A08 Definition Essay Revised – Tikeena Sturdivant

Adrian Peterson referring to himself as a “40 million dollar slave” indicates that he doesn’t have a clear understanding of slavery. Slaves lived a shackled life; they did not have the freedom to do what they wanted. Their life was dedicated to serving someone else, who was also known as their “master.” They made a little bit of money if any at all; that decision was not up to them. The life of a slave was extreme, it can not be compared to anyone how has not really experienced such treatment. Adrian Peterson’s comment was very ignorant, however, he has a point.

Adrian Peterson agreed that he misused the word “slave”, he realized that he could have used a better choice of words. Many people have been offended by his comment, however, no one is actually trying to see what helped him come to this conclusion. He did not mean to offend anyone, he was expressing his frustrations about the NFL. Can Adrian Peterson say he was shackled by the NFL? Yes, he works hard to make the team owners money. He gets paid but not as much as the owners, the owners get paid because of the players. 70% of the players in the NFL are black but 100% of the owners are white. Were    all “masters” white? Yes. Were there a few white slaves? Yes, maybe 30% of them. People are quick to bring up the fact that a slave wouldn’t make close to twenty dollars let alone a million dollars. I think that’s something that Adrian Peterson know as well, which means that money wasn’t the problem. Moreover, even that can be analyzed. These team owners are rich, whereas we cant say the same about football players when they are the ones that’s working hard. Are they working hard for themselves who to make a white man rich? Slaves were “drafted” to work for a white man to make him wealthy or simply rich, sounds like a NFL player to me.

Some slave traders would host a slave auction to sell the slaves. This would consist of the slaves being naked in front of a crowd full of white people while the slave traders tell all of their good attributes. Although NFL players are not naked they go through the same thing called the combine. In comparison to the NFL team owners, slave owners wanted the slaves that were “fit for the job.” They were chose based on their intelligence, physical strength, skills, and state of health. Slaves did not mind lacking in some of these areas because it would mean they would not be brought. NFL players on the other hand, work hard to get “auctioned” to a team at the combine. Slaves and NFL players are chosen based on the same attributes. Can a player pick the team he wants to play for? Can a slave pick the “master” they wants to work for? The answer to both of these questions are no, the choice is not theirs.

Being a slave meant working from sunup to sundown with no breaks at all. Adrian Peterson expressed how much football players had to practice throughout the week, which made him feel like a slave. Slaves worked on a plantation and NFL players work on the field. Slaves might not have to do drills, run plays, and exercise; however, they worked none stop I’m sure they would be as tired as a football player. Neither slaves of NFL players cant eat when they want to if their job is not complete. A NFL player cant stop practice when he gets hungry and a slave can’t walk off the plantation when he/she is hungry. However, while NFL players have to watch what they eat to stay in shape slaves have to hope for a meal. They were never guaranteed food throughout the day, if they received food it was just slop. Slaves were taken away from their families just like football players are taken away from their families when they go on the road to play games. Once slaves were taken from their families they would never be able to see them again, whereas football players are only away from there families for about 2 days a week. However, I’m sure the feeling of being separated from their families are the same.

Slaves did not have a choice. It was either “work for the white man or die.”  NFL players had a choice it was to play for the team that wants them or not play at all. Although there may be many teams who wants this one football player, its almost like the player is auctioned to the team that offers more. Just like slaves were sold to the “master” that wanted to pay the most for them. They were being sold or “drafted” to work hard for someone else and not get paid as much as them.

Instead of criticizing Adrian Peterson’s comment people should actually analyze his reasoning and not just judge him for his comment. When I read Adrian Peterson’s comment I thought it was A little extreme but once I did my research I could see where the connection between a NFL player and a slave can be made. “I regret using those words because obviously there is nothing, absolutely nothing that you can compare to slavery,” Adrian Peterson said himself. He admits that his comment He knew he could of explained how he felt using different words but he didn’t, however, he apologized for it. I’m glad Adrian Peterson thought about what he said and owned up to his mistakes.

