Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

While doing some preliminary research for class on Van Looy and Baetens' book Close Reading New Media, I stumbled upon a blog that was discussing Ji Lee's The Bubble Project.  Lee printed 15,000 dialogue bubbles and pasted them to billboards and advertisements around NYC.  Sure enough, NY'ers filled in the bubbles with different comments, observations, and insights.  Lee, then, went back and photographed the bubbles and posted the images on his website, dividing them according to the subject matter:  Social Commentary, Sex and Drugs, Politics and Religion, Media and Fashion, Art and Philosophy, Humor, Personal Messages, and Seeds.

Lee states his purpose for the project (which is considered illegal) on his website:  "Our communial spaces are being overrun with ads.  Trainstations, streets, squares, busses, and now subways scream one message after another at us.  Once considered 'public,' these spaces are increasingly being seized by corporations to propoate their messages solely in the interest of profit.  Armed with heavy budgets, their marketing tactics are becoming more and more aggressive and manipulative.  We the public, are both the target and the victim of this media attack [sic].   The Bubble Project is the counter attack.  The Bubbles are the ammunition.  Once placed on ads, these stickers transform the corporate monologue into an open dialogue.  They encourage anyone to fill them in with any form of self expression, free from censorship.  More bubbles mean more freed spaces, more sharing of personal thoughts, more reactions to current events, and most importanly, more imagination and fun" (Lee, "Manifesto").  

The images of the filled-in bubbles were, honestly, hilarious and the messages they presented were honestly brutal.   But, for me, I like the availablity of social commentary and dissent they offer.  Specifically, few people have the opportunities to write, publish, and distribute their opinions.  But, Lee uses his new media to offer "public spaces" for social commentary through "old media" (i.e., the pen and paper) and new media. 

Lee also challenges the notion of audience, in this case.  By combining old and new media, Lee reaches a larger, more diverse audience.  For example, I discovered Lee's project on a blog published by new media scholars while searching for material for my electronic literature (new media) course.  The discourse community in this case is very limited.  However, by combining old and new media, Lee reaches an audience who might not have found his project online; instead, he reaches an audience who are simply walking to work, school, or the movies. 

In this case, Lee's work, and much of new media that is published online, challenges notions of discourse community; specifically, John Swales writes in Genre Analysis that discourse communities have mechanisms of intercommunication, public goals, acquired specific lexis, and thresholds of discoursal expertise (25-7).  However, by posting these bubbles in public spaces, the discourse community (who is able to understand the public goals even if they do reject them) is dramatically widened.  However, this discourse community is limited to those living in and traveling around NYC.  But, by posting the images of the bubbles online, the discourse community is widened enormously to anyone in the world who can access the internet and download Lee's project.  This, in my opinion, is what makes new media so interesting and important--the ways in which notions of audience and discourse community are challenged.

Lee, Ji.  The Bubble Project.  24 October 2005.  http://thebubbleproject.com/01.Bubbles/BubblesFrameset.htm

Swales, John.  Genre Analysis.  Cambridge:  Cambridge UP.  1990.

posted by: rgregory at 18:50 | link | comments (7) |

Comments:

#1  28 October 2005 - 21:20

 

Rochelle,

I looked that up. That is so cool!! I looked at the "humor" ones. I think "space" is what it really is all about--talk about expressive discourse. :)

crenshaw

#2  29 October 2005 - 22:09

 

I thought so, too. I think what I'm really digging about new media is its accessibility to so many. So much of what we study are those books written by WASP's but new media gives anyone a voice to dissent.

What is ironic, I suppose, about my own supposition is that new media could be seen as completely elitist. Only those with the money to purchase a computer, with the time and resources to create a program, and with the intellect to present such a program have the "voice." Whereas anyone with a pen and a piece of paper could write the next "Great American Novel."

