The image of the cute chicks (as in baby chickens), saying "We are not nuggets! Please don't eat" is obvious in trying to appeal to the audience by being cute. First of all, I think this image brings up a huge misunderstanding in that chicks are used in order to produce chicken mcnuggets which is completely wrong. Instead, according to the documentary, "Supersize Me", they are made from old chickens and goes through a complicated process in order to produce these chicken abominations. With Welling, this image brings up the idea of "ecoporn." This idea he states, is much more subtle in that the way we view women in pornography is similar to the way we view these advertisements or "greenwash" as we take on this voyeuristic role of the dominant, invisible figure who is just watching. The term "power" comes to mind when talking about this because there is an exchange of knowledge onto the reader. They obtain this power by viewing these advertisements and gaining this knowledge, be it either false or true. My confusion is whether this gaining of "power" as explained by Wellings to be false when the advertisement is false.
Can the advertisements give false "power" to the readers and can that cause a major problem? Wellings describes this ecorporn as, "denying the capacity for active, independent vision" (Wellings 58), and really pushes reader to see how this discourse can be limited. For the ideas, words, nuances stated in the advertisement, such as the "chick" one, is all that one reader sees and is constrained and is not allowed to see the other side of story or the "true" facts. Wellings pushes the reader in order to take this somewhat outlandish idea of "ecoporn" and take on a different perspective on the reality of these campaigns.
1 comment:
I think you raise an interesting question, and I'm slightly conflicted on the issue. Because yes, I see the exchange of "false" power, but then if the reader doesn't necessarily buy into what these advertisements are saying, they're still given power, but is it no longer false...? I think the dialogue between the advertiser and the reader is definitely limited, and the reader is confronted with a choice- to accept or reject the "knowledge." Eric, you demonstrated a rejection of the Mcnugget PETA advertisement yourself. You saw, read, received the knowledge or the "power," and rejected it because of its inaccuracy. So I guess you definitely still have the power, but its not the false advertisements that make the power true or false, but the reader's interpretation and reception.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.