Posted by Tatjana Vukic
| 6-04-2014 14:58 | Category:
I have found this jewel from the past year while I have researched last week for new campaigns. The campaign is technically and aestetically perfect made. I like the combination between illustration and photography - the elements are harmonizing very good. What catches my eye right away is the concept of the pictures. It bothers me that the Agency uses an image of violence against women as keyvisual. Naked, intentional violence as a symbolic language for too fast driving to me goes a bit too far. Hairy male arm is punching a woman in the face: I immediately forget the real intention of the campaign and I see only the faces of the women.
It shocks how simplified is used the language of violence at all and of course that was intention,.. but it shocks more how they didn’t think about it what message they may bring if they show a beaten woman. It shocks that the intentional violence against women is comparabel with anything at all, .. or that a Creative Director can treat a intentional violence against women and a unintentional violence (too fast driving) as equivalent.
Terremoto Propaganda, Brazil
Doh… First of all I would like to attract the attention on the fact there are five images posted above, and 3 of them portrait *MEN* being hit, not women. Besides, the post seems to assume that any violence targeting a woman is caused by the attacked being a woman. This is a dismayingly oversimplification: violence could have been caused by any other number of reason.
Secondly: how comes driving too fast would be *unintentional* violence?!?! What now: automotive vehicles accelerate on their own? If you drive too fast you are willingly (i.e.: INTENTIONALLY) ignoring the law and endangering other road users. The situation is akin to Russian roulette: it’s not because you never know if the revolver is loaded or not that pulling the trigger makes the possible killing “unintentional”.
Posted by Mac Ryan | 6-04-2014 18:48
I agree, there are five images with 3 of them with men indeed. I don’t agree that the effect is the same when you see somebody is punching a woman in the face or man is fighting with an another man. Women are (still) the weaker sex, otherwise they would not need to be protected: If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is woman less brute than man. I see the violence against a woman as first but as second I see the intentional violence… I can’t say that too fast driving always ends intentional in violence, but punching somebody straight in the face is for me pure violence. Violent Intent in this context is the pure will to do harm to another human being.
Posted by Tatjana Vukic | 6-04-2014 21:04