Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Visual Analysis (PETA)

          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. 
           This image revolts most any observer at first glance.  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.  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.           
            A dominant male personality might also be persuaded to eat less meat by viewing this ad.  The woman in the picture just so happens to possess striking features and an enticing body.  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.
           On the other hand, this image may cause the viewer to become angry or disgusted with PETA for publishing this ad.  This anger comes from the value of human life.  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.  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”.
           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.
            The image coaxes 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 far fetched.  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”.  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. 
            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.

No comments:

Post a Comment