I mentioned in the last class that I think "power" is an important term to consider when reading about binary representations such as in the cases of ecoporn and United Way. In each case a distinction is made between those (or that) with power and those (or that) without. I included the "(or that)" to accommodate not only the ecoporn case but also PETA. In these situations half of the binaries in question could be considered objects. For PETA this objectification is being called into question rather than propagated. PETA appeals to the compassionate side of people, the side which doesn't spark in us competition. Competition is a struggle for power, and the PETA ads provided all show that we exert an unnecessary amount of force on the animals we later consume. The animals in the ads are photographed in positions of powerlessness. They are small and soft or behind bars.
While PETA displays a power binary in the hopes of liberating, in a sense, the powerless, the United Way campaigns only seem to want to ease the woes of the powerless, not suggesting that it might even be possible to transfer any power back to them. The PETA ads seem to identify very clearly the group with the power while the United Way ads only show that a group is without power, probably assuming that the source of their lack of power was natural and unavoidable.
Barton, like PETA, calls to question the power dynamic in a more complex way, challenging not the power dynamic, but its representation and the effect this has on the situation. PETA shows the audience images that the industrial powers that be would not show, providing an alternative representation. These representations have power, and that is the essence of agency in my mind: the power to represent.
2 comments:
Your point that the animals photographed in the PETA ads are all in positions of powerlessness is a good one. My mind immediately related it back to what Mary mentioned in class about ecoporn as a "peep show" and the male gaze. The powerlessness of the animals depicted certainly makes sure that it is the viewer who has the agency, while the animal remains the object.
I feel this is also connected to the United Way ads, where the individuality of the disabled persons depicted is erased in favor of the author-reader relationship. The point in those ads is for the author (United Way) to get the desired reaction (a donation)from the reader,which they do by picturing an objectified and powerless person. In the same way the PETA ads remove any agency from the animals, presenting them for viewing in order to sway the reader toward vegetarianism.
While I agree that the PETA photographs do give a certain agency to the animals depicted, there is still something that makes me hesitate about the whole situation. When I look at these photos, I can't help but feel manipulated, and it's a feeling I'm uneasy with (which isn't to be mistaken for guilt). Maybe PETA has good intentions by exposing that we should recognize the realities behind how meat gets to the dinner table, but I hate the manner they do it in. I understand they're trying to grab people's attention with these images through their shock value, but is that really the only way they could go about it?
Sarah, I think you mentioned in another post that its analogous to pro-life advertisements that depict aborted fetuses. If they cared so much about unborn children, then why exploit one for all to gawk at? It's the same with the decapitated cow. Aren't they trying to promote a certain respect for animals? Then why have this poor animal's head on show for everyone to see? Personally, I think it works against them in a way, since any person with a heart is going to have a hard time digesting that photo... and might be likely to further distance themselves from the subject to feel make themselves better rather than sympathize with its, and other animals', plight.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.