This image of the playboy playmate adding mustard to a tofu dog is both inspiring and a bit sad. It is inspiring because I believe Peta needs to create a new image for themselves. I think in the past their extremist nature has made the public weary of them and ultimately what they stand for. I also believe that animal rights, living green, and vegetarianism has also been given a bad wrap. In a sense the general public does not view these things as “sexy” or “cool” but reserves this lifestyle for the “tree huggers” and hippies. I think the negative connotations actually keep some people away. So inviting the playmates to the tofu cook out encourages a different audience to partake in no meat hot dogs and gives vegetarianism a new face. I like that Peta is straying from throwing buckets of blood into a more acceptable attempt to reach the general public.
In a totally different light I find it a bit sad that Peta must use sexual propaganda to attract a new audience. It is not sad for the organization itself, but for our society. It is disturbing to know that “sex sells” and we all know that placing Sexy playmates in tiny leaves on the street will attract a crowd. Either way, it must have worked.
There is something about cleavage and lettuce that makes me, cringe. Some how, the invisible hand of the market has dictated that breasts go with everything; breast and dresses, breasts and books, breasts and stuff, and now breasts and food for the PETA cause. It isn’t entirely one sided, somehow the invisible hand decided that half nude male figures are ok for selling Kalvin Klein jeans, with a side order of either breasts or buttocks. “Sex Sells!” dictates the invisible hand with its sturdy grasp on the fatty wad of commercialism.
Being a supposedly less-than endowed female (i.e. not a stacked super model) participant of American commercialism, I get the distinct impression that no one is trying to market anything to me or, in a broader sense, no other woman. I figured this out when I was looking through a Roaman’s catalogue. Though this company caters more towards “Plus Sized” women (sizes 12w to 44w) they have women modeling the clothes that couldn’t be bigger than a size 8. (http://www.roamans.com/Plus-Size-Clothing.aspx?DeptId=9813) Why is this? Is this some cruel ploy to tell women with curves that they don’t meet the standards for modeling in clothes being advertised to them? I thought this until I took a closer look at the body language of the models. For some of the poses they are in, just an outfit switch to a swimsuit would transform the page into something you might find in Playboy or some other soft-core porn magazine. “Why is this?” I asked myself again, and then I thought about the base message being conveyed by the advertisement and the receiving audience. “Beautiful people wear this”, says the advertisement, in more or less words. “I want to be beautiful”, says the audience in more or less words. Why does the audience want to be beautiful? Who is determining their beauty? Historically, men did for the most part. I’d like to think that is a somewhat obsolete notion, but I could be naïve. I think it could be fair to say that there is this masculine judgment factor floating around in advertisement geared towards women.
Although you could talk to any guy and they would say this is a great advertisement, but the reason they would say that is because you have a couple of playboy bunnies dressed (that could be stretching it) in some vegetation. The only problem with this is that I am not sure if you stopped some guys a block down the way if they would even know what the advertisement is for. So of course that totally defeats the purpose of what they are trying to accomplish. Although I am sure that most guys would tell you that this is an appealing way to get the message across, I am just not sure that they would know what the message was.
Then of course you have the other half of society, which is of course female. I am guessing that most women would find this offensive, just because you have these women with their breasts half hanging out, placing mustard on a tofu dog. In combination with the fact that I would think they would be turned off from this method of advertisement, I don't think they would even stop or give them the time of day. I believe that a great deal of the female population would either find it offensive or degrading -- but either way it would not have a positive impact.
Although they say 'sex' sells, I think that this is taking it a bit to far. A little to much 'sex' and not enough advertisement. The picture does not really give you any information regarding the store that is being advertised, but maybe it is secluded under one of those lettuce leaves.
I can look at pictures like this all day, but I am not sure that I am receiving the message that they are trying to portray.
