Immobilizing Rhetorical Scale
Farrell argues that as rhetors, we have the power and responsibility to recognize situations in the context of their contingency, magnitude, and phronesis. Through consideration of how a rhetorical action sits in its context and influences future rhetoric, we reflect through enthymematic means. Sometimes, this process of reflection is overwhelming — especially when the scale of the issue at hand is unfathomably large. In order to prevent ourselves from feeling so small where we are paralyzed by the forces of the world, we need issues to be presented and articulated at a local, proportional scale.
Farrell’s essay was an inspiring piece of theory and there hasn’t been a better piece of writing to send me out into the “real world” with. So often I find myself stuck in the “nothing I do matters” mentality. Though this has never stopped my creation, I’ve looked back on certain works that I made in these times and wondered what the hell I was going for with them. Farrell’s piece (and this capstone as a whole) have really aided me in thinking about what kind of difference I can make with the tools at my disposal.
As I have learned throughout my studies in the WRD program, a rhetorical action is only as strong as its ability to resonate with those who engage with it. I have always strived to make work that is enthymematic, where the viewer can find their own meaning given their own perspective. Conversations with others who interpret my work in a way that I could never have fathomed are the very reason that I continue to create. As I continue to learn about how each rhetorical device I implement is interpreted by audiences, I am able to expand my toolbox to incorporate all of my own past experiences.
Like I said, I often get caught up in the scale of the ideas which I’m trying to convey. As the sheer amount of media we encounter daily increases, creating a meaningful interaction becomes harder and harder. This project was not exempt from such a difficulty. Given that I was creating a project that required such intention, I had to consider the entire network of viewers. So, I made the subjects of my series a “network” of stylized human skulls each expressing different sentiments about a central issue; imagery which every viewer can relate to in one way or another. I then overlaid them on top of a building site with the heading “NOW”, and gave each piece it’s own heading that both conflicts with and complements the unchanging “NOW” heading.
The phronesis of the series lies in the fact that the skulls can be interpreted as both the spectator and actor. I overlaid them transparently, so it is up to the viewer’s interpretation where they feel that they relate to the images. In my mind, there is a wide array of viewers, that all have one or many opinions on the issue of western property development. Supporters of such developments will be forced to interact with more material that showcases the dark side of this growth, and will be urged to think about how their capital-seeking actions affect other humans. Those who oppose these developments will see an inaccessible world that is built on the backs of others, and (hopefully) will feel encouraged to act on these emotions.
The magnitude of such an idea is massive. Throughout history, capitalists have built themselves up at the cost of others (e.g the coinciding space race and vietnam war). Now more than ever, life on earth is threatened by the growth mindset. Why are we growing? For what? At whose cost? I hope that with this project, I’m able to make people think about such a topic. However at the same time, I also want my viewers to use the ambiguity of my message as a call to action on whatever happens to be on their mind. Maybe it’s far away from my goal; something as menial as writing a paper they’ve been procrastinating. Maybe it will inspire them to go to a local zoning meeting to educate themselves on the happenings of their neighborhood. Whatever they take away, I want my viewers to act.
