The concept of digital rhetoric always seemed so straight forward to me. In the past, I defined it as online writing. Simplistic? Absolutely. Accurate? Well, I thought so at least.

Part of the reason for this simplistic definition was a lack of information on my part. Just as my undergraduate degree opened up a much deeper understanding of written works and the classical rhetoric devices that I had yet to discover or encounter, so has this weeks’ readings presented a deeper understanding of digital rhetoric theory, specifically in connection to the concept of remediation.

In reading Eyman’s piece analyzing the rhetorical practices of “traditional” pieces (that is to say, any piece that exists outside of the digital and multimodal world) and comparing them with the digital applications of the same practices, I found the table below to be the most informative representation of digital rhetoric.

Now, not only was this table enlightening regarding its ability to explain the direct differences and evolution of rhetoric between the classical use and its digital practice, but it also served as a direct example of the multimodal practices that the piece itself was analyzing. I found this table specifically helpful with the understanding of the canonical rhetorical practice of invention. Eyman argues that while invention has previously been understood as discovery in which writers seek out materials to inspire their own work (digital or printed), rhetors use invention as discovery in order to create multimodal interactions and electronic discourse for the audience. This more social form of invention allows the creators to be more concerned with the practice than the product. There is no singular “final draft” of a digital piece as there is with a printed piece. With the inclusion of an analysis of the arrangement of the piece, the audience is able to interact with the piece in any number of ways based on the order in which they encounter, manipulate, and explore the multimodal attributes of the piece. Thus, which each different decision and choice, the audience is in turn inventing and discovering a new aspect of the piece and therefore changing the understanding and interaction with the piece as a whole.

This ability to invent and discover varying versions of the same text as a result of multimodal aspects connected to Bolter and Grusin’s concept of re-mediation. One line that stood out in particular was that “Our culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiplying technologies of mediation.”

What a mouthful (eyeful? Brainful? What is the digital version of this saying? Another thing that led me to ponder). After much internal grappling, my understanding of this phrase can be explained as follows.

In our current dealings with digital rhetoric and medias, our desired interaction is both twofold and seemingly contradictory. We, as consumers, wish to digitize as much of our lives as possible. This can be seen most simply in the increasing presence of apps that accomplish to organize aspects of our lives to the point that we “never knew how we functioned without them.” But the point remains that we are in fact able to function without these apps and tools. Instead, our desire to digitize stems from a perceived ease and simplicity despite the unseen or unnoticed efforts that go into the creation and regulation of such tools. This perceived ease leads me to my next point: we, as consumers, do not wish to be aware of the digitizing of our lives. Along with the digitizing of day to day activities, we want it to appear spontaneous and natural rather than be reminded of the work that goes on behind the interface of every app. We all depend on a variety of technological tools in which we take the finer details for granted until there is an issue that needs to be rectified. The ability of a phone to load content from an internet source goes unnoticed until that website takes what we deem to be as too long to load. This inconvenience makes the media visible and, as a result, undesirable despite its role in our daily lives.

Take for example, the concept of virtual reality as Bolter and Grusin analyze. They state that the virtual reality success is dependent on its “immersive” quality. A consumer must be able to interact with the virtual world (another form of digital invention) but the mediation behind the immersive experience must remain invisible to the consumer or the technology has failed. Thus, in order for media to succeed, it must be both completely visible and invisible simultaneously. I, for one, will never take computer graphics for granted again…

So, what’s the point? Where is the connection between digital rhetoric and remediation? It seems compellingly simple yet intensively complex all things do (I’m beginning to think the world can be explained as nothing more than a series of complex oxymorons). Just as digital rhetoric can be seen as a reclassification of traditional rhetoric, so too can remediation be seen as a reclassification of media’s role in our lives. Digital rhetoric can be traced back to the classic arguments and canons of rhetoric albeit evolved to better fit the everchanging digital world and the various roles of those involved. Remediation, as a result, creates an evolved view of media’s central role in the consumption and interaction of digital works. Just as digital rhetoric redefines the arrangement and invention of digital works, so too does remediation redefine the arrangement and invention of media’s role in the digital world we find ourselves in.