In your response to your peer, you may want to reflect on how their analysis makes you see the image differently than you did before. You may want to add analysis they missed. You may want to challenge their analysis and present a counterargument to the argument the image makes. You have many options, but remember that we are down to our last three journals so you'll want to think about answers that give more than a basic response.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Journal 7
Time to recall the skills we learned for paper one, rhetorical analysis. We are beginning a unit that will ask you to analyze visual arguments: bumper stickers, posters, political cartoons, advertisements, commercials, photographs, etc. You've read about visuals aimed at politics and advocacy and should be able to define what will be our key terms for this unit: subjects, purpose, audiences, contexts, medium, structure, and design. Of course, we will also need logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos. Choose one of the images in the series from today's reading and answer all three questions Beyond Words poses for that image.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Out of all the images in today’s reading the most impacting one for me was that of Dick Locher’s Thanksgiving Spoof. My first reaction to this picture was how much of Americas history is built on irony. This image describe how America came about when people sailed across the sea in search of new land and came across the territory owned by Native Americans who welcome us into their home. Despite the generosity of the native Americans, we stripped them of their land through various form of manipulation and declare the territory America. The point of this image is where would Americans be today if Native Americans were as strict with immigration as Americans are today. Locher created this particular cartoon for thanksgiving because he knew that the point he was trying to get across would be the most impacting during this holiday. The use of karios in this visual argument is very important because on the particular day of thanksgivings we give thanks for Native Americans’ hospitality, who open up their homes and food to Americans in time of need. This aspect of the visual argument will make the audience viewing the image feel guilty for the strict immigration laws in America since the mere foundation of Americans’ history is built on Native Americans letting us who at that time was immigrant ourselves into their home.
ReplyDeleteThe photo I am choosing is item 8.5- Todd Hesisler, Reno, Nevada, 2005 on page 277. This is the photo that impacted me the most when going through the reading. Todd Hesisler’s captain at the bottom of the photo helped my understanding of the image, the text and image work very well together in the way that there is normal “civilians” above the soldier’s body and in reality any solider is putting those people above his life when he or she goes to war. Also when the text says that the family of the solider is gathering in the tarmac just waiting for the marines to bring the casket, that’s what the people on the plan are staring at. I believe the photo would not be as powerful without the accompanying text because yes the picture is very dominant on its own the caption makes the reader think about everything that is going on not just the casket. Hesisler chose to show the row of passengers and not the family because that’s what Americans see most often. Is the family in pain and unless you have had a family member die in war there is no way to connect, yet with the people on the plan there are just like any of us. They pay their taxes (hopefully), have a family, career, and their own life outside of the war. The family has no way around thinking about war, and to have shown them in the photo just may not have been able to appeal to many people. Also the photo is very American. The plan has red, white, and blue; the flag shows the red strips and last the uniforms of the men. In addition, the photo seems to be in low light giving it a softer feel. Last, I do not feel that someone who supports military involvement in Iraq would respond to this image any different than someone who is against the war because at the end of the day we are all Americans and it is very heartrending to see a fallen solider and the effects it has on their family. The responses to the questions may be similar in structure, and general understanding of the photo. The question on composition I feel would have the most similarities because it is just analyzing the image, the topic of pathos would come up in both.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michelle Edwards:
I like that you brought up the factor of immigration in America today. It has a strong point in this image that I did not think about when I first saw it in the reading. When I see this image and think of America today and immigration of think of how we treat the people who try and “start a new life” here yet we do not always welcome them with open arms as the Native Americans did for the first settlers. I feel like the photo and the text work very well together because its shows America when Native Americans owned it and as the English came to settle. The Native Americans were very simple (bow and arrows) while the English had at the time very high-tech ships. I also agree that the image being on thanksgiving would be very impactful but what about the fourth of July when we got our independence?
In response to Yukita:
ReplyDeleteI really like your anaylsis of the Todd Hesisler, Reno, Nevada, 2005 photo. Your analysis of this photo was very thorough and well thought out. I especially like the reason that you gave for Todd showing the expresssions of the faces of the passengers rather than the family of the deceased solider. I didn't realize how much key details were in this photo until you brought up the lighting of the photo and design of the plane.