Is this serious? My initial reaction was laughter. Having to dress girls up (I mean “dress up” in a very loose sense) to get people to pay attention is extremely pathetic of PETA. Plus, the only people that would pay attention would be men, and that’s the wrong kind of attention. What PETA is taking a stand for is great, I admire their devotion to something that moves them so strongly, but sometimes it seems like they get off track. Why would the exploitation of women ever be a good idea? I feel like there is another group out there for women’s rights that is flipping out over this image. Then it is battle of the groups. It just seems completely unnecessary. If PETA wants more involvement from males or young people or whoever their targeted audience is, this is definitely not the right way to do it. Free food, good, half-naked playmates, not good.
I could discuss advertising, and exploitation of the male and female body all day because it will never go away and a topic like this will always be current. At this point though I am so sick of it. What can we do to stop it? Everyday kids are learning sex sells, use your body to get what you want. Is it even possible to reverse? I do not think so. On a more positive note I think more people react negatively to these kinds of images. There seems to be more advocacies against sex in the media in various cultural classes. The down side of that is that it makes the media try even harder because they seem to love the competition.
I cannot get over the negative connotations to the image to focus on what PETA is trying to do. They are putting down the meat industry and want people in this situation to eat more healthy, organic, green food. Too bad it took me forever to get past the breasts to see the real message. Images like this just make my stomach turn. It is one thing for commercials and soap operas to have it, but groups that are trying to make a difference in the world? Putting others down is not the way. This upsets me.
In other news sand county almanac still bores me to death. It even upsets me now that it is getting colder. I like the rare pictures though; it is a nice break up of space.
This photograph brings up a number of different societal issues. What most people first notice when they view the photograph is the subject, a playboy model dressed in a revealing lettuce top and skirt. This relates to the issue of women’s rights, and the way that our society has exploited women as a way to attract attention from men, whether it be for ads, campaigns, or entertainment. Ours has always been a male-driven society, and this exploitation of women is not a new concept. However, when this type of technique is used in a social issue such as animal rights, it gains a completely new set of connotations. To use women’s bodies as a way to protest the mistreatment of animals is somewhat hypocritical to me – that is, if one places animals and humans on the same level. It seems to me that those who are fighting against the cruel treatment of animals would never even think to exploit one of their own kind for the cause. I suppose, though, that a vast majority of people (mainly men) don’t see this as an immoral practice. I think our society has its morals and logic all turned around. It’s time we fixed that.
A second aspect of this photo is the item in the foreground of the picture: the tofu dogs. First of all, I am not a vegetarian, but I enjoy tofu considerably. However, I would never think to eat a tofu dog – it just does not appeal to me. That’s probably just a matter of personal taste. Anyway, I find it somewhat irrational that many of the vegetarian options today are simply replicas of popular meat products. Tofurkey, tofu dogs, veggie burgers…the list goes on. Why must vegetarians conform to the meat-eaters and produce meatless versions of the same foods they eat? Not only do they remind the person eating it of the meat version, but many of them are not even very good! The vegetarian and vegan foods that I have enjoyed the most are unique dishes, composed of vegetarian ingredients and NOT aiming to imitate a meat counterpart.
This picture also conjures up the various connotations of PETA (after reading the caption, that is). PETA has become quite a topic for criticism in the past decade, as it uses somewhat extreme measures to get its point across. I agree with most of the goals of this organization, but I do not agree with the techniques it has chosen to use to promote its goal. I think the same concept applies to many organizations that are too caught up in their self-image than the issue they are representing.
What a way to grab guys' attention. The advertisement of women in bathing suits is very American cultural code that attracts both men and women gender. i don't know about the women, but my question is how many men will get what the sexy females are advertising right then. I wouldn't. I wouldn't even recognize if the dog is made of tofu, checking out the ladies, unless they tell me. Advertisements, sometimes, make themselves irrational to the products they are trying to sell. I saw this ad in this magazine one day. There was this hot girl standing with sexy pose, not even smoking. Then there was logo of "Camel" at the right bottom of the page. It lost me right then. I enjoyed looking at the girl in the image, but when I came to recognize the ad is for camel cigarettes, I got distracted and was forced to forget it. What is happening in the image has strong impact and weak communication. The guy that holds the dog in the image may only remember the phone number the playmate give or how hot the girl was, but none of PETA.
