February 3, 2012
Butchery of Taste
Welling's article discusses how "visual representations of nature [...] can code the viewer's eye" (53), and the PETA ads represented in our slideshow certainly demonstrate how depictions of animals can easily be manipulated to institute a certain value system into the viewer. As Tango mentioned, too many of these ads are directed toward people who choose to eat meat through guilting the viewer (such as the ad that asks "If dogs tasted like pork, would you eat them?") and shaming the viewer with the graphic image of an animal, which is difficult to identity, with a decapitated head slung askew from a hook, confronting the viewer with fear. While these ads are not necessarily unfounded in their message, the methodology behind most of them are flawed both in that all but one addresses the pressing issue of factory farming, and, more, that the ads accost the viewer on an emotional appeal––detracting, in ways, from the levity of the intellectual value in vegetarianism.
1 comment:
Tylur, I totally agree with your analysis of PETAs ads. They are reliant on emotional appeals and making meat eaters feel ashamed and guilty. I address this topic in my post as well. The way that PETA goes about their mission is off-putting to many vegetarians who I know, and this is largely due to the shock value, emotional appeals, shaming, and guilt-tripping. If instead PETA's intellectual property confronted pressing issues such as factory farming, perhaps more people would tune in. Ecoporn is often reliant on emotional appeals, and in the case of PETA, it is not always productive to the cause. Thus Welling makes a point that ecoporn should be avoided and replaced with realism and honesty, and as we agree, genuine intellectual values instead.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.