Human Buttons
Muan 05/19
I recieved this email from a friend this afternoon.
Apparently, I replied a lengthy email to him.
Allow me to express my take on this;
I have observed that in fact these "exploitive" pictures (specially
children) are more often used in print media other than the web or any
other media. Maybe because print is not that as mightier in terms of
reach than web, or TV. World Vision rallies a piteous face of a kid in
their brochures, I've heard no one complaining.
I recall USAID-funded Day Care program of the Aquino government before
utilized malnourish kids of Negros in their campaign posters in my
elementary. Thus, I hate it when they compare me to those
"batang-negros" because of my thin built.
Notice the donation cans and boxes with their label using "exploitive"
picture, albeit, subdued or duo-toned, the grey area between what is
"reality"/ facts and exploitation is perceptible.
I saw The Interpreter movie last night, surprisingly showing fair
shots of the UN HQ, lobby, hallways etc. I've noticed the posters in
one of the scenes (if I'm not mistaken its an exhibit by photographer)
and just the same, it gives mixed implication.
Is it just to use pictures of devastation, poverty, and hunger to
solicit support for humanitarian causes?
I suspect usage of these "exploitive" devices has something to do with
the visceral emotion we experience as human. It has become an
effective means of communication and often trivialized by some
institutions.
Maybe as long as there are people like you (particular those who
worked with organizations promoting child's welfare) that are aware
and sensitive with these issues, I am confident we can infuse "change"
in our own little way – an ambiguous responsibility I often dismiss as
a designer.
I recieved this email from a friend this afternoon.
"I don't think naman we make use of "exploitive" pictures of children, but just the same, here's a something worth reading.."I did double checked the link and found out it was broken as of posting, please refer to this. Please observed the donation buttons used in the site.
Apparently, I replied a lengthy email to him.
Allow me to express my take on this;
I have observed that in fact these "exploitive" pictures (specially
children) are more often used in print media other than the web or any
other media. Maybe because print is not that as mightier in terms of
reach than web, or TV. World Vision rallies a piteous face of a kid in
their brochures, I've heard no one complaining.
I recall USAID-funded Day Care program of the Aquino government before
utilized malnourish kids of Negros in their campaign posters in my
elementary. Thus, I hate it when they compare me to those
"batang-negros" because of my thin built.
Notice the donation cans and boxes with their label using "exploitive"
picture, albeit, subdued or duo-toned, the grey area between what is
"reality"/ facts and exploitation is perceptible.
I saw The Interpreter movie last night, surprisingly showing fair
shots of the UN HQ, lobby, hallways etc. I've noticed the posters in
one of the scenes (if I'm not mistaken its an exhibit by photographer)
and just the same, it gives mixed implication.
Is it just to use pictures of devastation, poverty, and hunger to
solicit support for humanitarian causes?
I suspect usage of these "exploitive" devices has something to do with
the visceral emotion we experience as human. It has become an
effective means of communication and often trivialized by some
institutions.
Maybe as long as there are people like you (particular those who
worked with organizations promoting child's welfare) that are aware
and sensitive with these issues, I am confident we can infuse "change"
in our own little way – an ambiguous responsibility I often dismiss as
a designer.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home