Not to be fooled by the bright,fresh color this image comes with a negative tone, and the carrier of that tone is in text. This postcard is a campaign ad for an organization who is against the labor of individuals working for less pay.
Although the image is not grimy or depressing, I believe it still gives off the effect that this campaign for something that is wrong. The only problem I have with this is that the text is doing majority the talking. The image hints at the subject we are discussing, but does not allow itself to be prominent, I believe it should.
Actually... the exact opposite. This postcard is actually promoting the use of sweat shop labor. Which is why I chose the bright colors, and also because they reference those found in the American flag. I'm curious as to what made you interpret this as anti-sweat shop? did you just misinterpret the meaning of the text?
To your second point, it should be giving off the effect that this campaign is for something wrong. I wanted to take the stance less taken and try and not necessarily promote sweat shop labor, but show how it isn't accurately portrayed. In case you're wondering, I do have morals. And yes, the conditions, hours, and many other aspects of these people's work environments are awful. But the critics of these places are comparing the wages earned in one country to the prices asked in another. Its an issue of people not understanding the parity of purchasing power between countries.
I would agree with you to an extent that the imagery could be a bit more prominent. But for me it was important that this postcard be blunt and communicate the main finding of my research typographically.
3 comments:
Not to be fooled by the bright,fresh color this image comes with a negative tone, and the carrier of that tone is in text. This postcard is a campaign ad for an organization who is against the labor of individuals working for less pay.
Although the image is not grimy or depressing, I believe it still gives off the effect that this campaign for something that is wrong. The only problem I have with this is that the text is doing majority the talking. The image hints at the subject we are discussing, but does not allow itself to be prominent, I believe it should.
Actually... the exact opposite. This postcard is actually promoting the use of sweat shop labor. Which is why I chose the bright colors, and also because they reference those found in the American flag. I'm curious as to what made you interpret this as anti-sweat shop? did you just misinterpret the meaning of the text?
To your second point, it should be giving off the effect that this campaign is for something wrong. I wanted to take the stance less taken and try and not necessarily promote sweat shop labor, but show how it isn't accurately portrayed. In case you're wondering, I do have morals. And yes, the conditions, hours, and many other aspects of these people's work environments are awful. But the critics of these places are comparing the wages earned in one country to the prices asked in another. Its an issue of people not understanding the parity of purchasing power between countries.
I would agree with you to an extent that the imagery could be a bit more prominent. But for me it was important that this postcard be blunt and communicate the main finding of my research typographically.
Post a Comment