With this direct quote, this could be considered the use of a linguistic mode because it was taken directly from Esmeralda to understand the feeling they had felt

Looking through a linguistic mode point of view one could say that the word terminus has a definition with a meaning that was special to the group. Reasons why they chose that name for the group.

This article is organized almost like a timeline which would be categorized as linguistic and spatial modes. Here they marked this moment in time with the exact date and name of location. In the body of this section they elaborate on the importance of the location.

Gestural mode is when you see the connection that is made between people through movements or body language. With the connection that they have here, they are able to relate, communicate and compromise to one main gaol.

In a multimodal project, in order to have a nicely evaluated finished product you must plan everything out. This is considered spatial mode in a multimodal project. Likewise, for Terminus, in order to become a successful dance company, they need to plan and strategize accordingly to figure out how everything is going to work out.

This picture is an example of multimodal because it attracts the attention of the audience with it's dramatic black and white editing. This would be an example of visual mode. This in particular is a picture of John Welker looking off into the distance. The same thing has been done for every member of the group and is displayed throughout the article.

Multimodal projects get their supporting details from other sources to make their purpose or claim better. Similarly, the Terminus is made up of gathered dancers from the Atlanta dance community coming together to make an even better dance group.

With this annotation, this is referring to the video that is provided in the beginning of this article. This video was a great way to engage the audiences really quick. With it being the first thing to view after reading the title, it made it seem more entertaining, informational and was a great introduction to what the article was going to elaborate on. This would be considered as a aural mode or a gestural mode.

This would be considered multimodal because it is a redirection to another link . This new link informs the reader and elaborates on the topic of the Terminus Modern Ballet Theatre. This would be consider to be either a linguistic mode, spatial mode or a combination of the two. Linguistic because it develops on the idea of what Terminus Modern Ballet Theatre is and spatial because these words were arranged to be hyperlinked opening up a new page for further information.

This is the link to the article " What are Multimodal Projects?" that I will be finding connections to.

This is the text I am going to be comparing using Arola Ball's multimodality. The different types of modes they use and how they use them. The reading has counter arguments about what people should be focusing on and fighting for. It also explains how people are understanding the meaning of the "pussyhat" and what it symbolizes.

Everyone has their own fights, but as they said earlier people should be fighting together not against one another or even ignoring one's problems. Just like the "pussyhat" is important to some people, it shouldn't be limited to just those people. It should include all types of people regardless of their gender, that seems like a better fight.

This is something that people should be focusing, since it actually forces people to do something they may not even be able to afford. It also denies their rights we cannot call this equality if we don't treat others as mere means instead of ends in themselves.

What he said was a big issues to everyone but did the "pussyhat" really help solve the problem. Regardless of the hat I don't think he will change I do think spreading awareness was a good thing to help people understand the struggles but the hat is causing all sorts of controversy for others.

We continue to worry about how things are not safe but in general there is nothing safe at all. Violence and people becoming homeless are bigger issues but we are so concerned with trying to make a safe place that we forget that even if we have a safe place people will still be homeless this doesn't solve any of the bigger issues.

This is a use of visual mode and it's because people find that instead of using aural and linguistic mode they find more comfort in visuals. Which is a bad thing that means that things will never get done because people are so obsessed with things being symbolized rather than just focusing on their original purpose.

The hat symbolizes what they should be doing fighting for their freedom and rights. Their actions does show that they are serious about what they want to stand up for rather than making a hat. According to Arola this hat uses the mode gestural, spatial and affordance. Gestural is their body and interaction between people because of this hat. Spatial is the way the hat was designed. And affordances is the strengths and weaknesses of media and modes.These are influenced by the modes.

It shows that Americans don't focus on the bigger picture and only care about the small issues that pop up here and there. What should be important is the long time problems, things like immigrants and refugees is what we should be focusing on at the moment rather than the "pussyhat".

It apparent that the "pussyhat" shouldn't be as important as it is. Due to the fact that they are definitely bigger problems we are facing. Being disrespected is wrong of course, but if you are being murdered and are homeless is this really something that we should be thinking about at the moment. It should be something that comes after all the bigger problems are fixed.

The hat was meant to be a symbol for everyone who has been disrespected or treated as if they should be a certain way.

