Visual Argument – Way of Life
Here is the link to my presentation: Way of Life
My visual argument is essentially a juxtaposition of images of excessive American consumerism (“commodity fetishism”) and third-world poverty, followed by a visual and written suggestion about how to solve this disparity. By framing this juxtaposition with symbols of American values (our flag, the Statue of Liberty) and currencies, I hope to make a connection between our present way of life and an ideal one. My presentation as a whole strives for this claim: Those with excess wealth should donate their extra money to those in absolute poverty.
I create this claim by starting with an image of the Statue of Liberty standing below the American Flag. Having just read the title, “Way of Life,” the viewer (hopefully) feels pride and enthusiasm when confronted with these common symbols of our values. In the next slide, the presentation “zooms in” to the tip of the flagpole, revealing a hundred dollar bill. In following the previous image, the viewer then realizes that the hundred dollar bill is being presented as a value in contrast with our more virtuous ones (as represented by the flag and statue). This will somewhat dampen the sense of pride instilled by the first image, and serves as framing for the following barrage of images. Following the hundred dollar bill, the viewer sees, in succession, an iPhone, a Bugatti (one of the world’s most expensive cars) and a house in Los Angeles valued at $150 million. These increasingly extravagant symbols of status and excess wealth should bring slight feelings of resentment and agitation in those who don’t possess such superficial commodities. For those who do, it will bring either guilt or pride (depending on how shameless they are in their pursuit of commodities). The images are configured such that the viewer experiences the string of status symbols in an upward arch that twists clockwise, making clear that these images indicate a progression toward more and more extravagant and unnecessary possessions. By the last image, a level of wealth is represented that the viewer will likely never attain, strengthening feelings of aggravation and outrage.
The spatial configuration then changes, with the next image reversing the clockwise progression and breaking downward from the arch. This serves to punctuate the already astronomical difference between the $150 million house and the makeshift tent in which a homeless South American woman is sheltering her child. After seeing the progression of excess wealth juxtaposed with the absolutely impoverished woman and child in the tent, this image invokes revulsion and contempt, hopefully aimed at the people who waste money on extremely superficial luxuries while others around the world are without real shelter (for some viewers, this might be themselves). The next two images are rather disturbing (and consequently I have them scaled down so that they don’t draw such an excess of disgust that the viewer feels desensitized, or shell-shocked, and rejects the argument). The first depicts a child afflicted with Noma, an exacerbated, gangrenous facial ulcer. Alone, this image would bring unqualified disgust and pity, but in following the previous image, and keeping with the theme of disparities in wellbeing, this increases the tension, invoking torment, revulsion and outrage. Hopefully the viewer will interpret this as a result of the child not having access to medical treatment. However, even if they simply recognize that this is the kind of suffering that virtually no one in America will ever experience, the goal of instilling torment, revulsion, and outrage will be achieved. These emotions are punctuated and solidified by an image of a malnourished Sudanese orphan. The orphan is incredibly underweight, and his face is buried in his knees in a way reminiscent of dejection and surrender. This image is the third in the progression of hardship, which moved from temporary homelessness, to subjection to disease, and finally climaxed with starvation. To emphasize the common theme of these images, they all move in a steady downward progression and twist counterclockwise. This emotionally-powerful image, in the context of the previous images, should cause the viewer to feel full-blown guilt and shame. Hopefully, the viewer interprets this guilt and shame as a product of the self-centered and superficial lifestyle that the affluent enjoy while others are without food, shelter and medical treatment.
Following the starving Sudanese boy, the third and final group of images begins. These images again reverse the rotation, moving clockwise, and move upward to reverse the downward slope. The first is an image of several starving children reaching out with open hands. The image is black and white, which serves to reinforce the negative affects and the idea that they are incomplete and go wanting. While this works to increase and strengthen feelings of pity and compassion, its purpose is also to give context to the following image. In the next image, a well-dressed woman’s hands are outstretched offering shiny, brightly-colored pennies forward. The pennies are the only part of the image that isn’t black and white. This is meant to suggest that we can “fill” the outstretched hands of the previous image by giving sums of cash that are insignificant to our wealth (hence the contrast with the hundred dollar bill). This image represents a powerful emotional appeal to hope and compassion, suggesting to the viewer that they, too, can fill the starving bellies for only pennies. The final image sheds all negativity, depicting (in full color) a group of hungry Ethiopian children smiling brilliantly as they adorn nice cloths and bowls of rice. After involving the viewer in the impoverished world’s misery, emotionally binding them through compassion and pity, the final image offers a joyous and relieving opportunity: charity.
This suggestion is implicitly restated by the text, a quote from Australian philosopher Peter Singer, which states that “The problem is not that the world cannot produce enough to feed and shelter its people… [but] is merely one of distribution.” The statement that there are enough material resources that no one need experience poverty reminds the viewer of the guilt and shame elicited at the end of the first segment (when they go from the huge house to the tent). The suggestion about distribution offers a way to escape this shame and guilt by donating small sums to the impoverished. This text is embedded in the front steps of the $150 million home, suggesting that the opportunity to help is right at our collective doorstep. By suggesting that the problem is solvable, the final image and quote invoke compassion, eagerness and optimism.
The presentation as a whole is designed to create guilt that can only be resolved by embracing charity and the sense of hope and compassion that comes with it. By being forced to recognize, in quick succession, both the excesses of absolute affluence and the desolation of absolute poverty, the viewer is implicitly given a choice. They can either maintain their love of excessive commodities and status symbols or shy away from the pursuit of such possessions in favor of positively impacting the lives of the most desperate and desolate people on our planet. Taking the latter option will allow the viewer to mitigate the guilt and shame of commodity fetishism by replacing it with the hope, relief, and pride brought on by giving to charity. Two symbolic themes frame, funnel, and reinforce this interpretation. The symbols of American values remind the (more patriotic) viewer that our country may have an infatuation with status and commodity, but those aren’t the virtues we really stand for. The juxtaposition between the relatively colorless hundred-dollar bill and the shiny pennies remind the (poor or greedy) viewer that they need not sacrifice much to make a substantial difference. In sum, though different viewers will naturally interpret slightly different messages, the three progressions of images and the symbols serve to “herd” the majority of viewers into the basic theme of feeling guilty about wasting resources and deciding to be more benevolent.
I seek a change in attitude that should inevitably lead to a change in behavior. By suggesting that our pursuit of these material goods is shameful in reflection of the poverty that exists in our world, I hope that the viewer will adopt an attitude that material wealth and status symbols should be subordinated to the needless suffering and starvation of millions. Hopefully, even those who don’t abandon such commodities will still feel more inclined to help the unfortunate. The behaviors that will follow from this, if it is truly achieved, might include lessening our infatuation with luxurious commodities, offering the resulting wealth to the impoverished, and spreading the message.
Photo Credits:
1. American Flag:
2. One Hundred Dollar Bill:
3. iPhone:
a. http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/apple-iphone.jpg
4. Bugatti
5. USA’s Most Expensive House
6. Homeless in Central America
7. Child with Noma
8. Starving in Sudan:
9. Starving Reaching Out
a. http://emilytheperson.com/curtain/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=6&tag=starving%20children&limit=20
10. Giving to Charity
11. Starving Children Eat
(Accessed Monday, April 4, 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment