Make fun of "propaganda" all you want, but all the rational arguments in the world can't pack the visceral punch of a simple image and the right slogan. I've called Oleg Volk the "Minister of Propaganda for Our Team" for years, and the thing I love most about his work is the way it gets the emotion-appealing hand-wringers on the other side to stroke out. I mean, aren't appeals to the heart supposed to be their turf?
Heh.
Cry me a river.
(H/T to Unc.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
SuWheeet.
Damn, why isn't Volk on my sidebar? need to fix that tonight.
Where the heck do these idealists come from?
Joe R.
Oleg's images are terrifying but being an unarmed victim isn't?
Sorry, no way to edit the post...
By idealists I'm talking about the 1st commentor and her " It terrifies me to see these photos." comment. I just can't fathom the world that she lives in. What a sheep...
Joe R.
simple images? hardly...the effortless way that a single picture can convey more than pages of words is really the result of a grand confluence of art, soul, skill, critical thought,...and patience.
but i know what you meant, tam; the final image that we see does seem so simple, natural, and powerful...high art and piercing social commentary...and a Constitutionalist? i didn't think that was allowed?...jtc
The linked website is interesting in that it purports to be a study of images and how they influence thought. It seems more an aggregation of slightly off-beat ad copy, with comments that are vague but often critical of the ads.
The comments on Oleg's images are interesting, in that "reasoned discourse" is offered by many folks, including Oleg. Fun to see if any breaks out.
I'd like to see a rebuttal advertisement to any of Oleg's work. Because I'd find that hard to do myself.
"I'd like to see a rebuttal advertisement to any of Oleg's work. Because I'd find that hard to do myself."
It's pretty hard to make a heart-wrenching emotional appeal in favor of rape, gay-bashing, and genocide. ;)
The visual rhetoric in these images is amazing! The words help but if they weren't there, the meaning would still jump out and slap you in the face.
Simple enough: images are symbolic, and the terrified people have always seen a gun in someone's hands- especially one being pointed toward the viewer, as in several images- as symbols of menace. There are very few positive portrayals in the media of a gun in anyone's hands but someone visually coded as a "professional" with a uniform or suit and tie- unless you're a fan of old movies.
Good images get visceral reactions. People who have never thought of guns as being anything but tools of predation or oppression are having the only visceral reaction to the imagery they've ever had.
"There are very few positive portrayals in the media of a gun in anyone's hands but someone visually coded as a "professional" with a uniform or suit and tie-"
But... but... that's PATRIARCHAL!!! ;)
Oh, there's a mega-rant in here someplace. I just need to nurture it some. :D
I am boggled by the commenter who asserts, as if it were a negative, that the images promote an "individualistic" response to things like rape and Klan intimidation.
Of course, presumably being Sociology types, they're encouraged to think only of the Group, I guess.
I can't figure out how to comment on that post. Too bad.
"These are bizarre and terrifying"
Wow! Just wow! You can lead a horse to water, but you just can't make it drink, can you?
Your personal safety is your responsability, Dorotha! Quit hiding behind others and take responsibility for making your own life a success!
It looks like the pro-freedom crowd gave that site more comments than they've had for a while. I counted maybe four non-gunnie comments out of all of them. the comments to that post look more like a "TheHighRoad" thread than anything else.
Tam: Reminds me of the argument I had with one woman whose position boiled down to "all female characters on TV are stereotyped, because all people have gendered and we can only view character archetypes in the context of those genders, therefore all character types in a female are stereotyped".
Maybe she doesn't want to, or can't, bear the responsibility for her personal security. If we want to honestly insist on our right to choose to accept that responsibility by being armed, we should respect those who don't, for whatever reasons personal to themselves.
Unlike the Party of Tolerance (tm), we don't just believe in making others tolerate what we like.
I think you've hit on something, staghounds. Take a look at Gwen's comment. Gwen doesn't want to blame the individual failure of her mother.
Mom failed in her individual responsibility, to her children, by not standing up to her violence-threatening husband.
Gwen would prefer to let Mom off the hook by blaming the guns wielded by evil Dad, rather than accept the fact that Mom was passively complicit in the abuse.
More detail in my blog posting Whence Hoplophobia, Revisited.
"Of course, presumably being Sociology types, they're encouraged to think only of the Group, I guess."
Yes, that is correct. ALL things must be validated by the collective. You are NOT allowed to think for yourself, make decisions for yourself, nor make actions for yourself.
Borg mentality, plain and simple.
The first image on the linked page -- the "gun owners are compensating for something" one -- wow.
Devastatingly simple and effective, even by Mr. Volk's standards. Bravo.
Post a Comment