September 23, 2012

ecoPorn... is it really that bad??

Ecoporn is a term I had was not familiar with before Bart’s fascinating article on it. Everything he said he made it very easy for us as readers to connect with. The examples of how Ecoporn is used to alter our perception of things and exploit females and sexuality really raised some concerns for people in the class. Oddly enough I think I may have a different take on this Ecoprn than the class. Of course I do not like the manipulation and basically scheming Ecoporn is affiliated with, but if you think about it what actual harm is it causing? We act as if we are not hit over the head with misleading; devious, and sometimes flat out lies every single day probably every hour. That is all we see in promotions, campaigns, and commercials. This is why I do not understand why people are so offened by Ecoporn. The fact is the "porn" aspect of ecoporn is what grabs our attention. It is what may save you from eating that little piggy or saving a turtle just by disposing of your trash correctly.

The story our classmate said about the scientist at Disney shaping the veggies into Mickey was a great example of Ecoporn, and I really loved that she told that story because that is what made me see it as harmless. Yes, it is advertising but if Disney funds this why should not they get something out of it as well I see no harm. Just like the PETA ads Dr. Graban showed us in class yes they were over board at times and miss construed, but I believe people know these things in advance. So the objectification does not seem so terrible when you can see a Hardy’s commercial exploit women just as bad or even worse. I’d rather be used to save a cow from being tortured than to shove a burger into an obese Americans mouth. That’s just my take on Ecoporn lets worry about the exploitation of bad things then we can worry about the exploitation of environmentalist.


Bridgette Balderson said...

I agree with you when you say that the it's the "porn" aspect of Ecoporn that grabs our attention. I mean, Ecoporn is such a sensationalist title. The discussion of "porn" is pretty taboo in the mainstream so of course Welling is going to attract readers to this article. That being said, I do agree with you. Ecoporn is not that bad, it's just another form of advertisement, and any smart, rational person shouldn't take Ecoporn seriously. Ecoporn is just created with a piecemeal approach. Like PETA, they only showcase the worst of animal abuse, yet it seems they never take the time out to comment on the animals that are being raised cruelty-free. And with the Hardee's thing, I'm a female, but I'm not offended by their use of busty, half-naked women to sell burgers. That's just smart marketing, they know their target audience. On the other side of the coin, if a Hardee's commercial does offend someone, all they have to do is change the channel or not eat at Hardee's. It's that simple.

George Dean said...

I agree with your take on “Ecoporn”. If the producer isn’t causing any real damage or harm then I don’t see what the real problem is. If someone is producing a nature calendar with touched up photos with brightened sunsets or saturated colors to make everything seem more out of the ordinary, people are going to buy it. No one wants to have a calendar hanging up in their office of run of the mill photos that they could have taken themselves. They want explosive photos of the Grand Canyon with deep reds and amazing blues that they can stare at for hours. If the overall goal of raising money for a nature campaign is achieved then no harm no foul.
As long as no harm comes to animals or the environment, and producers want to market nature in a specific way to achieve their goal, I say go for it. I don’t think the public is being entirely deceived or lied too; things are just given a spin to make it more appealing.
It appeared that Welling depicts that “ecoporn” is alive and well-flourished nature photography practice of our generation. Some of the best animal central television programming is apparently cruel and over controlling and doesn’t depict the “real nature”. Shark week I suppose could be an excellent example in Welling’s case. When they show great whites off the coast of South Africa leaping out of the water for seals, the producers and video photographers are all capturing it, in a controlled setting. Using fake seals as lures to make sure to get the shot they need. At the same time all of shark weeks programming is always in promotion and species conservation of the shark. Showing the animals natural and unique beauty. Given, they center on the sharks ferocity and power, but that’s what the audience desires to see isn’t it? Sharks swimming would be boring.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.