As mentioned in the previous blog, the text that I'm working with for the publication brief is Milton Glaser's essay named 'Ambiguity & Truth'. It's fairly famous, given Glaser's own popularity and fame, and it also speaks about marketing and communication right now, a topic that is very relevant. For students of media, design, marketing and communication - you've probably read something that reads similarly.
At first, the essay seems to go off on a tangent, but I realized that it was his way of saying that ambiguity and truth are not mutually exclusive and don't actually negate each other. A couple of pages about Da Vinci set the tone that ambiguity, when used well, actually adds to the layers of truth embedded in a form of art and communication.
He speaks about the inherent problem in using techniques to make things appear different than they are. He gives the example of how dry ice is used to replace steam. There are many such things in advertisements, the use of glue instead of milk - and so on and so forth.
Although I feel like the example he gives, along with the consequences I hadn't thought of, it seems more serious.
The difference between hell and purgatory I found interesting, and Dante's Divine Comedy has always fascinated me. After that we arrive at I think the most interesting, unique text in the essay. His Road to Hell.
Ethics and Morality is always a topic of discussion in classrooms. In my journalism classes, we would speak about them, and that extended to my advertisement, PR and communication classes. Funny enough, these questions, with slight changes, actually apply to all those fields.
The consequences of the choices we make at work, its a heated conversation most times.
A few years ago there was a film that was released in India. It's called 'Kabir Singh' and it's actually a remake of a regional language film also from India. There was a lot of controversy about the film, and discussions about its impact still last. It's said to promote toxic masculinity, misogyny and abuse.
Before that was the film 'Paadmavat', and among the many controversies it came with, was its portrayal of 'sati' and how it seemed to praise it.
I remember reading articles about an article. The original controversial article was about a riot and it cited pictures and information that originated from a WhatsApp forward that had been making the rounds. The problem was, there had been no riot, the WhatsApp forward was fake - now that's not too outlandish, but the newspaper that had failed to check its sources to grab this too good to be true sensational headline had caused a big stir. That article almost resulted in a real riot, and hence the many other articles written about it.
Press conferences were held after oil spills, gas explosions in factories and other accidents and tragedies caused in blue-collar workplaces all caused by faulty infrastructure, and other easily fixed issues - everyone speaking after the fact sounds sympathetic and kind. What about the people who write these speeches, knowing that nil to no compensation will be given to those affected?
How are we capable of this?
That, now that's interesting. It's something I've read about in a lot of areas. Psychologists have always tried to understand how normal, everyday people in different circumstances can commit crimes, and why. The divide we create between us, our loved ones, our world - and the distance that we see between our world and the other worlds, that allows us to go against our ethics and morality. It gives us the option to say - "I never did anything to anyone in my world", or that "I have principles that I uphold", "For the greater good" or how Brooklyn Nine-Nine put it "I'm one of the good ones. And I know how that sounds, but I'm not one of the bad ones who say they're one of the good ones. I'm one of the good ones who say they're one of the good ones."
The end of the essay leaves you with something to think about.
Comments