Works Cited

Link

Slavery in America

History of Slavery

Life of A Slave

Posted in x Definition Essay Rewrite | Leave a comment

Definitional Essay Rewrite ~Tony Shilling

Gone are the days when a man’s word was a good as a binding contract, and the days of people playing fair.  Today, everything must be dealt with in dense legal contracts, with witnesses and hundreds of “sign here” lines.  Possibly the only unspoken rule that remains to this day is the concept of money, where people “just know” what the bills they exchange for goods represent; the days of verbal agreement are things of the past. Ironically, all of these issues are driven by money, and understanding who owns what and who is allowed to makes a profit.  An artist used to take solace in knowing that under a copyright law he was protected in selling his creations for a profit; popyright is understood as protecting the rights of someone (or someones) who own a specific object or creation. In fact, the United States Copyright Office’s website explicitly states that their mission statement is“To promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system.”  Unfortunately, all this seems to do is act as positive advertising; yes, the Copyright Office wants to promote creativity, but the business practices, and awful people of the new age, have ran that into the ground, to fill the hole with money instead.  This is not what copyright is, nor what it was, and to protect the creators of this new time, an updated definition is necessary.

The actual definition of copyright, as according to Mirriam-Webster’s most up-to-date edition, is “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work).”  This is merely a bare-bones description, however.  Copyright laws are defined not by what they are, but who decides what they are; there will be different laws and regulations per each contract.  For instance, both Marvel and DC Comics publishers own different characters named Captain Marvel.  DC is still legally permitted to advertise their character and use his name inside their books, but, as his name is the name of their rival company, on the covers or merchandise he must be dubbed “Shazam!” instead; they still own him, usage is just restricted.  This is wear the issues with copyright laws arise; the laws and contracts are beneficially vague.  Beneficial, note, to the owner of the rights.

This does beg for clarification.   A recent upsetting copyright battle has been launched by Marvel Comics, on the grounds of them begin supreme owners of all characters they publish.  This has always been the case, but there was always another unspoken agreement between Marvel and its artists that they would be permitted to draw these characters for commission and personal profit.  Due to some bad blood spilled in several court cases over the rights of Ghost Rider with creator Gary Friedrich, Marvel’s position has changed.  Creators and artists do not have the ability to earn a personal profit from Marvel characters, it appears; these are not just ex-artists or the artist of The Invincible Iron Man drawing Spider-man, Marvel will sue the Iron Man artist for selling an Iron Man commission.  Someone who draws this character literally for a living cannot due so by other means, without the risk of impending lawsuit.

Yes, the artists do not own the rights.  All created characters to be published by Marvel are legally sold over to Marvel, they make sure of that at the meeting.  This is not the case to attack; it is universally understood that the publisher now owns the rights, such as artist Rob Liefeld mentions in his description of signing his creations over to Marvel, and it is now understood that Marvel can use that character in whatever manner they see fit.  But this creates a rift between the publisher and the creators, as a lack of respect grows.  Something worth noting is the ability of artistic license and interpretation.  No artist draws the same; Ed McGuinness will not be drawing the Hulk forever, and a new artist will take his place.  He will draw in his own way, and thus make that book run “his own.”  Should he sued for changing the look of a character from the status quo?  Not as long as he makes Marvel money, surely.  The issue is personal gain.

From there we can step back and observe art in the realm of copyright.  Artists alwayshave personal liberties allotted to respect each’s own personal methods.  This is true for the entire art and design world; Brand logos like Pepsi have gone through drastic changes, never by the same designer, and the differences represent liberties taken.  The same can be applied to the Marvel suit.  Within the realm of artistic license, artists are allowed personal interpretation.  So, why not make a statement that these commissions are merely portraits?  Portrait works for artists is a norm, and part of the profession (then again, so is drawing Marvel characters, in this case), and thus could skirt some of the attack.  In fact, Marvel used to wholly welcome such work; Jack Kirby, oft-called “The King” and the best comic artist of all time, got his wonderful status from his works being enjoyed in a larger medium, without Marvel adding text and advertising to the piece.

Even still, these commissions are not even a part of a Marvel artist’s contract; as far as we are aware, at least.  In fact, whether they are contractual or not does not matter:  If they were, Marvel could not take any action as they would be paying the artist for this purpose, and if they are not contractual and in no way cause Marvel any grief, the case itself should not be occurring.  These are entirely free-lance pieces made for someone’s love of a character.  Yes, a slight profit made without legal use seems to be slightly more than bending the rules, but caricature and parody artists have the ability to draw literally anything without lawsuit risk.  A comic artists doing the same thing at a show is no different, and it should be more accepted as they actually get payed to draw that character any other time.

