University Rhetoric Course: Audience Analysis of Tomasula's Essay

This assignment analyzes Steve Tomasula's essay, "Genetic Art and the Aesthetics of Biology." The student provides a summary of Tomasula's arguments, focusing on the ethical and aesthetic implications of genetic modification of plants and animals. The analysis explores Tomasula's rhetorical strategies, including his persona as a concerned citizen, his use of chronological structure, and his employment of comparison and contrasting arguments. The assignment identifies Tomasula's intended audience as the general public and community guardians (scientists and artists), highlighting how the essay aims to engage them in a debate about the modification of life forms for visual appeal. The student examines the essay's use of scientific and mainstream examples to connect with a broad audience and encourage critical evaluation of modern innovations.

Running head: AUDIENCE ANALYSIS KIT
AUDIENCE ANALYSIS KIT
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1HEALTH ANALYSIS KIT
Summary
Upon extensive reading, it can be postulated that the primary purpose of the article by
Tomasula (2002)., was to highlight the ethical and moral issues implicitly associated with the
explicit technological and aesthetic progresses underlying genetic modification of plants and
animals. Taking insights from the conception of Alba – a rabbit engineered genetically to possess
the ability to glow in the dark – the author draws the audience to explore and question the
growing emergence of genetically manipulating the physical attributes of life forms merely for
the initiation of visual appeal among the masses. Due to the subtle amalgamation of artistic
expression within a living and breathing form, which Tomasula (2002) compares to be similar to
being held a mirror against oneself and a reflection of one’s aesthetic qualities against the world
– Tomasula (2002), claims that manipulating life forms as works of art and public exhibition,
continue to escape public scrutiny considering the seemingly ‘harmless’ nature of such aesthetic
experiments. Tomasula (2002) also claims that despite the relative currency of such
manipulations amidst a background of emerging technologies of genetic engineering and
breeding, the tendency of humans to display an inclination towards aesthetically appealing forms
can be dated back to the Nazi exploitation of Jews, ‘Fitter Family’ contests and global beauty
pageants. The author concludes that unless the mainstream population and general masses are
involved in such discussions in collaboration with artists and scientists, such aesthetic
manipulations will continue to exist in modern societies.

2HEALTH ANALYSIS KIT
Analysis
It can be implicated that Tomasula (2002) undertakes the persona of a citizen who is
genuinely concerned and ‘ethically appeals’ to the audience with the possible implications of the
utilizing life forms such as plants and animals as canvases open for artists to administer their
artistic and aesthetic ideas. Personal in rhetorical analysis implies the ‘mask’ or form of
expression which an individual wishes to portray towards his concerned audience (Kor 2018).
Tomasula’s (2002) concerns as a citizen can be observed explicitly in his suggestions concerning
the need for public inclusion within the debate of administering art in life forms as well by
questioning the actual need of conducting such aesthetic experiments using historical as well as
scientific literature to support his claims, as evident in his critiquing of the true importance of
producing genetically modified chickens who can fly. However, it must be noted that Tomasula
(2002) did not merely adhere to the vices of genetic manipulation but also discussed extensively
on few of the underlying virtues or advantages of genetic modification along with highlighting
that a need for such aesthetic appeal is an intrinsic need for humans observed widely during
animal domestication. Hence, taking insights from classical rhetoric, Tomasula’s (2002) persona
can be implicated to possess an epideictic approach of ‘praising’ as well as ‘blaming’ the
concerned issue (Webb 2017).
Tomasula’s (2002) article can be observed to adopt a prevalent structure of ‘sequence and
order’. An article structure of ‘sequence and order’ implies the usage of an chronological
approach to writing, which includes taking aspects from historical evidences followed by the
article flowing chronologically to include elements of the present, with a final conclusion of
future implications (Sakamoto et al. 2017). Tomasula’s (2002) adoption of this chronological

3HEALTH ANALYSIS KIT
sequence can be observed from his drawing of examples associated with early Darwinian
theories as well as historical e examples of aesthetic modifications on life forms, such as the
Nazis, followed by proceeding to explain the same using present day aspects of ‘Miss America’
beauty contests. A structural aspect of ‘comparison and contrasting can also be observed which
imply the usage of conflicting arguments to discuss similarities and differences concerning an
issue (Meyer and Ray 2017). Such structure of critiquing can be observed extensively in
Tomasula (2002), presenting arguments both in support and against genetic manipulations,
outlining that while it is considered acceptable for humans to view life forms aesthetically,
merely modifying the same for visual appeal raises ethical claims.
It can be observed that Tomasula’s (2002) article uses scientific terms and examples such
as genetic engineering, evolutionary theories and genetic manipulations, as well mainstream,
topics known worldwide, the Nazis exploitation of Jews as well as the trends of cross breeding
animals or the public’s interest towards beauty pageants. Hence, while the former scientific
evidences can be comprehended exclusively by professionals engaged in science, similarly the
latter evidences are possible to be comprehended by laymen. Tomasula (2002) presumes his
audiences to belong to the general public as well as community guardians such as scientists and
artists. In rhetoric, while the general public comprises of the mainstream public population,
‘community guardians’ are deemed to possess some responsibility towards public benefit –
which in this case, implies the duties of scientists and artists to consider the collective good and
include public’s opinions before conducting such scientific innovations (Bull and Miskinis
2015).
Hence to conclude, it can be stated that the article by Tomasula (2002), paves the way for
an interesting debate on the true need for modifying animals and plants to suit the needs for

4HEALTH ANALYSIS KIT
visual appeal, but also proves to be beneficial to tap into the audience’s ability to question,
enquire and evaluate the validity of such modern day innovations.

5HEALTH ANALYSIS KIT
References
Bull, P. and Miskinis, K., 2015. Whipping it up! An analysis of audience responses to political
rhetoric in speeches from the 2012 American presidential elections. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 34(5), pp.521-538.
Kor, R., 2018. The Commenting Persona: Reception Theory and the Digital Rhetorical
Audience. Journal of Media Research-Revista de Studii Media, 11(30), pp.55-70.
Meyer, B.J. and Ray, M.N., 2017. Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading
comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 4(1), pp.127-152.
Sakamoto, K., Shibuki, H., Ishioroshi, M., Fujita, A., Kano, Y., Mitamura, T., Mori, T. and
Kando, N., 2017. Automatic Evaluation of World History Essay Using Chronological and
Geographical Measures. In EVIA@ NTCIR (pp. 20-23).
Tomasula, S., 2002. Genetic art and the aesthetics of biology. Leonardo, 35(2), pp.137-144.
Webb, R., 2017. Praise and persuasion: argumentation and audience response in epideictic
oratory. In Rhetoric in Byzantium (pp. 127-135). Routledge.