Topic 1: The Digital Body
Elaine and Danielle
In this picture, it takes features from Hillary Clinton and President Obama and combines them to make the new look. It shows how digital systems can take the human body and change it to represent a concept. The caption on the front of the magazine where this picture was displayed states, “We have to choose one.” So it is used as a political statement. I think the concept might be that if you could take both of their good ideas and mix them it would be better, but you can only choose one or the other. It reminds me of trying to find the “perfect man”; it might take a blending of sorts!!!
This is a picture trying to depict evolution. The picture shows what a human might look like in the in-between stage. The picture is used to attempt to validate a “scientific” point as though the human body is capable of whatever technology is capable or reproducing. It is promoting the concept of evolution.
Warhead, 1982 is a picture of several peoples features morphed together by Nancy Burson
This is a picture that just shows technology can produce a believable image of a human that is not a real depiction of anyone. The body parts are assembled together but come from many people. I don’t think there was an agenda. It is just an example of what can be done.
This series of images is morphing a human to a cat. The middle image is similar to the one above demonstrating the concept of evolution except there is really not an agenda. No one thinks we came from cats.
This is an example of cyborg - part technology and part organism.
The human genetic body can be contrasted to these digital images because they are representative of the convergence of technology and photographic imagery and convey the idea of an emerging, more perfect figure. For example, the first photo is a combination of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the ’08 campaign and suggests that combining the two would represent the perfect presidential candidate that is neither male or female but an ideal democratic representation for the country—the proposed best of two worlds. This blending of difference crosses the cultural border and is meant to appeal to a much wider audience although it is fictional at best. The cultural expectation of this image suggests that among popular and controversial candidates, there is no “perfect” choice. In contrast, the last image of Obama represented in a cyborg sense conveys the editorial idea that human beings in power are nothing more than contrived robots lacking human compassion and emotion (one interpretation). This idea, however, could not have been suggested visually without the convenience of technology. This image clearly is subjective as it utilizes the science of technology to advance a hardened and negative political initiative.
Danialle and Gina
Although some good can come of making the public aware of their medical options, by bypassing medical personnel and speaking directly to consumers, you remove an important buffer. Medical personnel will look at the sum of symptoms and ailments and prescribe a medication that best fits all of the ailments, whereas a consumer is likely to believe that they may require many more medications that may not provide any benefit at all. This also can lead to an increase in hypochondria and self-diagnosis because consumers may experience a few of the generic symptoms listed and may begin to believe that they have a deadly illness. The inverse can also be true, where someone may not currently exhibit one of the listed symptoms and feel that they do not need to see their doctor.
When pharmaceutical companies make abstract promises, it means that it falls on the medical professional to tell a consumer that the medication advertised will not work for their indications. This makes the doctor the bad guy and causes distrust to form in a relationship where trust is needed.
Promoting pharmaceuticals outside of a medical context is ethical, however it makes a physician’s job more difficult. By encouraging a patient to ask their doctor, you increase the strain on the healthcare industry At the same time patients are made aware of important medical issues they may never have talked to their doctor about because of a lack of education or embarrassment.
Gardasil
Image Source: http://admonkey.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ad_198.jpg
The Gardasil ad shown creates a sense of fear in young girls that if they don’t get this vaccine today, they will get cervical cancer in the future. This type of fear pressure makes it seem like it is worth it to risk the side effects, both known and unknown, in order to escape a future with cervical cancer. This ad also makes it seem like this vaccine will guarantee a future full of happiness and possibilities, since she will do everything she can to help her dreams come true.
The small print in the ad reminds potential users that this vaccine does not guarantee against cervical cancer doesn’t work at all for some variants of the virus, so routine screenings are still required. It also includes a long list of side effects and a phone number and website to report any additional side effects experienced, since this vaccine is quite new on the market.
Abilify
Abilify is an antidepressant. However, it is a special kind of antidepressant, one that you can only take with other antidepressants. That’s right. Is your current antidepressant not quite doing to trick? Not to worry! The solution to your problem with drugs is more drugs!
This advertisement is meant to speak to people who are suffering from depression and anxiety. It says, your current antidepressant is supposed to do everything to make you feel better. If it’s not, then you need our drug. Add it on to yours and it will make everything better.
The claims this drug makes effects the people they’re advertising to by telling them that their depression should be cured entirely by the medication when that’s not true at all. I speak from experience when I say that the drugs are about half of the process of overcoming depression and anxiety. This ad says that drugs are the cure, and that is simply not true. This affects the medical personnel in that they lose the position of having the best advice. The patient may see the ad, and wonder why the doctor did not prescribe this drug—he/she so clearly has this ailment!—when there may in fact be other reasons for not prescribing it. Such as interference with other drugs the patient is on or an allergy or the fact that the doctor believes the drug will do more harm than good.
The advertisement of this drug outside of a medical context is a double-edged sword. It could actually help the patient. But then it could also do harm. Leaving the power of decision in the hands of the uneducated consumer rather than the educated doctor might lead to problems. But then it could also help if the doctor had not thought of prescribing such a drug. It could go either way.
No comments:
Post a Comment