Vague details kill all when copyright comes into play, and creators are usually the victims.  It is quite difficult to see how the Copyright Office can boast that they promote creativity in instances like this, when the one thing that is being robbed from an artist is his ability to be creative.  Copyright secures the rights of a creation in the grasp of a company to produce how they see fit and make a profit, not for the purpose of creativity.

WORKS CITED

“Worth A Thousand Words: The Images Of Copyright.” Harvard Law Review 125.3 (2012): 684-759. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

“No More Unauthorized Artwork.” Murphy, Sean Gordon. DeviantArt.  http://seangordonmurphy.deviantart.com/journal/No-More-Unauthorized-Artwork-285030622  14 Feb. 2012

“Complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law, December 2011.” U.S. Copyright Office(2011) Title 17.  http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Dec 2011

Posted in x Definition Essay Rewrite | Leave a comment

Definition Essay Rewrite- Sam Sarlo

In June 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” This movement has been fundamentally flawed since the very inception of its name, and it has accumulated more human casualties than many wars against enemy nations. His actions were sparked by a steady increase in drug use and drug arrests through the 1960′s, and surely his purpose was to lessen the damage done to the people of our nation by drugs and drug-related violence, but unfortunately it has led to massive bloodshed and sustained international organized crime. Thus far, our government has spent trillions of dollars and the lives of tens of thousands of citizens on regulations and enforcement measures that have been at best ineffective and wasteful and at worst dangerous and counterproductive. As I have mentioned in my previous posts, the number of drug-related deaths has fairly steadily increased since the inception of the war on drugs.

There are several categories of drug-related deaths, but the two main categories are overdoses and drug-related violence. There are people killed by drug users, drug users killed by police, police killed by drug users/dealers, drug dealers killing each other in territorial disputes, drug-funded gangs killing each other, and that’s not even considering what’s happening outside U.S. borders. Counterintuitively, the war on drugs actually causes more drug-related deaths to occur. It seems that the harder our government tries and the more money they spend to enforce drug laws, the more people die. An extremely low estimate of drug related deaths in this country for 2007 is 15,223 (Richardson). As I said, this is an extremely low estimate, it even excludes the roughly 60% of overdose deaths caused by prescription drugs, even though most of them should qualify as illegal drug overdoses because the pills were almost certainly illegally obtained or taken other than as directed. About 6,487 (Richardson) of these deaths are caused by drug-related violence.

Most drug violence is rooted in and perpetuated by the war on drugs and the legislation on which it is based. Our government has regulated drugs through prohibition since the 1930’s, and it has not and will never work. Just as the failed experiment of alcohol prohibition created massive black-market enterprises and put money in the pockets of violent criminals, the  war on drugs has only worsened and deepened the drug problem.

Another alarming aspect of the war on drugs is the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on failing measures every year. Federal and state governments spend a combined $30.4 billion each year on incarcerating drug offenders, and that’s on top of the $21.9 billion spent on drug law enforcement. Even more tragic than these monetary figures is the tens of thousands of lives wasted in jail, and misguided law enforcement attempts that victimize innocent people. For example, Jose Guerena Ortiz, a US marine combat veteran, was fired upon 71 times in front of his wife and daughter by a SWAT team who broke down his door because he was “suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. Nothing illegal was found in his home, and to this day authorities have no evidence that Ortiz had ever been involved in the drug trade, yet none of the officers involved in his massacre have been charged or even disciplined. The war on drugs is successfully used as an excuse for such injustice by law enforcement every day.

The drug trade is simply an issue of supply and demand. Our government currently employs mostly supply-oriented efforts, such as arresting drug dealers and going after cartel leaders in Mexico. The harsh reality is that there will always be a huge demand for drugs in this country, and as long as drugs are prohibited here that demand will be met by criminals. The only way we can hope to remedy the drug problem and save tens of thousands of lives from drug violence is legalization and regulation of drugs. Other drugs should be treated just like alcohol, legally available to adults, quality controlled by the government, and regulated in their usage. This type of legislation would effectively crash the value of drugs and eliminate demand for illegal foreign drugs. No drug user would want to buy illegal drugs from some shady guy in an alley when he could simply go to a government-regulated store and buy drugs of guaranteed and consistent quality and purity without risking arrest and jail time. With no demand for illegal drugs, drug violence would nearly disappear. Drug dealers would be put out of business, police wouldn’t have to arrest responsible users, and the Mexican cartels would dwindle significantly. Regulation of legal drugs would also dramatically decrease the number of overdose deaths. Many overdoses happen because drug users don’t know the quality or purity of the substances they are obtaining, so they have no standard on which to base their dosage. Like alcohol, legal drugs could be required to label their potency so that the user can make an informed decision based on real knowledge of exactly what he is putting into his body.While the benefits of legalization are very clear to me, I realize that it will not solve the whole drug problem. People will still die of overdoses, and drug addicts will still commit crimes, possibly violent ones, to feed their habit. Using a small fraction of the money that we currently spend on the war on drugs, we could fund a comprehensive drug treatment program to help people overcome their addictions, or at least a better version of the current methadone clinic program that gives addicts enough to keep them sane and sated.
WORKS CITED:

-http://drugwarfacts.org

-http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109
“A Radical Solution to End the Drug War: Legalize everything” by John H. Richardson

Posted in x Definition Essay | Leave a comment

Stand your Ground- Sam Sarlo

A law called “Stand Your Ground” could create a culture of violence by allowing civilians to kill each other in self-defense. “Shoot first” laws give everyday citizens a license to kill. Now common conflicts such as; road rage, neighborly disputes, and suspicion of other races, are legally allowed to be resolved with guns. This legislation will definitely lead to more killing by making it too easy to use the ‘self-defense’ excuse. I believe these laws will increase the amount of murders because ‘justifiable’ killings have tripled since the 2005 Stand Your Ground law passed in Florida.

When a person is allowed to take the law into their own hands, the  rights of others often get trampled. My rights come first if I have a gun and you’re out of luck. One consequence of these laws will be more “street justice”. Don’t think it won’t effect you; everyone is less safe when they’re not sure if their neighbor is packing heat. There’s all ready more gun ownership than ever before, and it will only get worse if more of these laws are passed. By passing laws like these, innocent people are more likely to get shot. In short, Stand Your Ground laws create more trouble than they are worth. Our decision to repeal this law or not will determine whether we respect our citizen’s lives or the criminals’.

Posted in Stand Your Ground | Leave a comment

Visual Argument – Jon Otero

For this assignment, I chose to use the Emergency Preparedness – NYC ad.

  • The ad opens up with a boy watching TV on the couch in his living room and he suddens takes on a very perplexed expression as he looks from left to right and notices the TV remote beginning to rise off the surface of the couch.
  • The next scene flashes to the kitchen where his parents are and their faces are already just as worried as their son’s. One can just barely see the wife’s coffee rise out of it’s mug as a slowly moving fork comes into focus.
  • Suddenly the camera angle on the husband shifts to a profile view as we watch him get swept off his feet. At the same time, the viewer can also see the oranges in a bowl being affected by this gravity shift and picture frames being thrown into the picture as a table gets lifted of its legs.
  • Next, we see the wife who has been lifted so high that her back is practically lying on air. She seems to be taking control, slowly, of what’s going on by attempting to become vertical again. Various furniture fly around like the table, a plant, and a pillow.
  • In the following scene, the camera goes back to the boy on the couch and it becomes evident that much has happened while the camera was focused elsewhere. He is nearly upside-down, the couch’s left side is lifted off the ground, the table by the tv is moving, the candles and bowl are flying, the TV is moving, and the same plant in the previous scene is seen again, but from this angle.
  • Going back to the husband, it looks as though he’s reaching toward a drawer of some sort as he’s flipping. His back is facing the camera.
  • After the brief view of the husband, the camera show’s the mother and son reuniting with one another by taking each other by the hand.
  • The camera now shows the ceiling and various debris falling toward it as a pair of legs touches down with it.
  • A quick flash reveals the arm of the husband reaching into the drawer for a dark red bag. The scene progressed and the camera displays different angles as it zooms out. First it completely shows the husband as he successfully attains the bag. Then, it shows him looking in the direction of his wife and son as they start to reach the new ground, the ceiling. The TV reaches the ground and is destroyed. The camera zooms out further to display the full chaos which has occurred where everything familiar to these people has literally been turned upside-down.
  • The family is then seen at the door of their home together, and like the furniture near it and around the house, it too is upside-down. They are all holding onto each other.
  • The scene transitions to this black and white drawn animation. A black bag, outlined by white on a black backdrop, is seen with a white plus sign on it. The message below it is “get a kit”. The bag transforms into a clip board and the message becomes “make a plan”. Finally, the clipboard opens up to become a laptop and the final message is “be informed”.

Analysis

I found this ad to be very effective. The sound isn’t needed at all to get the point of the message. With the sound on, the voice of a narrator can be heard with a few notes being played by the piano. She asks, “What if a disaster strikes without warning? What if life as you know it is completely turned on its head? What if everything familiar becomes anything but? Before a disaster turns your family’s world upside-down, it’s up to you to be ready. Get a kit. Make a plan. Be informed. Today.”

Firstly, the ad takes place in what should be the most comfortable place to a person: home. The family was doing normal things that people do when they’re home like drink coffee, watch TV, or eat when all of a sudden their lives literally start to turn upside-down. The designers of the ad chose to show different objects within the home and assign them symbolic meaning.  This process starts of slowly as each member of the family realizing something is wrong. The boy sees the remote starting to float, which may represent that in a disaster, one of the first things to immediately go are the luxuries of entertainment. Then the mother and father are seen in the kitchen and the fork floats across the camera’s view. In this scene and in the angle following it, food is being affected by the disaster. The metaphoric phrase “life turned upside-down” is put into a literal sense in this ad. Despite the fact that what was most familiar to them became the opposite, they all knew what they had to do in order to minimize the devastation of the disaster occurring. As the floor and ceiling switch, it becomes evident that the mother and father are adjusting themselves mid-air so that they land right on their feet. The father immediately goes to his disaster kit while the mother locates and reaches the son. I found this amazingly effective that they were able to do all this when their lives turned upside-down, but clearly this was a testimony that this would not be achievable without a disaster plan. The ending flashes tips for the audience to follow to be prepared for disasters.

What made me chose this ad was because it showed something devastatingly negative be put in a positive way. Despite the fact that all their possessions are now gone, the family has each other and they were able to find their way unharmed. I didn’t want to pick an ad that would result in the utter worst happening because even though I find them effective, I personally feel that those are too depressing and saddening.

Posted in X Visual Argument | 1 Comment

Visual Argument — Jon Gonzoph

The article I chose is this one on texting while driving.

My thoughts:

The commercial opens with an establishing shot of a car traveling down a neighborhood road. The car appears to be a relatively cheap model, and the background is laden with greenery and bright colors. These factors help establish an atmosphere of normalcy and calm, which also creates a feeling of dread or anticipation in those well-versed in commercials, because this atmosphere is always horribly broken by the end of the spot.

The next shot shows the driver of the car is a woman, approximately college age. She is dressed “sensibly,” her hair is of moderate length. There is nothing overly unique or remarkably about her, presumably to facilitate the viewer putting themselves in her shoes.  Some cynical viewers – such as the one writing this essay – wonder if the effect would be changed if the driver was an middle-aged overweight male instead, but that digression will have to wait.

The driver glances down at her phone, which displays a message saying she has a new text. The new text message is unfortunately completely generic and thus fake-looking, breaking the immersion in the commercial.

The next quick flash has her waver between looking at the road and then down at the phone. This is a brilliant use of such a short time because it quickly encapsulates the dilemma faced when your phone receives a text in the car.

The bright pink phone is in the foreground for the next camera angle, with the driver being out of focus in the background. Putting this emphasis on the phone makes it seem sinister, quite a feat considering the object in question is a bright pink piece of plastic.

She then grabs the phone, smiling slightly as she reads it. The camera here is focused directly on her face, which means that the audience has as much view of the road as she does – none. It is also worthy to note that the slight smile indicates that the text does not contain some earth-shattering revelation that would reasonably distract her, but rather some sort of pointless fluff text that probably isn’t vital.

At this point the camera starts flashing between a quick shot and then blackness. The first is of her typing on her phone, and then a point of view shot of the car speeding down the road, then back to her phone, then a final shot of her looking up, running a stop sign and smashing into a car going across the street. The periods of blackness add to the tension and underscore the fact that looking up and down at a phone might as well cause the driver’s vision to black out, since it steals his or her awareness.

It is interesting that they chose another car to be the target of the crash. While undoubtedly more common then hitting pedestrians, it also dehumanizes the accident victims, since all we see is a gray car. One possible reason for this that did not occur on my first few times watching this commercial is that the viewer might be expected to put themselves in the other car, since it’s dull tone and lack of distinguishing features make it as relatable as the texting driver.

