- 1. Identify and explicate the central claims/concepts of theoretical prose
- 2. Illustrate the central claims/concepts of theoretical prose in a poster and poster session
- 3. Persuade an audience of their peers of the efficacy of their argument via situationally effective visual and verbal rhetoric
- 4. Respond to a rhetorical situation through process: invention, drafting, peer review, and revision
Poster Project Checklist
- 1. Introduction: A 500-700 word introduction, in MLA format, uploaded to Canvas as a .pfd file on date poster is due. See below for the Poster Introduction Prompt.
- 2. Poster Prompt: Illustrate a key concept from one or more of our theoretical readings (Benjamin, Herring, Bennett, or Bogost) through a bad collection of your choice.
- 3. Poster Design: poster must illustrate a key concept from our theoretical readings (Benjamin, Herring, Bennett, or Bogost) through a through a private or catastrophic collection of your choice (i.e. pacific garbage patch OR the Collyer Brothers). Posters must also establish a clear pattern for reading through the following: a title, headings/subheadings, lines, colors, patterns, effective text image ratio, negative space, consistency, transitions, and repetition of visual theme.
- 4. Poster Specs: 18″ x 24″ poster, vertical or horizontal, designed in the software of your choice, printed in the GATech Library or at Paper and Clay .
- 5. Process: Bring a draft of your introduction and poster to class on June 26 for workshop at the Comm Lab
- 6. Poster Session: During class on Sept 11 and 13, half the class will discuss/present posters to the other half of the class in gallery style exhibition.
Poster Introduction Prompt
Why is the collection you chose “bad”?
To respond to this prompt describe/explain the collection you chose and how/why your collection illustrates and/or challenges a key concept drawn from one or more of the theoretical authors we read (Benjamin, Herring, Bennett, or Bogost). Be sure to include and closely examine at least one in-text citation from the author you chose.
Poster Session Checklist
- 1. Poster presenters: 2-3 minutes pitch in which you persuade audience of your argument: “My collection is bad because…”
May also want to answer the question, “so what?” What does reading your topic as bad or not add to larger conversations about that topic? Are you presenting the topic in a new way and if yes, what new information does your perspective provide?
- 2. Poster audiences: need to look, listen, and ask questions during session
- 3. Poster presenters and audience members: engage one another in conversation about collections that threaten life on earth.
- Google Slides, Photoshop, or Power Point
- Visme: lets you create block by block, either template or blank; animation function; more options for uploading video/audio; and full range of export options.
- Pktochart: freehand or lots of free template design options; best map builder of the three tools; lots of shapes, illustrations, etc.; export function limited.
- Canva: most work done from inside the main window; lots of shapes, boarders, illustrations, etc.; good support; templates are a bit blah; and no rich media export options.
- 1. Rhetorical Awareness: Does the Poster address writing the situation (and assignment) completely and/or with unexpected insight? Does the Poster fulfill the assigned design requirements and include an introduction? Does the author fulfill the goals of the Poster session, as both presenter and audience member, during the Poster Session? (20%)
- 2. Stance: Does the Poster clearly articulate a unifying argument/goal? Does the Poster illustrate a key concept drawn from one or more of the theoretical readings through a bad collection of his/her choice? Does the Presenter articulate the central claim/thesis of the poster in 2 minutes or less during the Poster Session(20%)
- 3.Development of Ideas: Does the author develop his/her claim by explicating the key concept and collection visually and verbally? During the Poster Session, does the author engage with audience by responding to questions and asking questions in return? (20%)
- 4. Organization: Does the author establish a clear pattern for reading through organization, repetition, emphasis, contrast, and/or proximity? (20%)
- 5. Design for Medium: Does the poster use the affordances of its mode to enhance the goal/content? For example, does the author foreground visual iconography and proximity over chunks of text? (10%)
- 6. Process: Does the final draft demonstrate planning and revision? (5%)
- 7. Conventions: Does the Poster/Poster Session meet grammar, mechanics style, and syntax conventions with few or no errors? (5%)