I don't really read news or anything like it. I wasn't really aware of the topic when I just researched it on the internet. I found out that they were one of the extremists. The problem the extremist has had through history was that they want the change fast. They think stronger protest brings the quicker social or global change, which is wrong. Society may just think of them ignorant about it and disdainful because of their movement resulting social disorder. Protest has to be reasonable to claim people over to agree. Derek Jenson was another case. His speech to bring people, distorting the social code of "Hope" was very friendly and interesting to read, even though it was a bit extreme.
In the past I have been very impressed with the hidden camera work that PETA has done to expose animal cruelty and torture in the meat industry. These videos do more to expose injustices committed by meat processing companies than any formal accusation could, and are therefore quite powerful. That being said, PETA’s public action campaigns have always left me feeling that the group’s ideals were too extreme.
This protest, from what I can discern from the image, is relatively tame compared to other campaigns that PETA has ran. The woman in the photo is wearing a bikini--plastered with what appears to be lettuce leaf--and is attempting to pour some mustard onto a patron’s hot dog. Obviously the campaign is directed towards raising male awareness; PETA probably believes that men would be more likely to stop and chat with the models about their cause then foe-blood soaked extremists. Male patrons would also be more inclined to stay longer, which is important when staging a protest.
Although I wouldn’t characterize PETA’s methods as “classy”, they were probably quite effective at raising awareness for their cause, so in any sense they were successful. However, while their actions here would certainly draw in the male audience, it would most assuredly repel any individual that saw this production as female exploitation. But PETA must have realized this prior to the protest, therefore it can be assumed that their target audience was men.
Wow. I’m shocked just looking at this picture. I thought it was just a joke. I think this is a very powerful way to convey certain idea. I researched past protests of PETA and they always have been very powerful and extreme. As a woman, I first questioned to myself, “Is this also powerful to women?” Although, I think most men are at least curious about the protest when they are passing by these playboy women. Many of them will get the tofu hot dog and maybe get interested in the protest and understand what PETA are trying to convey. PETA chose a smart way to get people’s attention, but might not be the best appropriate way to persuade people, because some might feel offended. I think it is a paradox that their objective of this protest was started from good intention, but their method didn’t really match.
When I read a brief description on this picture, I’ve thought of Sue Coe’s work. As a vegeterian, her works also deals with animal rights and meat production. They have the same idea but their methods of approaching are totally different. I can’t judge what method is right or wrong because it’s the difference between what they think is most significant. In this case, PETA’s key purpose is to get people’s attention and to let as many people as possible to know or realize what is going on about animal right. However, they did not think of how people are going to react on their extreme method of approaching. Contrast to PETA, it seemed like Sue was trying to represent her idea of animal rights via her artworks. Her works were also powerful, but she didn’t directly face people with an extreme protest.
At first I have not gotten the point that the photographer wanted to show. After reading the short description on the bottom and doing some research on what the PETA protest is about, I have realized what Susana wanted to show in her photography.
As it contains a playboy girl with lettuce bikini on, the photography itself is a really eye catching; however, I believe it is not very effective in sending messages to the people who will be seeing this image. Without a description, this image could be seen as an image from some kind of event. I did not notice that this thing on the bread was a tofu rather than a sausage. The PETA should do a better job on how they make their advertisement as their point might not reach the audience in a very effective way.
This is my second time seeing an image of PETA. And the first image that I saw was an image showing people wearing a fur coat was cased in a cage, which usually animals are placed inside. This image came to me stronger to me in that I knew the meaning behind it right away when I saw the photo.
Unlike the photography that I explained, the photography that Susana took would have been probably targeting men as their audience to persuade as it will be really eye catching to most of the man around the world.