My attention was drawn towards the photograph of the Iraqi women who shows her inked finger after casting her ballot in a polling station in Baghdad in 2005. Though the photograph is clearly a document of a historic event, it is fair to say it makes a political argument. Just previously in 2003 the United States invaded the country and removed terrorist Saddam Hussein from power. Though the United States occupation forces are helping turn control of the country over to the Iraqi themselves, many Americans home still have negative views of Iraqis in general. This picture supports the argument that the country is going through a transition for the better; it is proof that the country doesn’t want to be viewed as a threat. The universal peace sign shows appeals to ethos. It can be connected with typical sayings like, “make peace not war.” As citizens of the country, Iraqis had no control over the war and are showing their effort to reestablish their countries reputation which takes courage. An important part of the image is her inked finger. Not only did this Iraqi woman just vote in her country’s general election, but the ink on her finger is purple. It is the only pure color in the image which makes it the focal point. Also, purple is a color that usually symbolizes spirituality which can be connected to hope and peace. Behind the focal point you see a grin spread across her face which is why I believe the photography took a picture of this voter. By appeals to pathos, the audience can really feel the warm, hopefully, happy feeling she just got inside because of her facial expression.
ReplyDeleteMichelle I like the connection you made between the irony of how America was built. It gives the political cartoon a sense of humor when you see Native Americans looking stuck up and disgusted with the May Flower’s arrival, just as the English did when immigrants showed up on "their" land. Just imagine if the natives really did pass immigration laws; we might not even be here today.
I choose the picture of the Iraqi woman that shoes her inked finger after casting her ballet in a polling station. In response to number one, I think that this photo does make a political argument; it’s basically saying that Iraq is making progress to controlling themselves. Arguments like independence, progress, stability, or instability of Iraq can occur as a result to this photo. Since the ink on her finger shows that she finally was able to vote, a political argument can be made saying that Iraq is making progress. Since the woman is smiling, it shows her happiness; the smile can be argued due to the reasons she is happy.
ReplyDeleteThe woman’s hand, her smile, and her veil strike me as the most important. It says three things, she feels independent, she feels happy, and she has not changed her religious or political views at all. Her hand gesture can refer to both victories, in the sense that she was finally able to vote, or it can refer to peace as well, since this milestone proves things are slowly getting better for her. Her black veil reveals her religion and/or beliefs, which remained unchanged. She was able to vote regardless. Since she is smiling, it proves that she is very happy about voting. These details contribute to the picture as a whole giving it an optimistic feel.
The photographer chose to focus on her smile and inked finger, proving she was happy about finally voting. I think the choice of subject appeals to ethos of the woman by showing her veil and inked finger, as a result of independence. It appeals to pathos by showing her smile, or happiness. And it appeals to logos because of the political feel of her being able to vote.
In response to Michelle, what you said made me realize what was going on in the image. I didn’t understand much at first, except for realizing that it was an ironic and humorous image. After reading what you said about how things would be if the Native Americans were strict on illegal immigration, I realized how ironic the picture is relating to Thanksgiving Day. Americans did basically just take over the land and take over the Native Americans during this time. It is ironic that we celebrate Thanksgiving, giving thanks to people that Americans basically took advantage of. It should evoke a guilty feeling when Americans look at this image.
I also chose the photo of the Iraqi woman showing her inked finger. I believe this is a making a political argument in the way that it is forcing Americans to realize that Iraqi people are making progress just like we did, while still holding onto their fundamental beliefs. The picture illustrates a revolution in the government in Iraq not only because it is becoming a democracy in which people may vote, but it is also a woman who is depicted, showing their progress as a country. Many Americans have a hard time relating to the Iraqi people because of the difference in religion, however their strong connection to their religion, shown through the woman's traditional dress in the picture, is a reminder of how our religion played a key role in the evolution of our country, even though it happened to be a different religion. The peace sign was very symbolic because after all of the violence that has occurred in order for that day to finally become a reality and yet the day of the election was this wonderful reality that she would be able to control who ruled her country. The pathos of this relates to those Americans who still remember we had to fight for our freedom and religion just like they are and it helps us to respect their choices and them as a people.
ReplyDeleteYukita I liked your evaluation. While being very thorough it also made some valid points that I didn't think about, such as why the picture was not of the family of the fallen soldier. I also agree that the writing was necessary to fully understand and get a full impact of the picture with which it was paired.
As an animal lover, I was automatically drawn to the image "Fur Is Dead." I believe that PETA makes a political statement through this poster because it forces people to realize the unethical ways that animals are being treated to keep up with our fashion trends. I think that using celebrity Kate Ford builds credibility, or ethos, because celebrities are highly involved in the fashion world, and if boycotting fur is something they feel strongly about, it's more likely that their fans will as well. This appeal is extremely effective for plenty of other types of advertisements. Look at Proactive for example. People believe that this product is so good that Katy Perry and Jessica Simpson are using it, then it must really work and is worth a shot. For the most part, the use of celebrities as spokespeople for social and political causes doesn't sway me because I've never had a need to buy something that they were advertising, however I do believe that they sway the majority of the people who are informed about such causes.
ReplyDeleteThe color red contrasting with the "purity" of the white rabbit takes a stab at pathos. Red can symbolize a great deal of things in this poster: blood shed, violence, death, power. The white symbolizes the angelic nature of animals, innocence, and helplessness. Buying fur products contributes to the slaughtering of animals, and the contrast and boldness of the colors are used to catch your eye, make you think about what you're really doing when you buy fur, and make you feel empathetic for the lives of innocent animals that are being taken so that you can make a fashion statement.
When it comes to the prose of this poster, the tone is very blunt and to the point; maybe like someone who had the job of slaughtering animals, with the need to get it done and over with, without any sting of emotion. The word choice is extremely to the point, and there isn't much explanation to the poster because there shouldn't be. It's goal is to persuade people to boycott all fur because it's unethical and simply wrong. The words reinforce visual elements in the poster (such as the white rabbit) not only because they are the same color (white: purity, innocence, good), but because you shouldn't have to think much about what the message is once you see an adorable little animal who could be killed for fur.
In response to Brooke, I think you made a valid point by saying that the woman's smile argued that she was happy that she was finally able to vote, but I also think that it means she is happy that women are finally being able to do the same thing as Iraqi men. Iraqi customs control the way that these women live their lives and serve their families, and the smile could also represent a breakthrough in women's rights for Iraqi women.
I decided to the image/item 8.6 (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Fur is Dead Poster, 2007) because it was the one that caught my eye the best. I think using spokespeople for social and political causes is a very smart way to get a person’s attention. It is smart because it is effective, when you see someone who you know is a celebrity you say to yourself, I should listen to them because they are a celebrity and they are doing it or using it. I remember one commercial for proactive I saw Kelly Clarkson on it and she said she was using it. So I automatically told my mom I wanted Proactive because I was a big fan of American Idol at the time and I thought if Kelly Clarkson says it works it’s got to work for me too. I think the designer used the colors red and white because they stick out the most. The whole ad is basically red and it is very bright, which can catch any reader’s eye. The white rabbit just contrasts to the red and makes the rabbit stick out even more. The red might even be trying to send a message along with the words, beaten and skinned alive, which could lead to blood which equals red. Then the color white it gives off more of a sweet sense or elegant (not to be harmed), the rabbit being white showing how helpless it is along with all the red in the picture. The text in the ad, “try telling him it’s just a bit of fur trim” puts you in spot because the statement is directed to you or whoever reads it. So it makes you stop and think to yourself about the question. The words beaten and skinned alive also brings emotion to the ad because they are not nice words. Overall I think the ad is very effective and I think using Kate Ford and her being an actress can get many people who watch her movies to boycott fur.
ReplyDeleteBrooke: I agree very much with everything you said. I like the fact that the focal point of the picture are her fingers, one showing the purple ink that she voted and two, that her fingers are making a peace sign. I didn’t even think about the religion side at first with the woman wearing the black, but it’s true what you said she is smiling and happy and still has not changed her religious views. I think you said some very important facts.
I chose the picture of Kate Ford modeling for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on page 478. For the most part, celebrities are usually in the media for good reasons so it makes sense that they get asked to become spokespeople for social and political causes. People easily recognize celebrities because of what their name is and what their occupation is. Having them as spokespeople helps with the publicity of the cause. When people see that these people endorse a cause, they might back up the social or political cause just because their favorite celebrity is the one who is making a claim. I think that some celebrities are spokespeople for the right reasons, while others are just trying to get their name attached to a cause for publicity reasons. The use of the red and white coloring helps make the image of the rabbit pop off of the red background. The red could be seen as blood which could symbolize when animals are abused and skinned. The white could be seen as being innocent. Kate Ford holding the rabbit shows that it is an animal that is not malicious as it lies in her arms. Rabbits are harmless animals that are killed for their fur. The words and tone as a whole contribute greatly to the poster’s purpose. The tone of the poster is direct and gets the message across easily. When the reader reads the words he or she can almost directly hear the word him emphasized in their mind and the importance of it to the sentence. The boldness of the word him emphasizes the rabbit. The smaller sentence gives a description that rabbits and other animals and killed solely for their fur.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Yukita, I think you did a wonderful job of analyzing the photo of Todd Heisler. I agree that the text helps make the photo that more powerful. The words definitely add on to help make the picture come alive. I think that by showing the passengers on the plane instead of the grieving family puts things into perspective that while we go about our daily lives that people are dying for our country and freedom.
The picture that affected me the most was the photo taken by Todd Heisler of the soldiers taking the coffin out of the plane (item 8.5). I believe that his explanation of the image helps convey to the audience what it was about the picture that moved him personally. He speaks in a very casual manner as if he is speaking right to you. His words are simple yet very powerful. The quote Heisler includes from Major Steve Beck is especially moving. Without the text, I do not believe the image would have had as strong of an effect because the text appeals very strongly to pathos. I believe that the photographer chose to include the row of passengers watching the soldiers remove the coffin from the plane because they represent average Americans. It is clear to see how they felt about the situation by their emotional facial expressions. As American citizens, we identify with them and what they are feeling. He might have chosen to show them rather than the family because everyone feels deeply saddened when they lose a loved one, but it was especially moving to see the affect this scene had on strangers who simply recognized that a soldier had fallen. In the picture, an equal amount of space is given to the image of the soldiers removing the flag-draped coffin as the spectators in the seats above. It is clear that Heisler was trying to show the both the importance of the deceased Lieutenant and the passengers reactions. A viewer who supports U.S. military involvement in Iraq would certainly respond differently than someone who opposes the war. A supporter of the war would perhaps feel pride when viewing this picture. They would see a hero who died for a great cause and is now being honored by his peers. Someone who opposes the war may view this picture with anger and feel as though an innocent man died in vain for useless cause. However, I do believe that both viewers would feel great sorrow and sympathy for the Lieutenants family and friends.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michelle, I thought your viewpoint on the cartoon was very interesting. It really made me think about where we would be today if the Native Americans had turned us away. I agree that viewers may feel guilty about how strict our current immigrations laws are.
The photo that was the most powerful to me was item 8.6, At the Time of the Louisville Flood. This piece brings up many questions about the differences between our view of the past and what actually took place. The first thing I noticed about the photo was the poster that takes up the top half of it. Bourke-White takes advantage of the fact that the eye automatically looks at something from top to bottom to first show you a scene of idealized America then hit you with reality. The format is very important, anyone who was just passing by this scene most likely would have thought nothing of it, the photo really highlights the dichotomy of what is going on. There are many differences in between the poster and the people standing below it. One of the most obvious is the that everyone in the poster is smiling and enjoying themselves while the people down below are the exact opposite; they seem lost and disheartened. The poster is uses mostly lighter colors, meanwhile the people below wear dark colored clothing and stand on a dark street. Another stark contrast is one of race, the people portrayed in the poster are all White while the people standing in line are African-American. I believe the point that Bourke-White was making with this photo is that the combination of our prejudices and the status quo can often push reality down and out of the way, where it waits dejected and forgotten. This photo is very valuable as a historical document because it portrays a direct contrast between our modern views of the period and the way things actually were back then. One way this speaks to our current issues is that our contemporary views of the “American way” is limited to a small group of people, meanwhile most people in our country live their lives in completely different manners.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa when she discussed celebrities acting as spokespeople for different causes. While some do seem to actually believe in those causes, there are many who seem to only be in it for the publicity. I also agree with her that many people will support a cause simply because their favorite celebrity supports it, however, I do not believe that this is a good thing.
The image that caught my eye was At the Time of the Louisville Flood, by Margaret Bourke-White. I am currently taking AMH2097 which is Race, Nationality, and Ethnicity in the U.S. and have been learning all about the different groups of people who immigrated to the United States and how they were treated and such. We spent the first half of the semester on African Americans so this image stood out to me because I knew the most about it. The first thing I look at and notice when I see this image is the billboard presenting the perfect “American family”. The family is white and presented as living the “world’s highest standard...the American way”. The next thing I notice is the line of African Americans that are, according to the caption, displaced by a flood. Not only are they not white and jolly but they are in extreme poverty. This poverty swept the nation at this time and Americans were not living in high, perfect standards. The contrast created in this image between the billboard family and the people standing below is extreme. I think that Bourke-White is making the point that the “American Way” was not the reality of America during the Great Depression. I do not think the people in the photo or anyone passing by would have viewed the scene the same way but I am so glad that it is captured in a picture. This picture is truly a gem and is very valuable to documenting history because it not only depicts the image America feed itself and to the world but also because it shows the reality of what America was. I think that this image definitely speaks to the current issues in America with the recession going on now.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Demi,
I think discussing the color purple and what it means was a great way to communicate what you were trying to say. I think including some analysis of the veil and its color would make your argument stronger and complete because I think color definitely has a huge role in this photo.