What follows after is a black screen with a broken yellow line running moving towards the viewer, emblazoned with the words “Stop the texts. Stop the wrecks.” It then shows the website URL and the commercial ends. While this is a clever rhyme, it also seems to underscore the seriousness of the events just witnessed. It might have a purpose as a memory device, but I believe the commercial would be better served just flashing the website up and skipping the first part entirely.

Overall, this PSA is fairly effective. The faults are relatively minor and are very subjective.

Posted in X Visual Argument | 1 Comment

Visual Argument – Marty Bell

  • I chose the ad on Unplanned Pregnancy Prevention.
  • The ad begins with a female taking her scarf off with and intimate look in her eye and male taking his clothing off implying that they are about to indulge in a sexual activity. This sets the tone for what the ad is about.
  • The first scene has the guy stumble while taking off his clothes and fall over a table. This shows the audience that the guy is not experienced and is clumsy. The guy not being smooth at all implies that he is most likely not prepared for the occasion meaning he does not have protection on him.
  • The ad then cuts to a new scene with a male on top of a female on a bed in little clothing. This implies that they are performing some type of sexual activity. The bed then breaks on them. This tells the audience that they do not do that often on that bed meaning it could be their first time. This makes the viewer believe that they were not planning on what is happening.
  • The next scene is a couple getting intimate in a car. The fact that they are in a car tells the viewer that they do not think what they are doing through. It implies that they are acting on pure desire. Because they are acting on desire it is likely that they were not prepared and are not using protection.
  • The next scene is a couple kissing in what seems to be a closet in some kind of business building. The couple then turns and sees another couple doing the same thing. The fact that the women are wearing nice dresses and mean are wearing a shirt and tie implies that they are at work.  When the men look at each other the one man smirks which makes you think he was about to lucky. The fact that it seems they are at work makes someone think that it was a spur of the moment thing not a usual occurrence. This adds the constant theme of the add that they people are not prepared.
  • The next scene has a man in his underwear struggling to take off the pants of a women laying on a couch. The man has a hard time taking her pants off twisting and turning them until they come off. Him being a mess and not able to take her pants off shows that he isn’t very experienced. Her wearing very tight pants that are hard to take off imply that she was not planning on having someone else take them off for the activity they are about to participate in.
  • During this scene two sentences appear on the screen. The first saying “You didn’t give up on sex.” The second saying “Don’t give up on birth control.” These sentences are saying that if you are going to have unplanned sex as a women you should take birth control to be safe. The sentences are straight forward and get the point across.
  • The main concept of the ad is that you should be prepared at all times. It stresses that anything could happen, so you should always be safe. The ad gets the point across by repeatedly beating it into the viewers head. But, it also makes the unplanned sex look like a laughing matter. Making each scene has some type of comic theme that may cause the audience to take the message they are sending lightly. Putting in another more serious scene could have allowed them to show the viewer that it is a very serious issue and cause more concern.
Posted in X Visual Argument | 1 Comment

Visual Argument- Ally Hodgson

Don’t Give Up on Birth Control.

Explanation of the Ad:

  • I chose the Unplanned Pregnancy Ad on the Ad Council site.
  • The first scene of the ad shows a couple with a woman on the bed trying to be sexy and an eager man taking his clothes off. As the montage continues, it shows him having some trouble taking his clothes off and falling off of a dresser.
  • The next scene is a couple rolling around under the covers. They roll over and the bed breaks under them.
  • Scene 3 is a couple in a car making out; the woman hits her head on the windshield.
  • The next scene is a couple in a supply closet in an office setting. They burst into the room while making out until they realize another couple is in the room. They look embarrassed and leave the room.
  • The last couple is in a living room with a woman laying on the couch while a man struggles to take her pants off before climbing onto her. Text then comes up on the screen and reads, “You didn’t give up on sex. Don’t give up on birth control.”
  • The last scene is a mouse rolling over the letters BEDSIDER. When hovered over, each letter shows a picture of a different method of birth control. Bedsider.org fades in under the logo.

