Revision of Visual Analysis

Trevence Mitchell

          People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, more commonly known as PETA, released a controversial internet ad on March 1, 2010 in response to the rising death toll of domesticated animals for food.  The ad depicts a woman (appearing dead) wrapped in plastic with blood splattered from her chest and a food package label that reads “HUMAN MEAT” on the front.  It’s fair to say the picture aroused many emotions as well as reactions.  Some however, don’t coincide with the organizations push for vegan and vegetarianism[d1] . 

           This image revolts most any observer at first glance[d2] .  The thought of killing a human being and packaging that person to be sold for food is simply inhumane. Who would do such a thing?  "Only a cannibal would be so cruel," most people would answer.  Cannibals are viewed as nasty soulless monsters with no regards for life other than their own.  A defenseless hands up gesture helps to create a sense of hopelessness for the victim[d3] .  The splatter of blood strung across the plastic turns the stomach and makes one woozy.  For the caring soul - mother, nurse, teacher, or friend - the parallel of a human to an animal may subside any cravings for meat[d4] .  These individuals might see how animals are subject to abuse, pity them, and want to help them because of their gentle nature.         

            A dominant male personality might also be persuaded to eat less meat by viewing this ad.  The woman in the picture just so happens [d5] to possess striking features and an enticing body.  What a coincidence?  Seeing pretty eyes set off by a few coats of eyeliner, perfectly arched eyebrows, just enough blush to accent the cheekbone, and a little stud in the ear to capture the elegance of her neck, a man might become aroused.  If not, then her near naked body covered only by a nude colored pair of panties will do the trick.  This arousal mixed with lust and the inferior nature modern men associate with women may evoke some level of sympathy for the animals rendered a similar fate[d6] .  The male may feel obligated to protect the innocent female because she cannot help herself and apply this same logic to abused animals.  This need for protection is further demonstrated by the position of her arms.  The woman is practically pleading for mercy and help.  It is common for a domineering male to adopt a hero mentality and think that he is the one who can save the damsel in distress.  He may become a vegetarian or vegan just to score chicks.

           On the other hand, this image may cause the viewer to become angry [d7] or disgusted with PETA for publishing this ad.  This anger comes from the value of human life[d8]  which this image totally disregards.  Some people may feel that under no circumstances is it permissible for an organization to portray a human being as food or the equivalent of an animal because they think the human race is superior to animals.  The notion of being able to stop by Wal-mart on your way home from work to pick up a package of "HUMAN MEAT" should not be downplayed.   "Beep! Your total is going to be $785," isn't funny[d9] .  Someone who might feel this way may not be an “animal lover” in the same sense that most individuals in favor of this ad may be. These people may even be scared by the symbol of any human being dropping on the food chain. These may be the same people who are disgusted by gory horror films like “Chain Saw Massacre” or “Saw.”[d10]   Inevitably, these viewers are offended by the add and turned off to PETA’s cause because the image is simply too much.

           Others may argue this type of advertising is degrading for women.  Many times in advertising and commercialism women are portrayed as objects.  This is evident from the different perfume and lotion bottles shaped to look like a female physique.  Because the model in the image is adorned with earrings and a bracelet and has on her full makeup, viewers may contend that PETA was gearing their focus towards a male audience in a lustful manner.  After all, sex sales.  This use of sex may cause people to associate a negative connotation with this company and all of their efforts[d11] .

            The image aims to coax consumers to steer clear of eating meat that comes from animals slaughtered for food.  PETA wants to discourage the high consumption of animals we eat.  The people who respond positively to this ad will become more conscious of how much meat they are consuming.  They may not entirely stop eating meat, but they probably won’t eat as much as they had been.  Some people may become vegetarians or vegans depending on how severe they perceive this topic.  However, to think that people will stop eating meat because of one ad is farfetched.  PETA may have intended for this ad to simply draw more attention to their organization and to get more people interested in their cause.

            Overall, this ad works best with the individuals who Aristotle described as being, “quick to shame.”  [d12] These people are more likely to perform a self-examination, admit they’ve eaten meat, admit the number of animals killed for food is unreal, and feel compelled to change their participation in this epidemic.  Yet the question still stands of, “Where to draw the line?”  If this add clearly crosses the line between humane and inhumane into the inhumane side, then even the quick to shame may shun the credibility and intentions of the organization.  This will create a negative connotation associated with PETA and inevitably decrease the number of individuals willing to consider PETA’s cause with an open mind.

            All in all, this image does evoke an emotional response from its viewers, but the view may not be the intended response the organization wanted to receive.  In order to cause more widespread participation in their cause, the company should tone down the gore of their ad.

*In comment #2 you asked about other emotions.  I think I covered the other emotions anger, pity, and sympathy in the following paragraphs. 

*In comment #5 you asked what it planned.  Yes, it was.  In my original paper the phrase "just so happens" was meant to be sarcastic.  I added the rhetorical question "What a coincidence?" to help clarify my sarcasm and let you know that I did know what the intent was in this part of the image.

*In comment #6 to answer your question, "yes, i think so."  I went back and added more commentary to help clarify why I made that claim.

---

 [d1]Good context analysis

 [d2]Shock, too, righjt? The analogy is supposed to be shocking. Aristotle would like it for that reason: it’s both shocking and/but easy to understand.  But what else? Pity? Sorrow? Anger?

 [d3]good

 [d4]So there is an attempt to create an identification with nonhuman animals, correct? So that humans identify with their plight and want to help?

 [d5]Or is it planned?

 [d6]Do you think so? Or do you think someone aroused by this image would associate it positively with meat consumption? If he wants to rip into the bag to get at her, isn’t there a possibility that he’ll positively associate that fantasy with ripping into a meat package?

 [d7]good

 [d8]So you’re saying that the metaphor goes too far? That the ad is overdone b/c the metaphor will strike those who aren’t already sympathetic to animals as false or outrageous? If so, say it.

 [d9]good

 [d10]punctuation goes inside the quote marks.

 [d11]Agreed. It also suggests an analogy b/w killing animals for meat and thinking woman as “meat,” right? So women’s rights groups may or may not appreciate the image.

 [d12]Punctuation goes inside the quotes.