Joe's lecture yesterday was really shocking to me. I don't know how many other people knew about the Pacific Garbage Vortex but seeing and hearing about that blew my mind. A trash island the size of Texas?! Thats absolutely horrible. I told my dad and some friends about it and none of them had heard about it before. Even if it may have been in the news it obviously wasn't broadcasted as heavily as it should have because the reaction I'm getting about this news is loud and causes great curiosity about the subject. So in that respect I'm shocked that this isn't something that wouldn't be on TOP of the list of things to get rid of and to take action for the Earth. The Ozone and then the HUGE VORTEX of GARBAGE FLOATING IN THE PACIFIC are on the same level of importance to me. It effects the wildlife in a horrible way and also fact that its already the size of Texas means that it is growing at a farely rapid pace figuring that plastic trash has really only been around for a little less than 70 or 80 years. Also I'd like to touch on how some people in the classes react to Joe's lecture. I feel like when he opened the floor up for people's opinions or reactions to his lecture people start to show a defensive attitude. Which is frustrating to hear for me because from his point of view it's hard enough for someone to tell other people what they are doing wrong but whose intentions are not to correct people for his own self-esteem or establish his position of authority but to save the planet he lives on and make the world a better place to live for those in a much worse off situation.
I dont really know what to say about the Peta picture. I'm not sure really what the idea is behind it.
“It is interesting to meditate that this insects preference for squatting in the sun determines not only her own continuity as a species, but also the future figure of my pine, and my own success as a wielder of axe and shovel.”
While I was reading Sand County I came across this quote on page 70. After reading it I found that I hadn’t continued on but had stopped to think about all that statement encompassed. While he is only talking about a small insect and a simple choice it has made to sit in the sun, he shows us that all things are connected in one way or another, no matter how small they may be. This is actually very interesting to think about. Tiny insects and organisms constantly surround us throughout our entire lives yet we never stop to notice them or to even think about the impact they on our environment. Every small and large thing has its reason for existence and we are all connected to each of these things somehow.
The photo of the Peta protest with the women reflects how advertising or marketing can be pushed away from its original intent or innocence. Many problems arise from Peta's choice to use Playboy, but there is a underlying statement that is made in that photo. Peta is clearly stating that they take the public as fools. Do they not think that we can understand the importance of treatment of animals without being coaxed into it with a ploy. Susana Raab's work "Consumed" which the Peta photo is a part of represents the identity of products that has been put into the environment around us. Pepsi, hot dogs, and fast food is inherently part of our community. We as consumers hold a responsibility to ourselves seeing these products as reflections of ourselves, morals, and community. In lecture we have talked about the problem that consumers present. If only consumers would tell the industries or businesses what they want. We saw this in McDonald's concern with the chickens. The consumers are part of the problem as well as the businesses themselves. 30 Days correlates to all of this in that we don't see all the aspects of life. Everything is intertwined and we need to be aware of all the outcomes of our actions. "To build a road is so much simpler than to think of what the country really needs" (Sand County, 101). This quote from Sand County Almanac can relate to this general theme. America and much of the world is concerned of getting somewhere or something in the here and now, but unfortunately overlooking the important needs of the community. Most of us are just driving by things not thinking to much of what is between our starting point and destination.
When I first saw this photo I kept thinking, “Is this really necessary?” I’d hate to think the answer to my question is “yes,” although it appears that this really got people’s attention. I think that it is really unfortunate that things like world peace, global warming, environmental issues, and ethical treatment of animals can be stressed so much that people actually loose interest. Isn’t there another way to get people caring about animal protection, other than having playboy playmates dress up in lettuce and advertise something that has nothing to do with PETA? I understand that propaganda has a huge influence on what people value, so I’m not surprised that PETA’s new advertisement was successfully noticed by using this method. Some would say, “If it works don’t question it,” but what is the reason that all these people came to the event? I wonder whether people who attended were really there because of PETA. I find myself in a hard place with this image. I am glad that PETA was able to have a successful outcome of this protest, however I am disappointed that sex (as well as food) must be advertised in order to get people interested in animal rights. I wish people wouldn’t need any more incentive than ‘animal rights’ alone, to be a part of this convention.