I think the difference is audience. A piece of paper doesn't have the potential for audience like new media does.

rgregory

#3  30 October 2005 - 17:31

 

Yes, I see the dichotomy. Even attaining the status of "co-creator" in New Media art, if that is possible, takes resources. You have to have the means to visit a new media installation, whether that means physically or virtually. But, then, you come across something like these bubbles and realize that the art can include an invitation to participate as well.

I keep thinking the open space is the point--as long as it is not deceptive. Hypertext can actually be very directive--you have to do one thing before you can do the next. I've read that in Michael Joyce's _Afternoon: A Story_, there is a hidden key bit of text that the reader cannot access until a certain number of lexia (the screens of text) have been accessed. I got impatient and never reached the key scene. In any case, the user doesn't have real agency, merely a simulated one.

Actually, I read a fantastic article in _Eloquent Images_,which is a terrific book, by Josephine Anstey entitled "Writing a Story in Virtual Reality." She attempted to write a VR story in which a person enters a room with an electronic "Thing," gets to know the "Thing," and then has to make a decision regarding whether or not to kill the thing. The narrative is fascinating (probably better than the actual experience), but one of the most interesting things she talks about is how to create "a successful empty protagonistic space" (299). This involved testing the program with interactors to see how they would react to the program, and then making adjustments. The choice at the end had to be meaningful and, at first, the users were very casual about killing "Thing."

For new media art to be successful and meaningful, in other words, there has to be constraints (or it wouldn't be art), but what they seem to be striving for is to provide a meaningful space for the viewer/user, a space that provides real, rather than simulated, agency.

We keep talking about games and game theory. Most computer games provide a space for the user to have a real impact on the course of the game--but, most of the time, the user has to do things correctly. There IS a right and wrong way to do things. What elevates something like Anstey's and Ji Lee's experiments to art/literature/something aesthetic is that the choices have a real impact on the "meaning" (which Dr. G says is a dirty word in the humanities) of the piece.

Didn't mean to write so much, but this is really interesting. Great find, Rochelle!

crenshaw

#4  30 October 2005 - 18:29

 

I think for me the crux of it all is, like you said, the "space" for the agency. If we think about it that way, as art as a space to create, it leaves so many more options.

It's interesting, too, the conflicts that go on--can't be too interactive that users lose interest, like you discussed, but interactive enough that users feel immersed in the work. Perhaps this is where the finesse of the art form comes in. Just like a Jackson Pollock painting, in a way: we can just look at the work as a bunch of paint splatters and walk away. Or, we can choose to look deeper and see the work as a work of surrealist abstraction.

rgregory

#5  21 November 2005 - 00:20

 

Dear Rochelle,

Thank you very much for your e-mail. It means a lot to me. I did go
to your blog and read your text. It's very thoughtful and analytical.
Thank you.

I like the new media and old media combination. They still depend on
each other and it's great to have new tools.

My apologies for the late response and I hope our paths will come to
cross again.

((( ((( ((( good vibes ))) ))) )))

Ji

Anonymous

#6  07 December 2005 - 20:35

 

It is terrific that you heard from the artist. Good job, Rochelle. Did you post your original message to him? It would be nice to know what he was responding to.

--Dene

Dene

#7  07 December 2005 - 21:13

 

Hello,

My name is Rochelle Gregory and I'm a Ph.D. student in the Rhetoric department at Texas Woman's University. I am keeping a blog this semester in my electronic literature class, and I've included a posting on your "Bubble Project."

I thoroughly enjoyed your piece and was hoping you might be able to review my analysis and provide some insights into the program and commentary on my analysis of your work--especially as it relates to authorship and constructed meaning in electronic environments. Particularly, I'm interested in the ways in which your work combines "old" and new media.

The link to my blog is www.pointsofpraxis.motime.com

Again, I enjoyed your work. And, if you are too busy to respond to my blog, I completely understand and wish you the best.

Sincerely,
Rochelle Gregory

Graduate Teaching Assistant
Department of English, Speech, and Foreign Languages
Texas Woman's University

rgregory

Comments: