Rhetorical Velocity

The term Rhetorical Velocity is really interesting and important. I feel like it's something we've all been aware of but now there's a name and concrete concept for it. In my previous blog post I brought up how an artist may release something that is then used against them or viewed in a different way. This is essentially what Rhetorical Velocity is asking us to be aware of. In Maggies case she was taking images for a protest and years later they were resurfaced and being used in a way that she did not mean for them to be used in.


When the article speaks about appropriation it seems to be used in reference to Maggie's body. Appropriation can be defined as "the act of taking something for someone's on use" and in this case study an image of Maggie's body was taken from her repurposed and delivered back to an audience through a different medium. Because Maggie has ownership over her body she has the right to free speech and privacy. When the image was appropriated a violation of her privacy performed.

However, when going into a public sphere the idea of privacy is brought into discussion. Did Maggie still have the right to privacy during her protest? R&R seem to think she was forfeiting most of her right to privacy by being in the public eye, and aware of the photographer. What seemed to upset Maggie and her peers the most, was that the photo was used in a way the didn't appreciate.

This violation was found in the repurposing of the photograph. It was taken from her by someone who is unnamed and used rhetorically against her.

Towards the end of the article appropriation and recomposition are further discussed from a financial standpoint. The article brings up great questions. If the university is gaining financial success from the appropriation of the photograph how does Maggie factor into that? The example of celebrity photographs is drawn on. R&R write that because Maggie is not a celebrity she is not losing money when the institution appropriates her image. However, she is still helping the institution gain money. However, the institution fights back saying that Maggie is standing in as "any student."

This is such a great issue in it's own. If Maggie hadn't been there and the photo had not existed would they have hired a model to take a stock photo of some sort for the website? Would they have asked a student for consent to let them photograph them? Is Maggie somehow making things easier on them by being in the right place at the right time and then they are discrediting her for that?

To me it seems that the biggest issue for Maggie was the appropriation of her and her image. However this would not have been an issue if it wasn't for the repurposing of the image and the new delivery of it. The rhetorical velocity becomes the overarching idea that we need to be considering. However, when putting someone out on the internet or into social media we are forging our ability to have complete control over it. Whether it be our art, a rhetorical text or simply our picture. Rhetorical velocity is something we need to be aware of, but it's not something we can control. So does that mean protecting ourselves against appropriation is the only logic step? Does that make us just as bad as those who copyright their music and images? Maybe we just need to accept both the pros and cons of this new digital age.

When considering Genre as a category we understand it to gain meaning from action and social context. This can be applied to Maggie's photo because the genre of the image changed when it's context changed. And it's change in context was a response to how an audience reacted to it.