This image of the playboy playmate adding mustard to a tofu dog is both inspiring and a bit sad. It is inspiring because I believe Peta needs to create a new image for themselves. I think in the past their extremist nature has made the public weary of them and ultimately what they stand for. I also believe that animal rights, living green, and vegetarianism has also been given a bad wrap. In a sense the general public does not view these things as “sexy” or “cool” but reserves this lifestyle for the “tree huggers” and hippies. I think the negative connotations actually keep some people away. So inviting the playmates to the tofu cook out encourages a different audience to partake in no meat hot dogs and gives vegetarianism a new face. I like that Peta is straying from throwing buckets of blood into a more acceptable attempt to reach the general public.
ReplyDeleteIn a totally different light I find it a bit sad that Peta must use sexual propaganda to attract a new audience. It is not sad for the organization itself, but for our society. It is disturbing to know that “sex sells” and we all know that placing Sexy playmates in tiny leaves on the street will attract a crowd. Either way, it must have worked.
There is something about cleavage and lettuce that makes me, cringe. Some how, the invisible hand of the market has dictated that breasts go with everything; breast and dresses, breasts and books, breasts and stuff, and now breasts and food for the PETA cause. It isn’t entirely one sided, somehow the invisible hand decided that half nude male figures are ok for selling Kalvin Klein jeans, with a side order of either breasts or buttocks. “Sex Sells!” dictates the invisible hand with its sturdy grasp on the fatty wad of commercialism.
ReplyDeleteBeing a supposedly less-than endowed female (i.e. not a stacked super model) participant of American commercialism, I get the distinct impression that no one is trying to market anything to me or, in a broader sense, no other woman. I figured this out when I was looking through a Roaman’s catalogue. Though this company caters more towards “Plus Sized” women (sizes 12w to 44w) they have women modeling the clothes that couldn’t be bigger than a size 8. (http://www.roamans.com/Plus-Size-Clothing.aspx?DeptId=9813) Why is this? Is this some cruel ploy to tell women with curves that they don’t meet the standards for modeling in clothes being advertised to them? I thought this until I took a closer look at the body language of the models. For some of the poses they are in, just an outfit switch to a swimsuit would transform the page into something you might find in Playboy or some other soft-core porn magazine. “Why is this?” I asked myself again, and then I thought about the base message being conveyed by the advertisement and the receiving audience. “Beautiful people wear this”, says the advertisement, in more or less words. “I want to be beautiful”, says the audience in more or less words. Why does the audience want to be beautiful? Who is determining their beauty? Historically, men did for the most part. I’d like to think that is a somewhat obsolete notion, but I could be naïve. I think it could be fair to say that there is this masculine judgment factor floating around in advertisement geared towards women.
Although you could talk to any guy and they would say this is a great advertisement, but the reason they would say that is because you have a couple of playboy bunnies dressed (that could be stretching it) in some vegetation. The only problem with this is that I am not sure if you stopped some guys a block down the way if they would even know what the advertisement is for. So of course that totally defeats the purpose of what they are trying to accomplish. Although I am sure that most guys would tell you that this is an appealing way to get the message across, I am just not sure that they would know what the message was.
ReplyDeleteThen of course you have the other half of society, which is of course female. I am guessing that most women would find this offensive, just because you have these women with their breasts half hanging out, placing mustard on a tofu dog. In combination with the fact that I would think they would be turned off from this method of advertisement, I don't think they would even stop or give them the time of day. I believe that a great deal of the female population would either find it offensive or degrading -- but either way it would not have a positive impact.
Although they say 'sex' sells, I think that this is taking it a bit to far. A little to much 'sex' and not enough advertisement. The picture does not really give you any information regarding the store that is being advertised, but maybe it is secluded under one of those lettuce leaves.
I can look at pictures like this all day, but I am not sure that I am receiving the message that they are trying to portray.
