Readings Question

Anne Berthoff says (paraphrased) that  it is the process of writing (chaotically) that leads to discovery. Kenneth Haltman in the Introduction to American Artifacts echoes this thought when he writes that “writing constitutes analysis: we do not really see with clarity what we have not said that we have seen”(page 5).  The emphasis on writing (leading to insight) made me think of how we have also been learning about multi-modality from Writer/Designer and talking about the different modes in class, which involve other ways of communicating besides writing.

My question is this: Can the process of analyzing a text by working with modes besides the linguistic mode (e.g. writing or speaking) provide as interesting an analysis of a text as the linguistic mode? Or is the linguistic mode alone in how effectively it can  be used to discover?  

For example, in class on Monday (1/30/17) we briefly discussed ekphrasis, which wikipedia defines as verbally describing a visual work of art. Alternatively, could maybe dancing or painting about an object or a written text yield just as interesting findings as writing could, if not more?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *