Category Archives: English 706

Queer Performances in Online Places: The Use of Gay Cat on ATRL

English 706

gaycat
Fig. 1 Here we see Gay Cat as he appears in his original form.

Introduction
ATRL is a forum-based website for pop-music and pop-culture obsessives that began as a fan site for MTV’s now-defunct music-video-countdown show, TRL (hence its name, which is an abbreviation for “Absolute Total Request Live”). Members of the ATRL community make extensive use of small visual compositions called smileys in their forum posts. These figures, similar to emojis in form, represent a variety of characteristics and moods that might not be easily conveyed in textual form – or could be but are less entertaining and poignant when expressed through linguistic means. (You can find the original forms of ATRL’s smileys and their codes here.)

The use of visual compositions like emoticons, emojis, and smileys in textual communication has led to a persistent uproar among scholars and the popular press about degrading language standards (Baron and Ling, 2011, p. 48; Garrison, et al., 2011, p. 113). However, emojis stretch linguistic traditions and “[open] a gateway to a non-discursive language of new possibility” (Lebduska, 2014). A specific smiley on ATRL called Gay Cat proves this point, and with this project, I ask, how do members of the ATRL community use Gay Cat? Though the smiley makes use of stereotypical visual cues of gayness and queerness, I argue that Gay Cat allows for those in the ATRL community to subvert negative connotations with queer identification as an asset and not as a deficit or as a neutral identification, and to claim, manipulate, and subvert queer identities.

Continue reading Queer Performances in Online Places: The Use of Gay Cat on ATRL →

English 706: Reflection

English 706

It is 5:37pm on Wednesday, Apr. 15. I may add to the “As a writer/communicator – just for fun” component of this post after looking over the typography readings again.

Reflection Piece – I’d like you to connect now all that you’ve learned in this class to your own work, be it as a teacher, as a scholar, as a professional writer/technical communicator. How do these new ways of thinking about the visual influence:

  1. How you see information being understood by your audience?
  2. How you approach the invention portion of your projects?
  3. The relationships between the visual and other modes (linguistic, auditory, kinetic, etc.)?

As a scholar

My current goal is to complete composing my thesis by the end of the summer; I hope to use my Fall 2015 thesis hours for revisions, defending, etc. My final project for this course will function as a brief pilot version of my thesis, more or less.

Barthes‘ “The Rhetoric of the Image” (1977) discusses how text and images in the same space function together. He uses an advertisement to discuss this reciprocal relationship. Anchoring text “anchors” the image in a specific way, while relaying text functions in tandem with the image in a reciprocal relationship. The linguistic components of electronically-mediated messages tend to relay more often than they anchor.

Outside of the course readings, I’ve come across research on people’s use of emoticons as punctuation. Typographic components like colons (:) and semicolons (;) make crude images that convey emotions based on their resemblances to facial expressions. However, we still understand emoticons in linguistic terms; punctuation is still linguistic. Barthes’ explanation of how text and images function together will help me connect this existing research on emoticons as punctuation to the use of smileys and emojis as punctuation.

Somewhat similarly, Hocks and Wysocki, in different works, take concepts similar to those of Barthes into the digital realm; they propose that text and images in digital environments boast a reciprocal relationship more obviously than text and images in nondigital environments. (Hocks more specifically proposes that different sensory elements (audio) function alongside text, images, etc.) Their work goes to show that we understand the visual in textual terms, and text is visual.

In “The Pictorial Turn”, Mitchell explains that our desire to understand the function(s) of photos should not limit our study to one specific method. In other words, we should look at photos as their own texts. While smileys and emojis are not photos, per se, we understand them as visual in nature. This is why they have different functions that are dependent on contexts and placements.

Kelly claims in their work that those addressed are cultural and social agents in communication. In other words, the backgrounds, worldview, and thoughts of those addressed in communication influence how said communication is interpreted; meaning isn’t fixed. Similarly, Atzmon points out that “the designer’s intention is not absolutely determinative” (xv). These works pave the way for people to view artifacts through different lenses that in themselves work toward making meaning. Thus, my work can view the use of Gay Cat on ATRL through the lens of queer theory and queer rhetoric to see how the smiley “queers” otherwise “nonqueer” texts.

As a writer/communicator – just for fun

At the moment, I plan to graduate with my M.A. at the end of the calendar year. After that, I may pursue a Ph.D., but my current goal is to pursue a career in writing after graduation. More specifically, I hope to monetize my blog about the Oscars, though I realize I will likely have more practical employment (professional/technical communication in the workplace) shortly after graduation. I will focus on my desired goal of Oscar blogging in this portion of the reflection piece.

blogpost
A screenshot of a recent blog post… in which I could have made a better decision in regard to visual rhetoric.

The blog post pictured above describes how original music factors into an upcoming film called Tumbledown. The title of the post functions as anchoring and relaying text. The image I incorporated into the blog post comes from the film’s official page on Tribeca Film Festival, where the film will premiere on Saturday.

Billboard originally reported the story; the article there used a still from Tumbledown in which Hall wears headphones. While this does not directly depict the singer-songwriter who composed original music for Tumbledown, the depicted act of Hall listening to music directly ties back to (relays) the linguistic content of the story.

rebeccahall_tumbledown
The still from the Billboard article

However, I wanted to diversify sources, hence my use of a picture from Tribeca Film Festival, not the Billboard photo. The (denoted) image showcases actors Rebecca Hall and Jason Sudeikis in what seems to be a pleasant dinner conversation. The still is directly related to the film, as it is approved by those in charge of producing the film, getting it sold, etc. However, the photo’s relation to the linguistic content of my post is solely tangential – it relates to a seemingly different component of the film.

The myth of neutrality is still very much alive, unfortunately, as I see something even worse upon looking at the context (connoted image). I used a generic, arguably heterosexist, studio-approved image on a site that functions as marketing for the film (Tumbledown currently lacks stateside distribution) in a blog post about how music functions in a movie about a woman’s journey. More broadly, a context-free image of a cis woman and a cis man eating dinner together is as dull as, well…


Groundbreaking! (via Slate)

Additionally, looking at Kelly‘s work and Atzmon‘s proposal that “the designer’s intention is not absolutely determinative” (xv), I can see that my own (feminist and queer) lenses have shaped my interpretation of the image. The image comes from a film that may or may not reinforce heterosexism – the jury’s still out on that one. But the image, removed from context, can be read as heterosexist through feminist and queer lenses. I doubt that the “designer” (some lackey in the production company’s PR department?) picked the image to reinforce patriarchy/heterosexism/the practice of using boring photo stills to promote movies. However, my lenses offer an interpretation of the image that likely differs from that of the unknown designer.

While it was my decision to use the image in my work in a problematic way (though I failed to recognize it at the time), I see such laziness in choosing photos on other awards blogs, too. I hope that future rhetorical decisions I make can work against – and possibly toward deconstructing – the myth of neutrality in photos used on awards blogs.

English 706: Annotated Bibliography 3

English 706

Scott, L.M. Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric. The Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 252-273.

Scott aims to advocate for a theory of visual rhetoric in reorienting how people study advertising images. She argues against the assumption that pictures reflect reality, toward the idea that visuals make up a symbolic system based in social and cultural conventions. Scott conducts a literature review of existing scholarship on rhetorical theories as they pertain to advertisements, and looks at different advertisements in her discussion.

Advertising images, since they are rhetorical, must have certain capabilities: they must be capable of working toward through their invention, arrangement, and delivery. Scott argues that visual elements make up a symbolic system. An ad for a refillable lipstick from Coty showcases straightforward images of the product itself; textual information appears in bullet-point fashion. The images of the product are “relevant” to the advertising of the product; realistic photographs seemingly “copy” the product. Both contribute to the ad’s assumed objectivity. An ad for Clinique depicted the product emerged in a glass of ice soda water. This ad initially comes across as nonsensical and ineffective. However, people might understand that the product “is as refreshing as a tall glass of soda with a twist” if they were to restate the ad in verbal terms (254). This forces people to think abstractly, metaphorically about this ad. An ad for Max Factor, like the Coty ad, attempts to sell lipstick. This ad features two photos – one with rows of lipstick, the other with a closeup of a model’s lipstick-covered lips. However, the approach taken here significantly alters the perception of the product. The tiered rows of lipstick tubes resemble arrangements people see in the everyday, like a church choir; the closeup of the lips highlights the contrast between the skin and the lips, as well as the meticulousness of how the lipstick is applied. The ad relies on people to understand the context-sensitive manipulation of culturally-learned symbols. Ultimately, “the designs of the ads themselves anticipate a viewer who knows certain pictorial conventions and who shares visual experiences with the makers” (256).

Many paradigms regarding advertisements’ effects on consumer response can be tied back to copy theory, or the idea that pictures resemble reality. Copy theory refers to the idea that pictures resemble reality. When it comes to experimental studies, paradigms of how advertisements affect consumers’ responses can be grouped (admittedly broadly) into two categories: classical conditioning/affective response and information processing. In classical conditioning/affective response, images have a simple value (positive/negative, yes/no); images are iconic, pointing to happenings in the empirical world; and people do not invoke interpretive activity. This categorization suggests that people should react to images in the same way, which denies people’s various backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences. Information processing suggests that visuals can have a cognitive impact on people. In regard to large-scale descriptive studies of advertisements, paradigms include mechanical elements studies and content analysis. Mechanical elements studies examine the absence and presence of color, illustration, photography, and typography. Content analysis looks at the content in images; this disregards how images might be presented. Ultimately, Scott argues against the theory of copy theory, suggesting that it relies on the notion of a meditation-free perception of the visual. Additionally, seeing is very much a learned behavior.

In addressing invention, arrangement, and delivery, Scott points to several different ads at the end of her work. A lotion ad, in which different lotions “run” down a vertical structure, exemplifies invention; invention also paves the way for a Pandora’s box metaphor in a Djer-Kiss ad. In regard to arrangement, the typeface in a Honda ad changes the meanings of two uses of the word “this.” Delivery makes all the difference in the careful organization of sheets in an ad for Martex and a Wamsutta ad where all people see is the sheet.

My project for this course explores how a particular smiley works toward persuasion, even when its appearance might not suggest as much. While the smiley is not an advertisement, the concepts of visual rhetoric addressed by Scott will be relevant to my research. Additionally, Scott addresses the concept of the objective image, which we see in R. Belk (1977) and G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen (2006).

English 706: Asynchronous Assignment (Kress and Van Leeuwen)

English 706
  • List 3 connections between Kress and Van Leeuwen and 2-3 other readings we’ve covered. (Not every article you choose needs to have a connection to every other article. Look for common threads.)
  • List 3 thought provoking or provocative ideas. What makes them so?
  • List 3 questions you jotted down for yourself while reading. What sparked them for you and why?
  • Respond to 3 separate questions from your peer’s blogs by the following Tues. March 24. Don’t answer all 3 questions from 1 blog, spread the love.

Connecting with Readings
In their discussion of representation and interaction in visuals, G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen (2006) points out relations between involvement and the horizontal angle and power and the vertical angle (133-143). However, they seem to subscribe to the belief that visuals, like charts, diagrams, and maps, can be objective (143). This connects to R. Barthes’ (1977) concept of the denoted image. However, Barthes’ concept ultimately ends up being a social construct:

[T]he absence of code disintellectualizes the message because it seems to found in nature the signs of culture. This is without doubt an important historical paradox: the more technology develops the diffusion of information (and notably of images), the more it provides the means of masking the constructed meaning under the appearance of the given meaning. (159-160)

Kress and van Leeuwen also suggest that “directly frontal or perpendicular top-down angle” visuals are “objective” in presentation (143-144). However, they earlier point out that “[w]hen represented participants look at the viewer, vectors […] connect the participants with the viewer” and establish contact (117). This gaze sees the image acknowledging those who view it and constitutes an image act, which calls the viewer to some kind of action (117-118). This reminds me of b. hooks‘ (1995) discussion of the oppositional gaze. According to this work, staring carries power; “[e]ven in the worse [sic] circumstances of domination, the ability to manipulate one’s gaze in the face of structures of domination that would contain it, opens up the possibility of agency” (116).
Edit (Mar. 26, 2015): I just realized this was a reading from hooks not assigned for this course. I do address B.H. Welling in the questions, for what it’s worth

Thought-Provoking Ideas

  • When discussing the semiotic landscape, Kress and van Leeuwen ask if “the move from the verbal to the visual [is] a loss or a gain” (31). They suggest that there is no one correct answer to this question, but the idea of trading between loss and gain fascinates me.
  • When discussing materiality and meaning, Kress and van Leeuwen describe how the presentation of visuals are important in making meaning, not simply an empty vessel to display the visuals. This reminds me of Marshall McLuhan’s idea that the medium is the message; while such a proclamation might be a bit broad, it reminds me that we should not examine visuals (or anything else, for that matter) separately from their presentation.
  • Kress and van Leeuwen’s concept of the Given and the New (181, 183).
  • When discussing modality, Kress and van Leeuwen point out that a diagram isn’t necessarily “less real” than a photograph. After all, “[r]eality is in the eye of the beholder” (158).

Questions that Came to Mind; Why?

  • Kress and van Leeuwen seem to recognize the concept of the gaze (regardless of angle) but suggest that directly frontal visuals are “objective” in presentation. Considering that gazes can appear in directly frontal visuals, are Kress and van Leeuwen contradicting themselves somewhat? This particular question came to mind since the false construct of objectivity fascinates me.
  • Kress and van Leeuwen point out the concept of the Given-New relation in their discussion of the meaning of composition (181). In compositions with this kind of relation, the Given appears on the left, the New on the right; the Given represents what we know, what we accept, while the New represents what we perceive as problematic (181). For instance, Lorenzo Maitani’s The Creation of Eve fits this description, as the absolute God (left) creates the problematic Eve (right) (181). However, Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam depicts Adam as the Given and God as the New, problematizing our concept of God (181, 183). What other visuals subvert expectations by switching up the Given and the New? I explore methods subversion in my project for this course and, ultimately, my thesis; the relation of the Given to the New has the power to problematize, question, and subvert our expectations.
  • While looking through Kress and van Leeuwen’s work, I came across their discussion of linear and non-linear compositions; I was reminded of B.H. Welling’s work on ecop*rnography. Would ecop*rnography be more likely to employ linear or non-linear compositions? Why? As strange as the particular terminology is, the word “ecop*rnography” captures how exploitative visual rhetoric can be when it comes to nature. I’m curious to see how others in the class feel in regard to which kind of composition is more exploitative.

References

  • Barthes, R. (1977). The Rhetoric of the Image. In Handa, C. (ed.), Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook (152-163). New York: Bedford, St. Martin’s.
  • hooks, b. (1995). Black Vernacular: Architecture as Cultural Practice. In Handa, C. (ed.), Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World (395-400). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
  • Kress, G., and van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Readings Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.
  • Welling, B.H. (2009). Ecop*rn: On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman. In Dobrin, S.I., and Morey, S. (eds.), Ecosee: Image, Rhetoric, Nature. Albany: State University of New York.

English 706: Pre-Class Exercise – Heuristic… again

English 706

Apologies. Looking at the blog posts composed by my classmates, it seems that I misunderstood the specifics of the assignment. I simply created a heuristic out of thin air. Here’s to amending that mistake(?)…

gaycat
Gay Cat as it appears in its original form on ATRL

Creating the Heuristic

Iconic language

  • Online discourse
  • Online media
  • Images

Questions

  • What do we see in the artifact itself?
  • What do we see alongside the artifact?

Cultural language

  • What meaning do we draw from the artifact?

Questions

  • What meaning do we draw from the artifact?
  • How does the artifact add to the discussion

Theoretical language

  • Barthes’ “The Rhetoric of the Image”
  • Belk’s “Possessions and the Extended Self”
  • Belk’s”Extended Self in a Digital World”
  • Farmer’s “The Fabulous Sublimity of Gay Diva Worship”
  • Lidwell, et al.’s Universal Principles of Design: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design
  • Paxton’s My Bad Romance: Exploring the Queer Sublimity of Diva Reception
  • Waytz, et al.’s “Social Cognition Unbound: Insights Into Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization”

Questions

  • How does the artifact represent principles of design like anthropomorphism and stickiness?
  • How might people see the artifact as an extension of themselves?
  • How do people use the artifact to subvert gender and sexual norms? Does Farmer’s “fabulous sublimity of gay diva worship” come into the framework?

Analysis

Iconic Language
What do we see in the artifact itself?
The artifact itself depicts a cream-colored, anthropomorphized cat mid-strut as it smiles and wears leather boots.

What do we see alongside the artifact?
At the moment, nothing. Since I have situated it into the context of this blog post, I have taken it out of its original context. Examining what’s alongside the artifact in everyday use, however, will prove beneficial to the questions involving cultural language and theoretical language.

Cultural Language
What meaning do we draw from the artifact?
In the context of ATRL forum posts, use of the smiley generally comes across as humorous but not mean-spirited. It tends to imply a sort of jovial recognition of gayness or queerness.

Theoretical Language

R. Barthes (1977) proposes that images have three components: the linguistic message, the connoted image (symbolic message), and a denoted image (literal message). The linguistic message focuses on any present text that anchors or relays. The connoted image refers to meaning that we infer; we can see this in the aforementioned questions regarding cultural language. The denoted image refers to meaning that is “simply there” due to the literal construction of the image; we most readily see this in my questions involving iconic language. Of course, idea of a denoted meaning is itself a false construct, but this concept allows an artifact to simply “be,” if we do not bother to look for any connotations. To quote Barthes:

[T]he absence of code disintellectualizes the message because it seems to found in nature the signs of culture. This is without doubt an important historical paradox: the more technology develops the diffusion of information (and notably of images), the more it provides the means of masking the constructed meaning under the appearance of the given meaning. (159-160)

Through understanding the construct of the denoted image, we can now look at two principles of design and apply them to Gay Cat. The first is its anthropomorphic form (Lidwell, et al., 2010, p. 26). Simply put, this refers to how an artifact resembles people through its shape and construction. As the cat stands on two legs, walks in spiked-heel boots, and dons a smile that closely resembles that of a person, we can see that the smiley is anthropomorphized.

The simplicity in the design of Gay Cat contributes to our understanding of the smiley as anthropomorphized, and also ties into its stickiness. This concept of design refers to the ability for an artifact (or idea) to remain within the cultural consciousness (Lidwell, et al., 2010, p. 228). (While Gay Cat might not be a prevalent figure in popular culture overall, members of the ATRL community regularly use and manipulate the smiley; as the forum threads on ATRL are the focus of my research, we can regard the smiley as having stickiness in its specific culture.)

The other aspects of stickiness are surprise, concreteness, credibility, emotion, and story. Seeing such a figure as peculiar as Gay Cat certainly contributes to the element of surprise. The idea of credibility can have at least two specific meanings here: inclination toward homosexuality in animals, and anthropomorphized creatures. If we look at the first meaning, then, yes, we have seen evidence of homosexual activity in the animal world, and the smiley is therefore credible. However, the idea of an anthropomorphized cat existing, regardless of activity, is absurd. Emotion, referring to an artifact’s ability to elicit an emotional reaction, would draw on how people feel about homosexual expression in regard to Gay Cat. Story refers to how an artifact might be contextualized into, well, a story. While several members of the ATRL community have offered theories about the origin of Gay Cat (a popular manga, for instance), the smiley itself is attached to no specific story. Additionally, Gay Cat lacks any form of concreteness; its debatable credibility, varied emotional reactions, and lack of story contribute to the lack of concreteness.

This gap in the stickiness factor leads to the question, why do members of the ATRL community make such frequent use of the Gay Cat smiley, then? I argue that it is its lack of definite meaning that contributes to its popularity. Even though the smiley is described as “gay,” the lack of definition attached to the smiley allows members of the ATRL community to use it in a variety of ways, to subvert an already subversive smiley.