Is this serious? My initial reaction was laughter. Having to dress girls up (I mean “dress up” in a very loose sense) to get people to pay attention is extremely pathetic of PETA. Plus, the only people that would pay attention would be men, and that’s the wrong kind of attention. What PETA is taking a stand for is great, I admire their devotion to something that moves them so strongly, but sometimes it seems like they get off track. Why would the exploitation of women ever be a good idea? I feel like there is another group out there for women’s rights that is flipping out over this image. Then it is battle of the groups. It just seems completely unnecessary. If PETA wants more involvement from males or young people or whoever their targeted audience is, this is definitely not the right way to do it. Free food, good, half-naked playmates, not good.
ReplyDeleteI could discuss advertising, and exploitation of the male and female body all day because it will never go away and a topic like this will always be current. At this point though I am so sick of it. What can we do to stop it? Everyday kids are learning sex sells, use your body to get what you want. Is it even possible to reverse? I do not think so. On a more positive note I think more people react negatively to these kinds of images. There seems to be more advocacies against sex in the media in various cultural classes. The down side of that is that it makes the media try even harder because they seem to love the competition.
I cannot get over the negative connotations to the image to focus on what PETA is trying to do. They are putting down the meat industry and want people in this situation to eat more healthy, organic, green food. Too bad it took me forever to get past the breasts to see the real message. Images like this just make my stomach turn. It is one thing for commercials and soap operas to have it, but groups that are trying to make a difference in the world? Putting others down is not the way. This upsets me.
In other news sand county almanac still bores me to death. It even upsets me now that it is getting colder. I like the rare pictures though; it is a nice break up of space.
This photograph brings up a number of different societal issues. What most people first notice when they view the photograph is the subject, a playboy model dressed in a revealing lettuce top and skirt. This relates to the issue of women’s rights, and the way that our society has exploited women as a way to attract attention from men, whether it be for ads, campaigns, or entertainment. Ours has always been a male-driven society, and this exploitation of women is not a new concept. However, when this type of technique is used in a social issue such as animal rights, it gains a completely new set of connotations. To use women’s bodies as a way to protest the mistreatment of animals is somewhat hypocritical to me – that is, if one places animals and humans on the same level. It seems to me that those who are fighting against the cruel treatment of animals would never even think to exploit one of their own kind for the cause. I suppose, though, that a vast majority of people (mainly men) don’t see this as an immoral practice. I think our society has its morals and logic all turned around. It’s time we fixed that.
ReplyDeleteA second aspect of this photo is the item in the foreground of the picture: the tofu dogs. First of all, I am not a vegetarian, but I enjoy tofu considerably. However, I would never think to eat a tofu dog – it just does not appeal to me. That’s probably just a matter of personal taste. Anyway, I find it somewhat irrational that many of the vegetarian options today are simply replicas of popular meat products. Tofurkey, tofu dogs, veggie burgers…the list goes on. Why must vegetarians conform to the meat-eaters and produce meatless versions of the same foods they eat? Not only do they remind the person eating it of the meat version, but many of them are not even very good! The vegetarian and vegan foods that I have enjoyed the most are unique dishes, composed of vegetarian ingredients and NOT aiming to imitate a meat counterpart.
This picture also conjures up the various connotations of PETA (after reading the caption, that is). PETA has become quite a topic for criticism in the past decade, as it uses somewhat extreme measures to get its point across. I agree with most of the goals of this organization, but I do not agree with the techniques it has chosen to use to promote its goal. I think the same concept applies to many organizations that are too caught up in their self-image than the issue they are representing.
What a way to grab guys' attention. The advertisement of women in bathing suits is very American cultural code that attracts both men and women gender. i don't know about the women, but my question is how many men will get what the sexy females are advertising right then. I wouldn't. I wouldn't even recognize if the dog is made of tofu, checking out the ladies, unless they tell me. Advertisements, sometimes, make themselves irrational to the products they are trying to sell. I saw this ad in this magazine one day. There was this hot girl standing with sexy pose, not even smoking. Then there was logo of "Camel" at the right bottom of the page. It lost me right then. I enjoyed looking at the girl in the image, but when I came to recognize the ad is for camel cigarettes, I got distracted and was forced to forget it. What is happening in the image has strong impact and weak communication. The guy that holds the dog in the image may only remember the phone number the playmate give or how hot the girl was, but none of PETA.