I chose the “Fur is Dead” poster because the vibrant colors stood out to me and made me think of something that would be in New York City or in a fashion magazine. I believe that sometimes using celebrities as spokespeople for social and political causes sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t work. I think especially if you have well known celebrities such as Ashton Kutcher who represents a certain item over and over again like the COOLPIX camera commercials the audience will remember the message more. People will also stop to look at the image if they notice a celebrity they know. However, certain celebrities’ people may not like for a certain reason and that may take away from the way they look at the message of the medium. From the start the bright color of red catches the corner of your eye even if you are just walking passed the poster. Red is a bold color and so is the message of the poster. The color red also symbolizes death and violence, such as death of the rabbit. PETA reason for choosing a white rabbit is significant because it represents the innocence, purity, and life of the animal, giving us a reason to not kill it. The text “Try telling him it’s just a bit of fur trim,” is stated in a simple manner but says a lot. The word “him” is in bold lettering to show that animals should be respected like humans instead of referring to the animal as “it”. This saying also comes off as taking fur from animals is not too bad because you only take a “bit of fur trim” but that’s not the case, which is described in the caption under it. PETA tells us that animals are beaten and cruelly skinned alive. This poster starts with a more broad explanation of what they are advertising and then narrow down the specific purpose. The specific purpose being “Boycott all fur,” which is the last sentence and in bold. The text talks directly about the image, “him” referring to the rabbit. We should not use animal fur for our fashion trends. The poster shows few words that bring on many emotions.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Natascha, I do not completely agree with you that using celebrities as spokespersons is always a good idea. Yes, using Kelly Clarkson as a spokesperson for proactive is a good idea because she had ache and supposing proactive cleared it up. However, I do not think it is appropriate to use celebrities in all cases. Lindsey Lohan use to do Got Milk ads in magazines but now she is in trouble for drugs and alcohol. Therefore, a celebrity like her would not be a good candidate to represent something if people may look at the ad and the first thing they see is Lindsey and they don’t read anymore because they are against what she does.
I chose to respond to the image of the fallen marine being flown back home. Todd Heisler's explanatory caption gives the audience background information on how fallen marines are flown home on regular commercial airplanes with passengers. The text gives the audience an idea of how passengers feel when they witness the somber moment of a fallen marine being taken off of a plane.I think the photo would still be powerful without the accompanying text because audiences can easily put two and two together by the looks on the passengers faces and the soldiers around the flag draped casket.
ReplyDeleteI think Heisler chose to show the row of passengers above the coffin being removed from the baggage compartment because by their faces it is evident that people do not really understand the gravity of war until they see it for themselves.I believe he chose not to show the family on the tarmac because many viewers have seen sad images like that before and it has lost some of its power. An observation I made was that the passengers on the plane can't see the the casket and are staring at the family accompanied by other marines because usually people are not allowed on the tarmac.
I believe a viewer who supports the war will respond to the image with tremendous gratitude and pride while a viewer who opposes will respond with anger over senseless death. But their responses will be similar in that there will be sadness because of a life lost.
In response to Brooke I agree with you that the Iraqi woman is smiling due to her happiness of the progress her country has made to the point that not only there is finally an election but that women can for the first time take part in their countrys' direction. I also agree by her hand gesture she is symbolizing that peace is beginning to come to her country. I do not agree entirely that she is wearing the black veil because of her religious views only but also that it is highly unacceptable culturally in Muslim countries for women to show their hair or much skin.
The image that jumped out the most to me was item 8.7, the photograph of a line of African American residents in front of a large billboard. To me this is very big and controversial because it shows the "World's Highest Standard of Living" but it shows a family of only white people. This is big because the year is 1937 and there were still many racist ideals being passed around and even some tension. This image plays heavily off of pathos because it shows many people waiting in line because they were displaced by the Louisville Flood during the Great Depression. The biggest part is that there is not a single white person in this line where as the billboard shows a happy white family. The idea is a good one with the billboard but it gets covered by the fact that the flood seemed to only affect the African Americans and not everyone in Louisville.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alix
I did not realize that the people were used to signify the average person but now that I think about it it does make a lot of since and works very well. For me I just kept thinking about my friends and family who are in the military because I do not want them to end up like this. So I thought it was more of an image to saw remember all those at war.
My interests lie with the "Car with Political Bumper Stickers" image. I got the feeling that this photo was taken around the 70's or 60's. This detail makes it easier to realize that personal expression has lasted for decades. I mean, even today people still use bumper stickers for personal and political expression. The main message that is being conveyed through this image is the cry for peace. There are various "peace" slogans and symbols from one end of the car to the other. Having these peace messages spread throughout the bumper of the car symbolizes that peace needs to be universally spread instead of just advertised and fought for in one place. These bumper stickers also tell me that the owner of the Ford Pinto is serious about a lot more issues than peace. The owner also has stickers promoting recycling, the Earth, solar energy against using nuclear energy, and supporting organic farmers. This leads mw to conclude that while this person is politically supportive of all of these subjects, he believes that all of these things cannot be achieved without peace.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Yukita, I really thought it was great that your analysis of the Todd Hesisler image was so in-depth. I like how you captured what the image was trying to convey in terms of the civilians, and not just the soldiers which would have been the obvious choice to talk about.
The advertisement that caught my eye was the article created by PETA, which featured Kate Ford protectively holding a rabbit. I do believe that using celebrities is an effective method for companies and political groups to persuade their audiences into agreeing with their causes. These well-known models or actors catch the eye more than an ordinary person would, and they often make the message more impactful because they are famous. When a person see’s a celebrity they admire or look up to portraying a message, they immediately think “Oh wow, if a person as rich and famous as Kate Ford is against fur, then I should be too.” Secondly, the color in the ad immediately catches the viewer’s eye. The bright red background, as well as Kate Ford’s gloves and dress make a bold statement that contributes to the message of animal cruelty. The red appears to symbolize blood, and the violent treatment that these animals receive. The white rabbit appears very gentle and innocent compared to the harsh red colors. The focuses on the red and white color concentrate the message on animal cruelty, instead of having other colors that would distract the main message. For the third question, the combination of tone and word choice contributes greatly for the effectiveness of the posters purpose. The word “Him” is bigger and in bold, to show that the rabbit is not just a mere animal, but a living creature that deserves better rights. As well, the words “Boycott all fur” are bolded, that way hopefully the reader will at least read the main message of the poster. The strong and informing tone of the poster makes the message more powerful, and shows PETA’s strong opinion that this animal cruelty is unethical. The description of the actions are done to the rabbits correlate with the harsh colors of the ad.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Demi, I completely agree on how this message reflects we cannot follow the stereotype that all Iraqis are evil terrorists. The impact of this woman making the peace sign is very strong, as we see her in a new light of a real person. You made a good point on the significance of the color purple that I had not thought of. The only significance that I noticed that you may not have is the reason why the photographer chose this particular voter, and it is of course because she is a women. The freedom and opportunities that this vote allowed is much more significant, and the picture would not have been nearly as impactful had it been of a man.
ReplyDeleteTood Hiesler’s explanatory caption helps me understand that this image is a memorial for all soldiers that arrive home in a casket, not just 2nd Lt. James Cathey. The people watch as the Marines remove the casket, and this instills the gravity of the situation. The plane that they are one just brought home and man (or woman) that lost their lives defending what the people on that plane enjoy every day, freedom in America. I believe the photo would still be as powerful without the text because the loss of a life, especially that of a soldier in the field, instill pain in any normal human beings heart. I think Heisler showed the row of passengers because it shows the emotion of the person on the plane; people need to see what happens in war. Just this one death of a soldier is very grave, and thousands die over sea. He might have chosen not to show the family because this picture was publicly published, nobody wants to see their own mourning of the loss of a loved one depicted in a photograph. No, I think that even if one supports the war in Iraq, death is nothing to argue with, and that gives the same reaction to supporters and non-supports. If at all, this picture would just make non-supporters more radical.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stephanie, this photo speaks for itself and is very powerful without text. The additive of the passengers shows the inability for American’s to understand to high loss of men (marines in this case) due to war. However, I do not know if a supporter of the war would respond with pride, gratitude yes, but I think not with pride. One is proud of the sacrifice people make in war, but not proud of the death itself.
