Hi Readers, I found this advertisement and thought it was quite creative. Feel free to let me know what you think about this advertisement in the comments, and tell me- did you interpret the message differently than the way I did?
This advertisement is an image presented by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC is an environmental movement organization whose mission is to work to “safeguard the earth—its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends.” The Air Pollution Kills campaign and advertisements focuses on how the pollutants that are released into the air are detrimental to human health and the planet. The advertisement itself gives a real-life example of how air pollution is contaminating our earth. This specific image shows a factory building with a billboard hung on the side of it with an apparent illustration of a firearm in alignment with the factory’s chimney. The visual also includes a short statement that reads on the billboard, “Air pollution kills 60,000 people a year.” This advertisement as a whole confronts the dreadful and hazardous effects that ultimately results in death. The statement of text located below the firearm is not as visible as it should be, given that we see the advertisement through a photograph that was taken; however, in-person as the initial advertisement is depicted, would allow one for a much more visible and readable message. Despite that, the message is still capable of being read and understood. The short statement is clear and effective, in letting the viewers know the effects of air pollution, and an example of what causes air pollution. The argument of this ad intends on targeting the audience emotionally and logically, for no one wants to live the world that we share that is being polluted, and worse yet, no one wants to be a part of a death statistic due to air pollution.
I never realized how bad air pollution could be until I lived in California for a few years. It didn't help living close to a refinery, but I remember my clothes having a funky smell if I ever went out for a walk or anything like that. I agree that as a species we need to take better care of the planet we live on, but plastic is such an integral part of our modern lives it would be hard to reduce the production of it.
ReplyDeleteThe visual illusion is wickedly brilliant! The incorporation of an actual landscape item (chimney) in delivery the whole imagery (revolver) draws the audience's mind to action and be engaged. Even without the line of text the message is clear: lethality is coming out of the chimney into our air.
ReplyDeleteI love the visual of the smoking gun and it makes me think of something perhaps Banksy would design. That we are slowly killing ourselves with every breath we take.
ReplyDeletei like the visual, I come from a place of huge amounts of pollution, this is a simple reminder of the effects.
ReplyDeleteThat's a great visual and metaphor all in one. I saw the same interpretation that you did. Here in Las Vegas, we are one of the worst cities in the nation when it comes to air quality.
ReplyDeleteThe position of the ad is spot on. I remember back when I lived in California, whenever my aunt and uncle stayed from Las Vegas they would have a bad smell from the air here.
ReplyDeleteAnother nice and well described advertisement and the picture is brilliant. As humans we need to revisit our obligation to maintaining our planet. Air pollution has so many negative effects on the ozone layer and the human body, the list is too long. Hopefully we can stop speeding up the death of our planet.
ReplyDeleteI think it was creative for the artist to draw a gun where the chimney was. Air pollution is a serious topic that shouldn't be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think that the owner of that building, the polluter themselves, would let that company advertise on their wall. They must've been paid don't you think? If that's the case its worth considering that the advertiser would spend more money to advertise on that specific wall, money spent there rather than to attempt to remedy the source of the pollution. I think that says more about the advertiser than the actual polluter. I mean at the end of the day we can assume that is true of the advertiser but what can we assume about the polluter?
ReplyDelete