This hat and word uses two multimodality modes which are linguistic and visual. The linguistic part is called it a "pussyhat" which they are hoping to show people that they are proud of who they are and don't care about how others think of them. The visual part was using the color pink and making the hat with cat ears, which symbolizes femininity to some people, it also shows the same that they don't care what anyone thinks.

There are five modes of communication that people use on a daily basis.

Anything that has to do with communication is multimodal.

Multimodal is basically just several different ways of communicating

Paying attention to the qualifications of the author(s)/composer(s) is another crucial role in crap detection at it will help discern whether or not to take the piece seriously or to use it for further research.

In the Rheinghold text , he explains the importance of pay attention the website layout as well as content. However, in doing so, you must tune your crap detection and remember that not everything with a fancy layout is reliable, and vice versa.

Rather than simply stating information, the author (Berger) explains his source and the way in which he broke his research down into smaller categories. This citation is also apart of crap detection with a reliable source.

The implementing of this specific link gives important attribution and increases source reliability. The text makes a statement and is able to back it up with an external, secure source.

Though Rheinghold stresses the importance of crap detection and researching your sources, he accepts the fact that there a limits that we reach in terms of discernment of validity. This is shown as the ISIS busters reach ethical and practical limits of search. It is important in the way that one mustn't get overwhelmed with finding the true source origin because you can only go so far.

Rheinghold stresses the importance of looking at the base of things, rather than simply the makeup and what you see initially, it is important to dig deeper and look at sources from a questionable yet structured angle.

The article ends in 'edu' which, as Rheinghold states, increases estimation of its credibility.

Considering that the origin of this post comes from a non-secure site, that appears a tad amateur - also brings forth speculation. It is a blog site, and considering this - I somehow take what is posted 'with a grain of salt'.

I begin critiquing this article based on Rheinghold's initial conversation with his daughter. In the text Rheinghold suggests using a free internet service - Whois , in order to search for validity in research. After plugging this domain name into the site, I find that the name of the registered owner is 'Educase'. Educase is a nonprofit core data service for research and analysis.

I will be connecting this text through Howard Rheinghold's "Crap Detection 101" from chapter 2 of his book Net Smart - How to Thrive Online. This allows for further critic of this article in terms of this theme.

The use of this final quote, concludes the article and gives a direct quote for reference and reality. Another linguistic aspect of modality.

The dates and titles of the sub-headers give a time reference, allowing readers to see the progression of the dancers and their mission.

As the importance of visual modes is important, this extends to what is being photographed. Seeing the dancers in this element makes them more relatable.

The hyperlinking of this portion of the text, is an important aspect in multi modality. It gives reader the opportunity to further research whatever the topic may be. In this case, readers can see more about the Westside Cultural Arts Center. And as a plus, this link opens in a new tab - and readers do not stray too far from the article.

The Balls text discusses that through the use of various modes is important, sometimes the best way to explain something is through words. In this the author explains the popularity of Terminus, and as you read further the impact that the group has.

The photograph (left) of the dancers is the first one in the text, aside from the video that is in the beginning. This image "puts a face to a name" . For readers that did not watch the video, it gives a more positive receival of the dancers.

The chunking of the text makes it easier to read, which aids in the comprehension of the text as well as its aesthetics. This setup of the text is apart of the linguistic mode , presented in the Ball text.

The words the the author uses to describe the gathering of the Atlanta dancers are formal and inviting. This linguistic mode has a lot to do with the way in which readers receive what is being presented to them. For example, describing the Thursday evening as "sultry" , as well as the brief bu thorough description of the air, gives imagery and sets somewhat of a serene/relaxed mood.

The article initially grabs the attention of the reader by displaying a video. Rather than bombarding the reader with words, the article allows for an introduction through visuals as well as first hand recounts from the individuals. This depicts the visual and aural aspects of the Ball reading. Through this, the reader is able to get a more personal view of what the article is about, which is typically easier to pay attention to than reading a lengthy article that discusses the same things. The readers listen to the voices of the dancers, which brings forth a more of a connection through tone of voice and emotion.

I will be linking this text in reference to Kristin Arola and Cheryl Ball's "What are Multimodal Projects?" from their book Writer/Designer, which allows for further understanding of the purpose of this article.