Analysis:

  • The point of the commercial is that we are so persistent about having sex but not as persistent about birth control. The commercial is trying to cut back on unplanned pregnancy by educating about the vast types of birth control available.
  • I think this ad is very effective. The ad  is humorous which makes it memorable. It also makes you think about why we aren’t more persistent about birth control. This ad made me want to go to the website.
  • The logo that when hovered over, showed methods of birth control, showed the great variety of birth control available to the public. Some types are not common to most people but could be really useful for them.
  • The Ad Council does not rely heavily on sound for this ad. This helps the ad be more memorable as well because you remember what you see. Though, there is a voice over after the logo for Bedsider comes up and it says, “There are more methods than you think; find yours at bedsider.org.”
  • I do feel like it’s important to note that most races were represented in this ad and I feel like that was a strategy to show this applies to everyone. Also, I feel this makes it easier to relate to from the viewer’s point of view.
  • This ad shows that even if a method of birth control doesn’t work for you, you should try another type.
  • A constructive criticism for this ad I could provide would be to show the couples continuing after their “interruptions.” If the couple who were in the car just continued what they were doing after the woman hit her head, it would portray that actually weren’t giving up, which is what the ad is trying to prove. As it stands, it isn’t really showing that people “didn’t give up on sex.”
Posted in X Visual Argument | 3 Comments

Visual Argument – Dale Hamstra

  • I chose an ad on Stroke Awareness.
  • The ad opens up by showing to people in what seems to be a library, or some type of public place. This is to send the message that a stroke can happen anywhere.
  • It then zooms in on the face of one man, who turns and smiles but then shows concern. At this point you understand that he realizes something is wrong with whoever he is looking at.
  • The ad then shows a man with an arrow through his chest, and his facial expressions and hand gestures convey the message that he thinks its no big deal. At this point I understood that the ad was not about other people ignoring someone who is showing stroke like symptoms, but about the person who is experiencing them ignoring them.
  • Next, a second person chimes in and asks if the person is ok, and asks another question as well. This shows that more than just one person notices and it is the entire population, of this room anyway.
  • It then shows him shrugging his shoulders and again saying he is fine before walking away. This reiterates the fact that he is ignoring that he is not ok.
  • The ad ends by saying “Sudden numbness of face arm or leg. Sudden trouble speaking seeing or walking.” “Call 911” These are the common symptoms of a stroke.
  • Adding in the audio does not ad much to the ad. It allows you to know everything that they say, however, I was able to guess pretty accurately what they were saying without the sound.

This ad is very effective in sending its message. It uses the comparison of the arrow to show how obvious the signs of stroke are, and people still tend to ignore them. It also shows that other people notice that something is wrong, and they also make it clear that it is not just one person that is taking an interest. It is both people in the room, I believe this is supposed to mean that the whole rest of the population notices. However, the person who has the arrow stuck in them still refuses to acknowledge that anything is wrong and ends up just walking away.

Posted in X Visual Argument | 1 Comment

Visual Argument- Tabitha Corrao

Gay and Lesbian Bullying Prevention

The video starts off with two pretty girls trying on clothes in a mirror. The one girl asks her friend about the shirt she was wearing and the friend relied “So gay.” After talking about how gay the shirt is, Hillary Duff interrupts the two girls and tells them how using the word gay like that is insulting and has an negative effects on people. Hillary to prove her point then embarrasses the girl’s friend who is wearing a skirt as a shirt by saying “what if every time something was bad everyone said that’s so girl wearing a skirt as a top.”

This Ad council commercial is an amazing way to help prevent gay and lesbians from being bullied. This commercial is actually the reason why I stopped using offensive language like “That’s so gay” and “faggot.” I believe Ad council’s scene for the video captured a real life/ everyday scene that happens everyday in the real world. People use offensive language every day not realizing the damage it does to a person. When people use language like “that’s so gay” as a bad thing, they make it seem like being gay is a bad thing.

I also think Ad council put people into prospective by putting the last few seconds of Hillary Duff insulting the friend who said that’s gay. I think this helps people understand how gays or lesbians feel when we use offensive language. It gives people who don’t face the same problems as a gay person the opportunity to feel what they feel in that moment.

This ad reminded me of another ad I recently came across on Facebook(I wish I could link it but I couldn’t find the ad). It had three separated photos of a gay, a straight,and a lesbian couple and across the bottom it stated “Do you see the difference?” Although the ad was not meant to prevent gays from being bullied I thought it did a great at showing how gay couples are no different. I think ads like this help people who are not gay understand gay people. Whether it’s two boys in love or two girls in love, it shows them that love is love no matter what. Once people start to understand where people are coming from, they start to accept who they are. So by posting ad like these two ads, people begin to help accept gays into our culture and make gay people feel accepted rather than an outcast.

Posted in X Visual Argument | 3 Comments