We can address R. Belk’s (1988) concept of the extended self and his (2013) addition of the digital extended self. The extended self refers to how we see our physical possessions as extensions of ourselves. Belk later expanded this concept to refer to our digital possessions and identities. If we can agree on a concrete definition for an artifact, members of a community lose their ability to freely use the artifact in constructing their own identities. Through what we see in its “denoted image,” Gay Cat detaches itself from any definite meaning, and allows members of the ATRL community to enact their digital extended selves, to (attempt to) fill in the gaps.

We can now address how queer theory is at work here. I should note that this is different than gay/lesbian criticism. Drawing from theoretical frameworks like deconstruction and feminism, queer theory refuses the notion of fixed identities and the construct of the gender binary. In other words, identity is a performance and an ongoing process. In ATRL members’ subversive use(s) of the Gay Cat smiley, we see queer theory taking hold in online spaces.

Although they might identify themselves as “gay but not queer,” we can see gay men employing strategies that we regard as queer subversion. For instance, B. Farmer (2005) provides one of the few scholarly works on “the fabulous sublimity of gay diva worship,” or more simply put, how gay men love their divas. Such mobilization of women stars as vehicles for queer transcendence is hardly new, and functions as a practice of “queer sublimity: the transcendence of a limiting heteronormative materiality and the sublime reconstruction, at least in fantasy, of a more capacious, kinder, queerer world” (170). Diva worship allows queer people to find sublimity and disrupts cultural distinctions. Predicating diva worship on hetero-oriented desire undermines the existence of gay men. The hysterical excess of the depicted diva worship transcends “the constraints of sexual, social, and textual normativity” and temporarily opens space in which homosexuals can thrive (180). B. Paxton (2011) builds on Farmer’s research and puts the same concept into a contemporary context. In other words, he situates “the fabulous sublimity of gay diva worship” into contemporary gay culture’s tendency to obsess over women pop stars like Beyonce and Lady Gaga. He additionally addresses drag performance and gay men’s tendency to address each other as women (i.e. “Hey, girl”). Diva performance encourages us to thrive in and enjoy these uncertain spaces. Pop divas allow gay men to challenge the hegemonic powers that be. Paxton then explores Freud’s concept of the uncanny and its effects on both gay men who observe diva performance (including drag performers and female musicians) and those who observe the gay spectator. Drag performance disrupts the heterosexual matrix proposed by J. Butler (1999) and reveals that gender itself is a performance. It additionally highlights how homophobia stems from sexism, and paves the way for women and gay men to fight heterosexist constructs together.

We see evidence of Farmer and Paxton’s theoretical frameworks in the forum threads of ATRL, as members of the community often include Gay Cat in posts about women pop stars. Even if those who employ Gay Cat are not gay or queer, they continue the tradition of relating queer subversion to women pop stars. Of course, this explains specific uses of Gay Cat; other uses of Gay Cat lend themselves to different but still specific interpretations.

We can apply aspects of this heuristic (primarily the false construct of the denoted image) to emojis and other smileys; such a heuristic particularly benefits research on artifacts that represent subalterns.

Sources
Barthes, R. (1977). The Rhetoric of the Image. In Handa, C. (ed.), Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook (152-163). New York: Bedford, St. Martin’s.

Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Belk, R. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 477-500.

Farmer, B. (2005). The Fabulous Sublimity of Gay Diva Worship. Camera Obscura, 20, 165-195.

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J. (2010). Universal Principles of Design: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.

Paxton, B. (2011). My Bad Romance: Exploring the Queer Sublimity of Diva Reception (Thesis). Retrieved from Graduate Theses and Dissertations. (3285)

Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2010). Social Cognition Unbound: Insights Into Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 58-62.

English 706: Pre-Class Exercise (Before Week Seven): Heuristic

English 706

Based upon the discussion we had in class last week, develop a heuristic for analysis (you can create one you’ll use in your project) and apply it to an artifact of your choosing. Post this in your blog by Tues.

gaycat
Figure 1. Gay Cat in its original form

I’ve developed the following heuristic using concepts from both visual rhetoric and queer theory. It is based on research that will contribute to my project for this course and, ultimately, my thesis research. I’ve applied it to the Gay Cat smiley that appears on ATRL, which you can see above.

R. Barthes (1977) proposes that images have three components: the linguistic message, the connoted image (symbolic message), and a denoted image (literal message). The linguistic message focuses on any present text that anchors or relays. The connoted image refers to meaning that we infer. The denoted image refers to meaning that is “simply there” due to the literal construction of the image. The idea of a denoted meaning is itself a false construct, but this concept allows an artifact to simply “be,” if we do not bother to look for any connotations. To quote Barthes:

[T]he absence of code disintellectualizes the message because it seems to found in nature the signs of culture. This is without doubt an important historical paradox: the more technology develops the diffusion of information (and notably of images), the more it provides the means of masking the constructed meaning under the appearance of the given meaning. (159-160)

Through understanding the construct of the denoted image, we can now look at two principles of design and apply them to Gay Cat. The first is its anthropomorphic form (Lidwell, et al., 2010, p. 26). Simply put, this refers to how an artifact resembles people through its shape and construction. As the cat stands on two legs, walks in spiked-heel boots, and dons a smile that closely resembles that of a person, we can see that the smiley is anthropomorphized.

The simplicity in the design of Gay Cat contributes to our understanding of the smiley as anthropomorphized, and also ties into its stickiness. This concept of design refers to the ability for an artifact (or idea) to remain within the cultural consciousness (Lidwell, et al., 2010, p. 228). (While Gay Cat might not be a prevalent figure in popular culture overall, members of the ATRL community regularly use and manipulate the smiley; as the forum threads on ATRL are the focus of my research, we can regard the smiley as having stickiness in its specific culture.)

The other aspects of stickiness are surprise, concreteness, credibility, emotion, and story. Seeing such a figure as peculiar as Gay Cat certainly contributes to the element of surprise. The idea of credibility can have at least two specific meanings here: inclination toward homosexuality in animals, and anthropomorphized creatures. If we look at the first meaning, then, yes, we have seen evidence of homosexual activity in the animal world, and the smiley is therefore credible. However, the idea of an anthropomorphized cat existing, regardless of activity, is absurd. Emotion, referring to an artifact’s ability to elicit an emotional reaction, would draw on how people feel about homosexual expression in regard to Gay Cat. Story refers to how an artifact might be contextualized into, well, a story. While several members of the ATRL community have offered theories about the origin of Gay Cat (a popular manga, for instance), the smiley itself is attached to no specific story. Additionally, Gay Cat lacks any form of concreteness; its debatable credibility, varied emotional reactions, and lack of story contribute to the lack of concreteness.

This gap in the stickiness factor leads to the question, why do members of the ATRL community make such frequent use of the Gay Cat smiley, then? I argue that it is its lack of definite meaning that contributes to its popularity. Even though the smiley is described as “gay,” the lack of definition attached to the smiley allows members of the ATRL community to use it in a variety of ways, to subvert an already subversive smiley.

We can address R. Belk’s (1988) concept of the extended self and his (2013) addition of the digital extended self. The extended self refers to how we see our physical possessions as extensions of ourselves. Belk later expanded this concept to refer to our digital possessions and identities. If we can agree on a concrete definition for an artifact, members of a community lose their ability to freely use the artifact in constructing their own identities.

We can now address how queer theory is at work here. I should note that this is different than gay/lesbian criticism. Drawing from theoretical frameworks like deconstruction and feminism, queer theory refuses the notion of fixed identities and the construct of the gender binary. In other words, identity is a performance and an ongoing process. In ATRL members’ subversive use(s) of the Gay Cat smiley, we see queer theory taking hold in online spaces.

Through what we see in its “denoted image,” Gay Cat detaches itself from any definite meaning, and allows members of the ATRL community to enact their digital extended selves, to fill in the gaps. We can apply this heuristic to emojis and other smileys; such a heuristic particularly benefits research on artifacts that represent subalterns.

Sources
Barthes, R. (1977). The Rhetoric of the Image. In Handa, C. (ed.), Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook (152-163). New York: Bedford, St. Martin’s.

Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Belk, R. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 477-500.

Lidwell, W., et al. (2010). Universal Principles of Design: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.

English 706: Annotated Bibliography 2

English 706

Paxton, B. (2011). My Bad Romance: Exploring the Queer Sublimity of Diva Reception (Thesis). Retrieved from Graduate Theses and Dissertations. (3285)

In his thesis, Paxton aims to explore gay men’s relationship with the diva. He engages in “participant observation in drag performance and karaoke singing, performance ethnography, and autoethnography” (iii). Drawing from Farmer (2003), Paxton notes that gay men can find therapy and hope in diva performance, that divas’ performances take gay men outside of the status quo and, if only for a little while, outside of themselves. Drawing from Auslander (2004), he addresses the often-neglected importance of recorded musical performance, and suggests three layers to performance: the real person, the performance persona, and the character. The real person and the performance persona are perhaps self-explanatory; the character refers to the narrative of the song. Paxton then turns to McRae (2010) and addresses “an interconnected relationship between a performer (real person, personae, and character), a song, and the audience” (27). Spaces of performativity threaten the status quo; identity can change in our everyday “performances.” Diva performance encourages us to thrive in and enjoy these uncertain spaces. Both pop divas and torch singers allow gay men to challenge the hegemonic powers that be. Researchers could and should employ diva ethnography to understand how people interpret and use divas’ performances.

To that end, Paxton explores Freud’s concept of the uncanny and its effects on both gay men who observe diva performance (including drag performers and female musicians) and those who observe the gay spectator. He begins by accounting for a high-school performance as Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin Williams’ character from the film of the same name, and hiding his gender disruption from his father. Drag performance disrupts the heterosexual matrix proposed by Butler (1999) and reveals that gender itself is a performance. It additionally highlights how homophobia stems from sexism, and paves the way for women and gay men to fight heterosexist constructs together. Different strains of feminism seem to have differing views on drag performance; Butler, however, recognizes their transcendent and transformative powers. Straight observers get a sense of the uncanny when gay men cheer and yell for divas, as such behavior seemingly exists outside of the heterosexual matrix.

Paxton describes his one-diva show that explores the queer sublimity of diva reception. He then uses narrative ethnography to describe other gay men’s thoughts on diva performance. He finds that gay men often use diva performance as a way to express their desires when they cannot openly express such desires – a man shouted Tina Turner’s “Proud Mary” while he was home alone, for instance. Gay men additionally use diva performance for therapy – Kelly Clarkson’s “Since U Been Gone” and “My Life Would Suck Without You” helped a man navigate different relationships, for example. Gay men also see diva performance as a way to connect them to close relationships they have with women – one man thought his aunt and Bette Midler resembled each other. However, some gay men were apathetic about divas, and others were resistant to their fabulousness. The latter reinforce notions that even some gay men adhere to rather strict gender norms – and might even be homophobic. In a conversation Paxton had with friends, a woman musician was not a diva if she did not challenge the gendered status quo or lacked musical creativity.

Paxton then describes the process of putting together his one-diva show. He sets the show up at a karaoke bar based on a real-life hangout and research site to pull together his own experiences and the experiences of others. He discusses the ethical dilemmas in incorporating into his show characters as intimate others, including family members, friends, and a gay man who escaped an abusive relationship. Paxton addresses potential activist outcomes; audience members found that diva performances could empower, help others figure out their identity/ies, and encourage a fresh look at the world around us.

Paxton’s research pertains to visual rhetoric because (gay) men take on a “different” look when engaging in drag performance – a look that challenges the status quo. And while Paxton’s deeming of Taylor Swift as “not a diva” is disheartening, his research is still specifically important to my project. Members of the ATRL community play around with the concept of diva worship frequently – Gay Cat frequently appears in forum posts about popular artists like Swift and Beyoncé; we can interpret the use of Gay Cat as a diva performance; and the Gay Cat manipulations, whose appearance resembles those of women pop stars, further disrupt notions of gender. In short, this research sets up a context for diva performance for my own research.