I would just like to take a moment to talk about how much I feel that multimodality is important in terms of rhetoric. I cannot stress how much I like being able to express myself in a variety of ways. As I have said numerous times, I love to make all kinds of art, from anything written, to music, to crafts and paintings. Each piece that I make does a good job of showing how I am feeling when I make them, and some of them have even developed their own mood over time. In other words, my writing and sometimes my paintings encompass my more negative feelings. I can make my language angry or my paintings sad. In my crafts, I always see my joy and more upbeat emotions.
I feel that this has been the case throughout the history of rhetoric because sometimes you just can’t say what you are feeling. Sometimes you have to find another way to express it. And in something as abstract as painting or drawing, there is a chance to express mystery or confusion even. It has helped spread messages because people can use both word and image to express the same ideas; it appeals to a wider audience. Image can grab readers’ attention, and the writing can go into detail.
I think that, as different modes of expression developed, it gave artists and arguers a larger pool to choose from to show others how they feel. It has led to a larger number of viewers, and while I spend a lot of time saying what a great thing this is, I must also mention that it has had its negative effects too. Propaganda, slander, etc. is also more accessible to audiences everywhere, and in the wrong hands, it can be terrible. This does not, however, take away from its importance. It has played a large role in the history of information, and we would not be where we are today if it were not for multimodality… (is that good?) XD