I thought the 'Joe Camel' ads were banded because of the appeal of a mature product to underage children? Why is this advertisement any different? Despite the white text in which “No Smoking” is advocated there is an obvious disconnect between the textual message and the pictorial one. The text is attempting to be a public service announcement while the image is counteracting it and portrays a beautiful, young and chic girl with a cigarette in her mouth. “Actions speak louder than words”, “A picture is worth a thousand words” need I go on? These two pictures are glamorizing bad parenting, smoking and skimpy, unrealistic wardrobe choices for pregnant young women. Pregnant women shop at maternity store for a reason and should not be pressured to remain as skinny as the model here. The girl featured in this image is extremely young to have a baby and maintains her slender figure and chic style while pregnant (when a woman SHOULD be putting on weight!) and neglecting her child. The attempted intention of the images was originally to promote healthy living and responsible parenting and life decisions. Instead of a proactive approach where the behavior sought is shown, the magazine this spread was featured in decided to show what they were fighting against. Unfortunately, there was obviously a miscommunication between designers and the creative process took a turn for the worst. In an attempt to create an aesthetically pleasing image the original concept behind the project became lost and unidentifiable thus enforcing behavior they set out to prevent.
images source : http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nadya-suleman-vogue-no-smoking
No comments:
Post a Comment