work we also reflect on our past. They may be linked as each one influences the other, but what is clearly evident is the difference between where we once were and where we are know. I look back on the composer I was when I entered room 317 and as I look in the mirror now, that person has matured and adapted to the world of rhetoric, composition and knowledge. We often take for granted those who help us get where we are today, but when the time is taken to look back over the path we’ve chosen, we truly appreciate those who influenced us. We may have never met them, like theorists we read about or artists who appeal to us, we may be the closest of friends, like your roommate who’d look over your papers and projects for you providing the bluntest yet most important critique. Whoever they may be they have provided us with certain paths and given us certain choices based on their experiences.
When it comes to the process of composing, we have all of history to look back upon and watch the progression that, whether we acknowledge it or not, has put us where we are today as composers. Those that have come before us have outlined the certainties and uncertainties that we may choose to use or ignore. They have provided the links between subjects that we may not have noticed, for instance Aristotle’s analysis of ‘The five canons of rhetoric’. They may seem to apply only to the rhetorical situation but he clearly recognizes the connection between rhetoric and the composing process. This past knowledge, whether invented or discovered, an issue I will address later, has an affect on ourselves as composers. We may disregard some of it, refashion it to our liking or stand by it word for word, but we appreciate its influence.
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/canons/Canons.htm
In terms of rhetoric, I often look to Bitzer’s analysis of the rhetorical situation and it’s importance to addressing forms of discourse. By identifying an exigency, a composer can work from there as to who is audience is, what style and structure he will approach it with, and finally how he is going to revise or reflect on his work. There is a strong relationship between the importance of rhetorical terms and terms used in the composing process. For instance, with regards to audience, a term that may seem difficult to define with regards to both rhetoric and the composing process. In rhetoric, Aristotle notes that speakers often choose persuasive strategies that correspond with “emotions and moral qualities” of the chosen audience. Though, as a composer, I appreciate Aristotle’s provided knowledge regarding audience, I sometimes disagree that these ‘strategies’ are chosen by the composer himself. Often it may end up being that the ‘strategies’ coincidentally appear in my composing process and may address a completely different audience. It is only after I reflect on my work that I notice them.
This leads to the importance of revision and reflection in the composing process. Revision may not coincide completely with reflection as a composer, however both entail similar aspects. Donald Murray defines revision as “what the writer does after a draft is completed to understand and communicate what has begun to appear on the page.” The two key words that appear in Murray’s definition do hold some relationship to the process of reflecting on ones work, understanding and communicating. As a composer, when one reflects on their composing process it provides the time to understand and communicate with one self and analyze their own providing one of the most truthful critiques one can receive. Where revision and reflection clash heads in the composing process is the negative effect revision may sometimes have on the composer. Revision can often stir up and worry the composer with regards to his choice of style, structure, tone and even coherence among his work. Reflection on the other seems to generate confidence within the composer or at least allow them to notice where they have made the right decisions or where they have gone wrong.
The process behind both composing and rhetoric may vary between composers however they are often based upon prior knowledge or experiences. However it is often debated whether this knowledge has always existed or was it discovered through the application of what was already known. This can often come down to the relationship between human sciences and natural sciences, human sciences being history, arts, morals and humanities, natural sciences being mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, things that have existed long before mankind and needed only to be discovered. The following video provides an easier way to think of the progression of knowledge and help differentiate between knowledge that has always existed and knowledge that has been discovered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZIw4JbkV0k&feature=related
As a composer reflecting on my progression and my experiences with rhetoric and the composing process I have come to acknowledge the importance of reflection. It has allowed me time to gather my thoughts, clear my mind and appreciate the prior knowledge I have used to get this far. I may have seemed frustrated with myself earlier on but after looking back I have noticed the changes and what I may still need to work. I have been able to understand my work and communicate with myself regarding where I have gone wrong and where I have succeeded.
No comments:
Post a Comment