Overall, this panel sounds great! You really just need to build on the basics you have here and show what about the individual characteristics of the panel gives it a "further meaning".

Instead of culture, the word 'heritage' may be clearer. A great research idea could be on the popular American and Puerto Rican culture while Laureano was alive. This is another opportunity for deeper research into the panel and material culture.

This is just a simple grammatical error. "The panel makes up 6 x 3 feet on a 12 x 12 feet block. This is the size of all of the panels--no more no less"

What would make Marilyn Monroe inspirational to Laureano? What cultural influence did she have at the time of his death? You could probably add some research on that in a separate section specific to that detail on the quilts.

This would also be a great place to do some secondary research. Why is there a baby chick by the palm tree? Why is the American flag and Puerto Rican flag separate, since Puerto Rico is a part of America? (I'm Puerto Rican and there's definitely political information that would explain why.)

For each of these, you may want to cover them individually so that you can have more description.

I like how you touch of the effect the color/font of the words on the viewer. Maybe you should add a close up photo here to let the viewer see the lettering themselves.

When analyzing a document, one should not put in any opinionated thoughts. In a document one must keep in mind of all the different perspectives it can be viewed in and observe the many outcomes it brings. With the machete article, many can view the machete as either a tool and many others thought it could be considered a weapon. The different perspectives and thought processes of this are what create the conversation and curiosity going.

With the Prownian analysis I was able to deconstruct the machete article and pick out main ideas and important points. Without the Prownian analysis, I wouldn't be able to understand or connect with the article as well and it would considered more of a casual reading rather than an in depth analyzation.

It is mandatory to cite all resources used when making any references or quoting from someone else's work. Plagiarism is a dangerous act and if one were to be caught many serious consequences would happen. If i were to make a reference to the machete article, I would have to put the words I used in quotation marks as well as the authors last name in parenthesis.

This amazes me because I would have never think of a description like this. With the English language you can go in depth by adding descriptive modifiers such as adjectives and adverbs and from their create sentences that engage the reader.

There is no limit to how one could make a description. Descriptions are as much as you make them to be. A machete can be viewed in many perspectives and because of that there can be more than one description of this object. A person could start off a description with the physical features and slowly work their way towards describing it's capabilities and it's purpose.

The more words you use in your description, the more visible the image in your head becomes. Describing an object can be done in a few sentences or as many as maybe two pages according to Ms. Rose. One could start off by stating the more obvious and as the obvious slims down you must then go into more depth and look at little details people may not see at first glance. With a machete one could say that it's a large steal object with knife-like qualities and could be used as a tool or weapon.

When people look at objects it is very unlikely for someone to have the same thoughts as another person. They may be very similar but at one point will have a difference. As a class we have put this into practice and have brought objects in ourselves and let our partner make assumptions. Some guesses were right but often times they were wrong and when the story behind the object was revealed it often times surprised us.

A word or a phrase can have more than one meaning to them. One word to one person could mean something the total opposite to another person. In order to know which definition is correct in the context you must know what you are working with. With a machete people don't know what to consider it as. But what they should look at first is what are the circumstances of the person in possession of the machete in is. After one analyzes that one could determine its's definition as a weapon or tool.

As students, we learn all the time and take in as much as we can so we are more knowledgable. So, by having a guide to tell us step by step on how to do something, it gets us into the practice and then sooner than later we will be able to use these processes without even realizing it. Same as for using a machete. We really don't think of how it's going to be used.We kind of do it out of muscle memory.

When annotating an article we have to observe every little detail and break down what the writing is trying to say in between the lines. By doing this technique when reading the machete article, I was able to make the reading better to understand. A shared concern that was part of the machete article was determining if it was considered a tool or not.

The wording of this article makes it hard to follow in one go. I have had to reread this article several times. Each time I have read it I have understood a new part, quote or page. What do they mean about articulation? how would an object articulate an idea?

How can an object symbolize acceptance/rejection. What about the object would lead historians to conclude it is a symbol of acceptance or rejection? Maybe a flag or quote on an object would be a good indicator. Many objects we use to show acceptance or rejection are indirect, for example, sending flowers or flags of certain colors. Background information would help show this more than the object itself.

This answers my previous annotation where i was questioning how historians pick items. There is no guarantee the items they pick will have had a significant impacts or meaning to the society. Maybe like rubber bands or garbage cans for us today.

According to this when analyzing material objects the observer should not put opinion and thoughts in their descriptions. There analysis should be based purely on the physical object and background knowledge.

This text focuses on how scholars will categorize everyday objects in terms of material culture. My supplementary text focused on specific object and the new uses for it. It is a stretch to compare the two but they both deal with a form of material culture. This text is an explanation and my supplementary text is an example.

Material culture is any object, place or resource that can be used to define a specific culture during a period in history. Material culture can be as simple as certain fabrics and accessories to something as huge as a building or monument. For example, we can link silk to ancient china and the silk road.

There is sort of a contradiction in this quote. How would the explain remarks about a picture without trying to interpret the picture? From experience trying to describe an object i know this is not an easy task. Every person has a different perspective so isn't possible descriptions to be bias? paying more attention to certain fabrics, symbols, colors, etc. also each person has a different interpretation of descriptions so isn't it still possible for two people to picture different images?

How do historians really know which objects shows a culture? what about an object will show how significant it is to culture? I know the CRT is a symbol of the 1920's because I read the article about it. What about objects historians are now finding? Doesn't having background information kind of ruin historians perspective on the object in the sense, by knowing its use they might emphasize details linking the two.

If we compare this to "What Is a Machete, Anyway" we can see that this explains that things we observe we try to understand their function and then give it a different description.

It is true that we study an object based on it's structure but I also believe that we study it based on what it is used for.

Not only do we describe an item by it's culture by also how it is said to be signified which can go in so many different ways.

Here is an example of a group of people that used them in a day to day basis, but turned them into a weapon so that they could be free.

The machete wasn't just used in American it was used all across the word, but it was interpreted differently by other cultures.

If historians found this weapon they would be able to understand that it was definitely used for so many other things and will continue to be apart of our culture.

A machete was originally used by farmers and/or slaves, as well as a toy for children. But we can definitely see that it was apart of a culture.

It's so easy to percieve things as a weapon no matter what it is, this just assumes that a shovel can also be a weapon.

During my first reading this quote really caught my attention. I found the idea of one object signifying more than another object interesting. Everyday objects as symbols? Laughable. My supplementary reading gave this quote a new meaning. The cathode ray tube was a huge technological advancement in the 1920's. CRT's became popular all over and was standard in most homes and workplaces. The electric shaver was also made during this time but the CRT was a bigger symbol of the shift into a more technology based society. Therefore some objects signify more than others.

Since the study of material culture involves interpreting the significance of an object's role in one's life, the resulting conclusion will vary from person to person. Though Woodward does not directly state this in Material Culture, it is a given considering the subjectivity involved with interpreting an object's cultural importance.

By following Prownian analysis, one would gain as much understanding through writing about a particular object as they would observing it. Woodward never mentions writing as a part of the process of understanding the cultural significance of an object. Because of this, I believe Haltman's approach would lead to a much more accurate interpretation of an item's significance.

This suggests every object studied in material culture is significant, but in order to find its significance we must thoroughly understand the object at question. Aristotle's philosophical concept of teleology, the belief that every object in reality has its own nature and purpose in the world, is highly relevant here since the study of material culture rests on the presumption that teleology is true.

This highlights the importance of contextualizing an object in order comprehend its significance entirely. Woodward agree's with this, emphasizing how the study of material culture combines the natural and social sciences-- allowing us to understand an object's influence within its historical and cultural context.

Through the concept of objectification, Woodward describes the relationship between people and objects as an interconnected, dialectic one. This description implies a kind of constant dialog between an object and person where an object has an equally influential role in its owner’s life as the owner does in the object’s metaphorical life.

Here, Haltman digs deeper into description and advises us on the critical role vocabulary and language has on our ability to accurately interpret an object. In Material Culture, Woodward does not mention the effects of our language on the interpretation of an object considered to be material culture. In fact, she never advises the reader on how to study material culture themselves. Instead, she explains the meaning and history of the study of material culture

Woodward does not explore how/why we choose an object to study in Material Culture like Prown does here. Overall, Woodward does not offer her own opinions or theories regarding material culture, instead her piece reads as highly objective. This is unlike Prown, who offers his personal thoughts and attempts to define abstract concepts throughout the reading in companion to objective concepts as well. For this reason, I prefer the Haltman reading.