ReplyDeleteI don't really read news or anything like it. I wasn't really aware of the topic when I just researched it on the internet. I found out that they were one of the extremists. The problem the extremist has had through history was that they want the change fast. They think stronger protest brings the quicker social or global change, which is wrong. Society may just think of them ignorant about it and disdainful because of their movement resulting social disorder. Protest has to be reasonable to claim people over to agree. Derek Jenson was another case. His speech to bring people, distorting the social code of "Hope" was very friendly and interesting to read, even though it was a bit extreme.
In the past I have been very impressed with the hidden camera work that PETA has done to expose animal cruelty and torture in the meat industry. These videos do more to expose injustices committed by meat processing companies than any formal accusation could, and are therefore quite powerful. That being said, PETA’s public action campaigns have always left me feeling that the group’s ideals were too extreme.
ReplyDeleteThis protest, from what I can discern from the image, is relatively tame compared to other campaigns that PETA has ran. The woman in the photo is wearing a bikini--plastered with what appears to be lettuce leaf--and is attempting to pour some mustard onto a patron’s hot dog. Obviously the campaign is directed towards raising male awareness; PETA probably believes that men would be more likely to stop and chat with the models about their cause then foe-blood soaked extremists. Male patrons would also be more inclined to stay longer, which is important when staging a protest.
Although I wouldn’t characterize PETA’s methods as “classy”, they were probably quite effective at raising awareness for their cause, so in any sense they were successful. However, while their actions here would certainly draw in the male audience, it would most assuredly repel any individual that saw this production as female exploitation. But PETA must have realized this prior to the protest, therefore it can be assumed that their target audience was men.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow. I’m shocked just looking at this picture. I thought it was just a joke. I think this is a very powerful way to convey certain idea. I researched past protests of PETA and they always have been very powerful and extreme. As a woman, I first questioned to myself, “Is this also powerful to women?” Although, I think most men are at least curious about the protest when they are passing by these playboy women. Many of them will get the tofu hot dog and maybe get interested in the protest and understand what PETA are trying to convey.
ReplyDeletePETA chose a smart way to get people’s attention, but might not be the best appropriate way to persuade people, because some might feel offended. I think it is a paradox that their objective of this protest was started from good intention, but their method didn’t really match.
When I read a brief description on this picture, I’ve thought of Sue Coe’s work. As a vegeterian, her works also deals with animal rights and meat production. They have the same idea but their methods of approaching are totally different. I can’t judge what method is right or wrong because it’s the difference between what they think is most significant. In this case, PETA’s key purpose is to get people’s attention and to let as many people as possible to know or realize what is going on about animal right. However, they did not think of how people are going to react on their extreme method of approaching. Contrast to PETA, it seemed like Sue was trying to represent her idea of animal rights via her artworks. Her works were also powerful, but she didn’t directly face people with an extreme protest.
At first I have not gotten the point that the photographer wanted to show. After reading the short description on the bottom and doing some research on what the PETA protest is about, I have realized what Susana wanted to show in her photography.
ReplyDeleteAs it contains a playboy girl with lettuce bikini on, the photography itself is a really eye catching; however, I believe it is not very effective in sending messages to the people who will be seeing this image. Without a description, this image could be seen as an image from some kind of event. I did not notice that this thing on the bread was a tofu rather than a sausage. The PETA should do a better job on how they make their advertisement as their point might not reach the audience in a very effective way.
This is my second time seeing an image of PETA. And the first image that I saw was an image showing people wearing a fur coat was cased in a cage, which usually animals are placed inside. This image came to me stronger to me in that I knew the meaning behind it right away when I saw the photo.
Unlike the photography that I explained, the photography that Susana took would have been probably targeting men as their audience to persuade as it will be really eye catching to most of the man around the world.
