The technology discovered by Man brought a whole new level of lifestyle to the world. Unconsciously, we've turned into mass consumers buying both what we need and what we don't; to such an extend that we ourselves are slowly turning into products. Nowadays, selling any product such a perfume, cars, phone, television... ect is always exposed next to a famous person, either a female or a male depending on the target clients. Although, we are aware of the corruption in the production of some of the products, we still end up buying it; furthermore, we freely advertise for them. For instance, the brand Nike which is one of the most famous sports shop, pick place in Asia in which "la main d'oeuvre" is at a low coast in order to be able to increase their production; however, it is ironic that such big firms believe for some in the Human rights; yet they still allow children to work for them in such bad conditions.
By looking at some photography books about Africa, I've realized that most of the picture taken are either from top or from a distance but with the lens zoomed on the faces. In addition, you rarely see any African woman, man or children smiling in any of the pictures exposed. All you see is sadness, hunger and depression. Do these pictures really differ from a picture taken for a product? It is true, that we can't compare a Human being to a product, but isn't this what some people do?
Some just take advantage of their miserable condition and take picture from a distance, rather than feeding and helping them get out from these conditions. In addition, I dough that they get paid for a reasonable price when pictures of them are taken, and exposed to the world.
In my paper, I'd like to focus on the fact that Human beings regardless their backgrounds rich or poor, are turning into products. If they're not exposing themselves to advertise for a brand (for instance, in the modeling agency you've have the term " new face of Dior", The " covergirl " new face too) or have pictures of them taken that they will never get a chance to see, nor benefit from; in both cases the subject is being manipulated in order to give to the society what they want to see. The sources I'd be referring to are both advertisement campaign and photography.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good direction, and an interesting mix between fashion/advertising photography and that of native tribes.
Of course, when national geographic takes pictures of Africans, they don't ask for permission, let alone pay them. On the other hand big stars get large sums of money to be featured in ads and they usually seek this opportunity for the glamour and prestige it offers. So they are in these senses opposite. However, we can consider both of them victims. That they both are turned into products.
I want you to read about consumerism and photography ethics (how come the African woman doesn't have copyright of her image while Brad Pitt does?). Let's see your bibliography, and start selecting images that pinpoint this issue.
Post a Comment