Upon my first reading of this i had a very vague understanding of this text. i understood he was speaking on material culture, how it is used and applied. However I still struggled to really grasp all the information in this text. Thankfully I read a supplemental text, "A Terminal Condition: The Cathode Ray Tube's Strange Afterlife" by JOSH LEPAWSKY AND CHARLES MATHER. This text really helped me understand the content and vocabulary through a real life application in my supplemental reading.

The study of material culture is centered upon analytically and methodologically exploring an object's physical properties and evaluating it in the context of the time and space it occupied to determine its cultural significance.

As a student, I am looking at this reading through the lens of a supplemental reading - bringing further connections. This secondary reading being "What Is A Machete, Anyway?" by John Cline. There are various connection between this reading and Prownian Analysis.The machete article goes about the use to the machete is various contexts and how it is seen. The Haltman reading greatly draws relation.

Allowing imagination to play a role is okay. In learning how to analyze, its easy to get stuck in seeing the object alone, and paying attention to details. But, imagination allows for description as well as deduction.

This is important as feelings obviously play a role in description. In relation to the machete, based on the individual - feelings and interpretations vary. For my research, this will be important in taking a step back to see how and why the object may make me feel a certain way.

When analyzing an object, its important to take time to see everything. Given, the longer one looks, the more one is able to see details. However, is it ever possible to over-analyze something? Is it possible for one to see too much, making the description overbearing?

When looking at material culture, interpretation largely depends on description vocabulary. The way one may see an object may change completely change as the description of the object change. In this, the nouns, adjectives, etc play a big role in interpretation. Instead of describing the machete as "A big, sharp knife, used as a weapon or for other work", one can describe it as "A fairly large blade tool with multiple uses."

When one is describing an object, it is important to do so in its entirety. Although it may be hard to separate prior feeling or belief, this is one the most crucial parts of analysis. So, in the case of the machete you would look at the object in itself - not the 'machete' aspect. Use more of a technical vocabulary, pay attention to details, but also keep an eye on the big picture.

The object metaphor given to the machete is that of fear/danger. In this, the aura that it carries is one of fear. As Prown suggests, the most persistent object metaphors based on belief are embedded in such feelings. Many are afraid of this object, therefore the belief is consistent.

The vocabulary in description is most important. While the use of active verbs are clear in bias.

The way in which we describe things have a big role in the interpretation of the object. For instance, using words of weaponry to describe the machete would bring forth a negative outlook. But describing it as it is used as a toll would likely bring or forth more of an open look at the object.

The way in which people often feel about objects, typically depend on, of course, experience. So rather than seeing an object for itself, there is often a blur between how the object has bee seen to have been handled. A prime example from the article, "What Is a Machete, Anyway?" is the obvious denounce of the object, that is often used as a tool.

This is evident in philosophy, as metaphysical doctrines after Aristotle leaned towards materialism. Material culture reminds me of teleology, Aristotle's' belief that every object in the universe has its own nature, place in the world, and purpose. Material Culture is similar to this in that it is concerned with how a specific object has influenced people in a certain cultural space and time.

People who use machetes more often know the way around a machete and how it's used. As it is claimed to be use for agricultural reasons, many of the people who use this tool tend to be the ones who can quickly switch it up and turn it to a weapon. It makes sense because they are the ones who are using the machete most often so when in danger they can use it as a weapon.

A machete can never just be viewed as only a tool. It's a yard tool that can quickly transform into weapon within seconds. Because of this, many people would consider a machete to be more of a weapon rather than a yard tool. This is why it can't be consider only a tool or only a weapon. It's a two in one thing.

Machetes can be versatile when it comes to what it can be used for. Back in the day many people used it as tools to cut down crops while others may have used it as a weapon. Personally to me, carrying a machete is like carrying a huge knife. Like a knife, people carry it around for a weapon but then again, people also use it to chop up vegetables and meat.

Perhaps with the history of the use of the machete as a means of fighting back - it is easily looked down upon. For some people, like myself, a machete is not initially looked at as a form of weaponry. It is first seen as a tool. Much like one's first thought of a shovel is for digging for work or farm, whereas one of the last thoughts may be of death or harm,

I'm Guyanese and at home we call it a cutlass.

