The Remix of Maggie Ryan

In Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant Rife’s essay, “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery,” many different terms come up that involve the action of taking someone’s work or using something that is someone else’s without the owner’s permission and also terms that discuss how to get other people’s attention when presenting a topic or issue of great importance to the rhetor. We learn about terms such as “Rhetorical Velocity,” “Delivery,” “Appropriation,” and “Recomposition.” In Maggie’s case, all of these terms are related in some way. Maggie’s case involves the WRC (Worker Rights Consortium), “A fair labor monitoring body that investigates and certifies college apparel as sweatshop free” (224). Sweatshop free means that the students don’t want their university’s (Michigan State University) apparel being made from sweatshop factories.

On march 3^rd, 2005, Maggie and part of the student body took part in campaigning for this issue and “Included a far more creative and visual rhetorical appeal, one that moved beyond the simple stand-with-signs protest” (224). The students wrote with dye in the snow and also wrote “WRC” in the snow with their footprints to grab the attention of the University. This is where the term “Delivery” comes in to place. Delivery is the act of displaying or saying something with an intended meaning. The way that Maggie and the other students chose to deliver how they felt was a bold move because it was an original and unique approach that not only caught the attention of not the student body, but also the President of the University, Lou Anna K. Simon. Maggie and her team delivered what is called an “image event” which is, “A particular action designed to achieve media coverage through visual display” (224). The visuals written in the snow definitely caught the attention of the student body and the President; “A constant and steady stream of posts, media, and publicity got their objective achieved. President Lou Anna K. Simon and the University formally joined the W.R.C.” (226). “Recomposition” and “Rhetorical Velocity” are other terms that are widely used through out this essay. Recomposition refers to composing something again, rearranging something or restoring something to make it better fit the rhetor’s goals and objectives for his or her audience. Rhetorical Velocity “Is a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text, based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used” (229). These two terms relate most to the issue of Maggie’s picture of her being used and recomposed without her consent. The web team on campus took a picture of Maggie outside protesting and recomposed it by adding the caption, “winter fun, learn more.” Maggie was appalled by this act and immediately called attention to the fact that the university not only snapped the photo of her and was not planning on attempting to attribute it to her, but also that they recomposed the photo and used it in a different context. Maggie claims, “They didn’t even contact me asking for my name nor my permission” (228). The idea of “Rhetorical Velocity” comes in strong when it comes to this situation. Many individuals, such as Maggie, think that the idea of Rhetorical Velocity is wrong. With Maggie’s situation, while I do understand her disappointment and displeasure with the university trying to market them with her image, I don’t think it is entirely wrong. When you put yourself in situations where photos will be snapped, you never know what context they will be used in and also who will be using them. Maggie put herself out to the public and a picture happened to be snapped. It would be more understandable if they took a picture of Maggie when she was doing something privately not on campus grounds, but she was protesting publicly on campus grounds! The picture being used in the wrong context is what I disagree with most here, but as far as the picture being taken in general, I think the university has a clearly legal case. Rhetorical Velocity is a confusing term, especially now a days. Today it seems to me that whenever something is released or a rhetorical action is made, there is always a chance of it being taken and remixed or reused in the wrong context without the owner or rhetor’s consent. Whether this is considered right is always up for debate. Ridolfo and DeVoss make a very good point when they say, “In today’s digital culture, more elements and others’ elements become much more readily available to mix, mash, and merge” (229). We hear music everyday that has been remixed, we watch YouTube videos daily that have remixed in to parodies and we see images and texts being stolen with no credit to the original owner/author/rhetor. Rhetorical practices work that way these days; “Rhetorical practices in a digital age are different then traditionally conceived. Electronic copying-and-pasting, downloading, and networked file sharing change the dynamics of writing, and importantly, of delivery” (229).  “Appropriation” is another term that is discussed through out this essay. Appropriation is the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission. I believe that this term functions most in their article because their whole case study on Maggie talks about the fact that a picture of her was used with out her permission. All of the other terms and everything discussed in this article comes back to appropriation and to what extent is appropriation okay? “The appropriation of Maggie’s image without her consent is indeed a strange and unanticipated occurrence with serious consequences” (228). While I do agree with statement, like I said above, I think that in this case, appropriation shouldn’t be as big of a deal as it is being made out to be in the article. I think that remixing her image and using it in the wrong context was wrong, but I do think the university has a right to snap pictures of rhetorical actions being performed on campus grounds. As far as Carolyn Miller’s definition of “genre” goes, I think the term that most relates to her definition is “recomposition.” I say this because when thinking of the term “genre” I think about what goes in to having different “genres” of things. For example, there are different versions of music and the different instruments, cords, and beats used are part of what creates different genres of music. Recomposition is the act of rearranging something or recomposing something. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that when someone remixes and recomposes music, it makes for a different genre. When you take a song and change the cords and the beat around, I believe you have a different genre of music. I.E. when you hear a song that is normally slow on the radio and then the next day you hear it remixed with different beats and cords and different artists thrown in to it, it becomes a different genre. 

-Dina Kratzer