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) animal-rights activists captured my attention with their advertisement medium. They did so not through the use of Kate Ford as their spokesperson but rather the use of colors for their poster. Nevertheless, the use of celebrities to represent an organization’s social and political causes is an effective tool in capturing an audience’s interest. Celebrities are seen as role models to average individuals and so the products and movements that they endorse are often times supported by their admirers; just having any “famous person” model for an ad guarantees the attention of the normal passersby in public to stop and look at the sales pitch. I am personally swayed by this ad from the use of color and text, rather than the use of the celebrity because I see every celebrity as a normal human being just like me. In this situation, anyone can see that Kate Ford is protectively holding a white rabbit with a serious and fierce facial expression, suggesting her support to halt fur production. The bold red dress and gloves and the poster’s background is an attention-grabbing statement that could represent the blood-shed and death from the fur production of live animals, such as the white bunny that symbolizes innocence. The limited text on this poster contributes to work with the purpose to move the audience to “Boycott all fur,” which I noticed is a demand, rather than a suggestion, given the bitter tone of voice. The word choice is short and concise, to the point; the “him” is emphasized to address the bunny as a living thing. The PETA’s use of a visual to argue the political subject of animal cruelty most definitely centered on the audience’s appeals to pathos involving Kate Ford, the color red, and strong text.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brooke, I liked how you connected the Iraqi woman’s black veil to her faithfulness to her religion, because despite the tragedies she has faced, she never lost hope and belief in her god. You also say that her hand gesture can mean a sign of peace that things are getting better for her but I think the sign is representative of the fate of the whole of Iraq as a nation and not just her alone.
I chose the photo on pg. 475 of the car with political bumper stickers. I chose this image because it caught my eye as I always think to myself and wonder "why do people put bumper stickers on their cars?" whenever I see a car with bumper stickers. My thoughts on the medium and genre of this bumper sticker are that it is from a time era of the 70's or 80's because everything is about peace, and war, as it reminds me of something very "hippie-like". Bumper stickers can convey various kinds of messages. Some may convey important things such as cancer awareness, while others convey miscellaneous things such as the infamous sticker of the little boy peeing on things. These stickers can reach audiences of whoever it may apply to. These bumper stickers apply to an audience who is against war and all about peace in the world. Some limitations of this medium and genre are that it is only about ending war and finding peace. The message on a bumper sticker may be influenced by its context because it represents what the messenger is trying to say. It shows the personality or beliefs for the person displaying the stickers. As the stickers in item 8.3 tell us that the owner of the Ford Pinto believes in peace and stopping war mainly. Then there are stickers about recycling and the earth. It shows that this person is very peaceful and all about the environment. Also there are stickers about children living happy makes a difference. If I were to compose a bumper sticker for a group or cause I support, it would be a sticker of the FSU club baseball team. The sticker would be designed with the Florida State logo, and around it would say Club Baseball, with bats and a glove on each side. This sticker would then make an argument and show that the person displaying this sticker on their car is either a member, or a fan, or some part of the Florida State Club Baseball organization.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Joslin, I agree with what you say about this person believes that peace needs to be spread out universally. I like how you added about how today many people still use bumper stickers for political expressions. I remember during election years I always see cars filled with bumper stickers of whom they are voting for. People like to get their point across to others, in spite of hope that it may influence them as well. Joslin you forgot to mention the fact that the car is also filled with stickers about ending war. Maybe you did this because peace represents ending war in general, however I think you should mention it in your response. There is also a rainbow on the car which you forgot to mention, the rainbow represents peace and happiness as well I believe. This photo is a very unique photo that can argue for a lot of messages with the blink of an eye
Using the internet to recruit and communicate with supporters as a form of political advocacy, such as the Potter Cast image presented on page 483, represents a smart and innovative use of one of the most popular communication forms. Recently, Internet access has become available to such a widespread audience that political advocacy through the internet could reach hundreds of millions of different viewers. An advantage to this kind of political advocacy is that you can easily reach out to younger supporters who have grown up with the internet, a disadvantage being that older supporters might not understand this form of communication as easily. For this specific appeal, the web page incorporated an altered image from the final novel at the heading of the page and chose the same orange theme colors for their text and background found within Deathly Hallows, the final book. The designers might have chosen a podcast version so that viewers could listen on the go. In terms of medium and genre, this form of technology is convenient to listen to and easily available for younger viewers. One-time activities such as donation-raising parties can be an extremely effective way to make a difference in large-scale political or social problems, but they might not have the long term effect a more permanent solution might be able to achieve. Because donation-raising parties often give deadlines, people feel greater pressure to move towards the action of donating and faster. Also, donation-raising parties can instill competition in those that can raise more money faster. Finally, these parties excite younger generations to get involved in serious issues that concern them that they might have overlooked if presented in a different format.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tori, while I chose a different image to review, I completely agree with your analysis of the PETA image “Fur is Dead.” I agree that Kate Ford’s appearance in the ad builds credibility for their argument and that Ford can easily appeal to many of the men and women who would wear fur. I also agree that PETA’s color choice for the ad strongly appeals subconsciously to pathos for many. The contrasting bold red and white can draw connections between multiple symbolic references. Tori, I completely agree with your’ analysis of the image.
