ART AS ARGUMENT
WATCO advertising an expensive product on people who can’t afford to buy shoes?
CLAIM: Advertising expensive products will have a negative effect on people who live in poverty.
ETHOS: An add can either make or break the impact it has on its viewer. Thisadd is by far one of the most non-credible add I’ve ever seen. The purpose of it is to promote Nike products but in reality it makes the audience think that even those who live in poverty and filth, if they can’t afford to buy Nike, “Just Do It” because peeing on a wall will make them come closer to affording the product.
PATHOS: Very appealing to emotion in that it makes the viewer feel guilty because he’s buying expensive products while there are people like the boy in the picture who are starving and don’t have any clothes to ware. It also makes the viewer feel like he doesn’t want to buy the product any more.
LOGOS: The add makes no sense because who is its audience? Are they trying to appeal to a poverty stricken country or people in the U.S? either way it’s not logical to advertise clothing and have a person on the advertisement basically naked and barefoot living in a dump.
WATCO advertising an expensive product on people who can’t afford to buy shoes?
CLAIM: Advertising expensive products will have a negative effect on people who live in poverty.
ETHOS: An add can either make or break the impact it has on its viewer. Thisadd is by far one of the most non-credible add I’ve ever seen. The purpose of it is to promote Nike products but in reality it makes the audience think that even those who live in poverty and filth, if they can’t afford to buy Nike, “Just Do It” because peeing on a wall will make them come closer to affording the product.
PATHOS: Very appealing to emotion in that it makes the viewer feel guilty because he’s buying expensive products while there are people like the boy in the picture who are starving and don’t have any clothes to ware. It also makes the viewer feel like he doesn’t want to buy the product any more.
LOGOS: The add makes no sense because who is its audience? Are they trying to appeal to a poverty stricken country or people in the U.S? either way it’s not logical to advertise clothing and have a person on the advertisement basically naked and barefoot living in a dump.
1 comment:
Wow, that's a really unique piece of artwork. I think it's trying to say that Nike is contributing to poverty. I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but the claim certainly isn't favorable to Nike.
Post a Comment