient times to the modern era the rhetoric has been the binding and constant guideline of communication. Nowadays there is less new in the rhetoric, even though the complexity of content has increased. Also, there seems to be a dominance of the visual in the „screen-“ or „display culture“.
+The brevity-dialogue itself is of course nothing new, but reaches back into the Roman age. In that a complete different speech situation was dominating: the monologue was letting the audience focus on the speaker. Nowadays this circumstance has turned due to the easy possibility to create ones own stage with YouTube, Podcasts or Instagram-Stories: The „User“ is „Producer“ at the same time – formally known as the audience. Aristoteles demanded in his rhetorics not categorical brevity, but in an appropriate manner – similar to Cicero and Qunitilian are defining the oration. Not the good or bad, but the moderate oration. Indoxa shall be skipped, because the listener can easily complete
 =Literature=