I really enjoyed this past Thursday's viewing. Thinking about the sheer amount of time it took to animate before computers is mind-boggling. I think in a way it allowed for a greater amount of artistry and finesse, since the hard-earned product was, in fact, hard-earned. Although I admired the creative force behind Trade Tattoo, the one I most enjoyed watching was the Shell advertisement. As a commercial, it kept the consumers interested in the company, to see if new commercials from them could compare and, in that, I think it was a very strong advertising move. Commercials now are limited to somewhere in the vicinity of a minute, which really only allows for the consumer to catch the company and product names and time to admire the commercial's music selection. This advertisement in particular was showing a novel animation concept alongside a plot line. You then attach the story and appreciation for the amusement you gained to that company, and you will maintain the idea in your head that that particular company is a good option, as you were duly entertained.
Advertisement is a way for a company to make you aware of their products, Most of the time you won't realize that the advertisement affects you. I think that this is an interesting point in the looking vs. seeing debate. If something you see impresses on you what is being offered, though you yourself are only looking, then isn't that seeing? This raises the question of whether or not you are 100% in control of what you allow to impress upon yourself. If you don't look, can something still force you to "see," but through a sort of inverse, wherein you yourself are not seeing, but you saw. I can't find the right words, I think, to make this as understandable to all of you as it is to me; this idea is hardly tangible.
Here's something interesting:
No comments:
Post a Comment