Joe's lecture yesterday was really shocking to me. I don't know how many other people knew about the Pacific Garbage Vortex but seeing and hearing about that blew my mind. A trash island the size of Texas?! Thats absolutely horrible. I told my dad and some friends about it and none of them had heard about it before. Even if it may have been in the news it obviously wasn't broadcasted as heavily as it should have because the reaction I'm getting about this news is loud and causes great curiosity about the subject. So in that respect I'm shocked that this isn't something that wouldn't be on TOP of the list of things to get rid of and to take action for the Earth. The Ozone and then the HUGE VORTEX of GARBAGE FLOATING IN THE PACIFIC are on the same level of importance to me. It effects the wildlife in a horrible way and also fact that its already the size of Texas means that it is growing at a farely rapid pace figuring that plastic trash has really only been around for a little less than 70 or 80 years.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'd like to touch on how some people in the classes react to Joe's lecture. I feel like when he opened the floor up for people's opinions or reactions to his lecture people start to show a defensive attitude. Which is frustrating to hear for me because from his point of view it's hard enough for someone to tell other people what they are doing wrong but whose intentions are not to correct people for his own self-esteem or establish his position of authority but to save the planet he lives on and make the world a better place to live for those in a much worse off situation.
I dont really know what to say about the Peta picture. I'm not sure really what the idea is behind it.
“It is interesting to meditate that this insects preference for squatting in the sun determines not only her own continuity as a species, but also the future figure of my pine, and my own success as a wielder of axe and shovel.”
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading Sand County I came across this quote on page 70. After reading it I found that I hadn’t continued on but had stopped to think about all that statement encompassed. While he is only talking about a small insect and a simple choice it has made to sit in the sun, he shows us that all things are connected in one way or another, no matter how small they may be. This is actually very interesting to think about. Tiny insects and organisms constantly surround us throughout our entire lives yet we never stop to notice them or to even think about the impact they on our environment. Every small and large thing has its reason for existence and we are all connected to each of these things somehow.
The photo of the Peta protest with the women reflects how advertising or marketing can be pushed away from its original intent or innocence. Many problems arise from Peta's choice to use Playboy, but there is a underlying statement that is made in that photo. Peta is clearly stating that they take the public as fools. Do they not think that we can understand the importance of treatment of animals without being coaxed into it with a ploy. Susana Raab's work "Consumed" which the Peta photo is a part of represents the identity of products that has been put into the environment around us. Pepsi, hot dogs, and fast food is inherently part of our community. We as consumers hold a responsibility to ourselves seeing these products as reflections of ourselves, morals, and community. In lecture we have talked about the problem that consumers present. If only consumers would tell the industries or businesses what they want. We saw this in McDonald's concern with the chickens. The consumers are part of the problem as well as the businesses themselves. 30 Days correlates to all of this in that we don't see all the aspects of life. Everything is intertwined and we need to be aware of all the outcomes of our actions. "To build a road is so much simpler than to think of what the country really needs" (Sand County, 101). This quote from Sand County Almanac can relate to this general theme. America and much of the world is concerned of getting somewhere or something in the here and now, but unfortunately overlooking the important needs of the community. Most of us are just driving by things not thinking to much of what is between our starting point and destination.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw this photo I kept thinking, “Is this really necessary?”
ReplyDeleteI’d hate to think the answer to my question is “yes,” although it appears that this really got people’s attention. I think that it is really unfortunate that things like world peace, global warming, environmental issues, and ethical treatment of animals can be stressed so much that people actually loose interest. Isn’t there another way to get people caring about animal protection, other than having playboy playmates dress up in lettuce and advertise something that has nothing to do with PETA? I understand that propaganda has a huge influence on what people value, so I’m not surprised that PETA’s new advertisement was successfully noticed by using this method. Some would say, “If it works don’t question it,” but what is the reason that all these people came to the event? I wonder whether people who attended were really there because of PETA.
I find myself in a hard place with this image. I am glad that PETA was able to have a successful outcome of this protest, however I am disappointed that sex (as well as food) must be advertised in order to get people interested in animal rights. I wish people wouldn’t need any more incentive than ‘animal rights’ alone, to be a part of this convention.