This would be another example as to how the machete changed from being a tool to a weapon of revolution. As we can see it probably the most picked up weapon when it came to defending themselves if they didn't have a gun. You also see this in movies as well the first thing they would have picked up would be the machete probably because of it's size gives a good distance,

I think because of who used to use it like slaves etc it changed from being a tool to a weapon so that they could defend themselves. And I believe that this will forever be a long discussion about whether it is a tool or a weapon, but not only machete I'm sure there is several tools that are used as weapon that we can not understand whether it is a tool or a weapon.

It's so interesting how we can percieve anything as a weapon, even if we use it as a daily tool. But in my opinion although the machete is a tool used in farming, it is more of a weapon when used aggressively. But you can say that with anything no matter what it is. If it's held with aggression and anger then it's automatically considered a weapon.

It it quite interesting that politics feel the need to be in control of anything violent. This would be a helpful tactic if we didn't have problems with the misuse of dispensed weapons in the hands of government agents. As we've seen time and time again, those who are of higher power than the average citizen seem to abuse such powers as if ''training'' was unnecessary. Are the hands of the state to be trusted? Should there even be access to weaponry at all, by anyone? Who is the state to denote that "tools are fine for workers" when they're not properly handling the power they hold?

The paragraph states that the machete is a tool - not much different than a shovel, that can be operated as weapon. As a result, Wilson should have had it concealed and/or held a license. Does this rule also apply to tools such as wrenches, a paintbrushes, pliers? Being that such tools can also be applied violently. These question is posed, not to dispute the possible dangers of the machete, but to urge specificity in terms of such problems. Perhaps certain tools (including the machete) should be pointed out when debating the right to carry weapons.

"Every end is a new beginning." In 2009 New York Times announced the "death" of the CRT however according to this article from 2014 the CRT is still very much "alive". Pieces of the CRT are used for a variety of things and new strains of bacterium have even been found growing from the electronic waste dump. Death is defined as the permanent end of the life of a biological organism. Based on this definition the CRT is still very vital and important. however its importance has shifted from being in the spotlight to one that is very hidden and unknown to many. However it seems that there are some negative aspects to the continued use of CRT's including toxic chemicals, and potentially dangerous bacterium. If someone doesn't find safer substitutes for these chemical and better ways to use/host CRT's we could have a potentially hazardous situation on the horizon.

This notion of the CRT continuing to live on even after they are discarded reminds me of the Buddhist belief of reincarnation. Reincarnation is the belief that after death the soul will be brought back to earth in a new body/form. In this case we would use soul loosely to refer to the materials/ parts of these machines. The fact that materials from those machines are still in use today is pretty ironic considering new generations don't even know what they are, but still 'use' them. But as the quote goes "There is nothing new under the sun."

I find it funny that this author constantly refers to the elimination of CRT's in households/ workplaces as a death. In a way the CRT represented the era of technology integrating into everyday life, so for the CRT to go from a cultural fad to complete Obsolescence can symbolize the death of that era. But with every end comes a beginning and this technology helped pave the way for more modern technology including flat screen TV's, Laptops and Iphones. From that perspective one could say that it was necessary to clear the way for and aid in the transition to a more technology based society.

Did they know that working with these machines could be harmful? If so, this could have been societies way of saying that women were not as valuable as men, so they were stuck with the difficult and dangerous job. It is ironic in retrospect because looking back, women were portrayed as delicate and domestic, yet they were given physically and emotionally taxing jobs, which I am sure they all excelled at, with no credit for being.

The CRTs most likely were the inspiration for much of modern technology, at least indirectly. Modern digital technology is basically an evolved version of the very first computers.This also means that without the invention of the CRT, society today probably would not have been as interconnected as it is.

It is fascinating that these lasted for such a long time. Technology is always advancing; inventors are always trying to create something new and cost efficient to make. The fact that it took such a long time to replace the CRTs is surprising.

It is amazing how one simple machine could have changed the world forever. Designed to help us be able to watch motion pictures, but now it is just scrap. But even though it is no longer being made it is still helping to shape the world. People are still trying to find ways to reuse and recycle it. But it is extremely hazardous to the environment.