I chose to use the Dick Locher, Thanksgiving Day cartoon for my journal this week. This cartoon is able to use very few words to make its point because of the United States history that most of us already know. This cartoon is showing the irony of our nation’s history and how our views can change so drastically over time. The Native Americans in the cartoon are discussing whether or not the new English settlers should be allowed into their land. The irony is that these Native Americans allowed the foreigners into the country as well as teach them many things about harvesting and such on their new land, and then the new people took over everything and removed the native peoples from their home land, forcing them into reservations. This cartoon also includes the irony of America priding itself on diversity, immigration, freedom for all, and a new life for those who choose to come to this country, but now governments across the country are proposing that we remove illegal immigrants.
ReplyDeleteThis cartoon has few words so it is important that much of the information comes from the actual picture as well. In the cartoon you can see that there is an old colonial looking ship moving toward the coastline. There are two people dressed in Native American attire including bows and spears. This scene allows you to conclude that this is the scene of the pilgrims first arriving in Plymouth. You would not know that this was the pilgrims if the cartoon was not published on Thanksgiving Day. The cartoon would not have been as funny or effective on another day.
I agree with Michelle that the Thanksgiving Day cartoon uses kairos to get its point across to the audience. Printing this cartoon on Thanksgiving Day is the only way that this cartoon would make sence to the audience. It would not be perfectly clear what was occuring in the scene because there is limited text in the cartoon.
ReplyDeleteI chose to look at the PETA campaign image on page 478 of Beyond Words.
ReplyDelete1.) I think that celebrities can hold great power over political and social messages. For me personally, they typically spawn favor, distaste or apathy. If a celebrity who I like and seems credible supports a certain issue then I am likely to be interested in that issue, if one who I do not trust supports an issue I am likely to have distaste for the issue and if it is a celebrity who I do not take seriously or feel is somewhat of a 'joke' then I am likely to overlook the issue. For example, if Steven Spielberg were to support something I would most likely take it seriously and look into it because he is an educated, accomplished and respected name in the film world. But if someone from the cast of MTV's Jersey Shore were to support something I would most likely laugh and continue on with my day. I think celebrities hold this power because we are constantly given information about their behavior, accomplishments and life in general; we form some sort of connection to these people, we feel we 'know' them to some extent.
2.) The contrasting color choice of red and white is striking and consequential. Initially, the deep red pigment against the stark, bright white catch's ones attention merely based on the fact that we are draw to such bold colors. Though they do much more than grab our attention, they add great depth to the image and spawn emotion in the viewer. The rich red color chosen is passionate and in this context, almost violent. Ford's crimson lips, and rich satin gloves grasping the stark white rabbit remind us of blood. While red lips, gloves and dresses are often seen as a symbol of lust and sensuality, placed alongside red and the disturbed look on Ford's face, we see more of a violent passion. The white rabbit and white letters mark purity and innocence. The contrast makes a claim that mistreatment of animals is a violation of the pure and the innocent.
3.) The largest letters which read "Try telling HIM it's just a bit of fur trim" continue the contrast of purity and cruelty. It furthers the idea that the rabbit is helpless and innocent, and helps to humanize him so that viewers feel even more compassion for the animal. It reminds the viewer of children, and makes us feel a degree of guilt, like one might feel if they had to tell a child their dreams wouldn't come true. For me, the smaller text below is a mixed bag. The graphic word choice ("...beaten and skinned ALIVE...") is powerful and distrurbing, it makes us want a change to avoid gore and cruelty. However, the last phrase, "BOYCOTT ALL FUR" is too much of a demand for me and I am turned off. This makes me feel as if PETA is trying to demand something of me. I would feel more receptive to the idea if they had chosen words which would lead me to think that myself rather than explicitly being told to do so.
In response to Ania, while I do feel that celebrities are powerful tools in spreading messages and grabbing attention, I do not feel it's fool proof. There are many times which I actually overlook certain ads or messages because I feel that it's just another celebrity being paid to endorse something, or just another celebrity supporting a cause out of trend. This may be an issue of lack of interest in celebrities on my part but I feel that there are others who feel this way, especially in older generations who are more skeptical to Hollywood figures, or less knowledgable about them.