Visual Argument-Nicole Clark

I chose the Autism Awareness ad with Tommy Hilfiger.

-The video starts off with a voice over introducing a boy who was born into an American family in Elmira, New York.  The video shows an animated boy and a house which is assumed to be the house in New York.  The video does not state the boy’s name or how old he really is.

-The next scene shows a lady walking past a store looking into the windows at the clothes.  It switches over to a boy sitting at a desk at nighttime sketching clothes.  This tells us as viewers that the boy has worked all day and night to achieving his goal of becoming a designer.  The voice over explains how the chances of an autistic boy making it into the fashion industry is considered one in twenty-three million.  It still does not say who the boy is at this point of the video.  So far, this PSA does little to give information regarding the boy and his significance.

-The viewers are given a chance to see a real human rather than an animated person walking down a runway which seems to be a model.  A man follows after the model waving to the crowd who seem to be acknowledging him.  Many people may not know but this man is known as Tommy Hilfiger, a fashion designer.  It is assumed that the voice over is also his voice but it is never stated who is really speaking at this point.  I feel that this would be a great time to state the fact that the voice over is Tommy Hilfiger or that the animated boy is him as well.

-An image of a man (Tommy Hilfiger) wrapping a scarf around a little girl shows up on the ad while the voice over explains how the chances of having a child with autism is one in eighty eight.  It is assumed that the daughter has autism when the voice over announces his family is affected by autism.  The voice over still deems to state that he is Tommy Hilfiger and that she is his daughter.  It also does not state the fact that he is the one who has autism and so does his daughter.  The PSA seems to let you make assumptions rather than state the true facts.

-The video ends with how an individual can learn more about autism by visiting the autism website.  It is assumed that the PSA’s main intention was a way to spread the facts about autism and how someone can help fight autism.  It also shows how even a man as famous and successful as Tommy Hilfiger is affected by autism as well as his family.

-I feel that the video is affective in some ways.  For example, it does encourage people to log on the website and learn more about autism.  But, I also believe that it is ineffective due to the lack of information given about the speaker and the people in the video.  I think that the beginning of the video should have stated who the man was before anything else was said.  I also do not understand the significance of the animation.  I feel that the animation would attract younger viewers rather than adults who are the ones donating money to help fight autism.  Overall I do feel that this is a moving PSA, but they could have done a better job in delivering their information.

This entry was posted in A12: Visual Argument, A16: Your Portfolio, Nicole Clark, Portfolio. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Visual Argument-Nicole Clark

  1. davidbdale says:

    Hey, Nicole!
    Hey, wait a second. This is a visual argument. You’ve chosen a spot that uses an amazingly appropriate (or is it?) animation technique to tell its narrative, but you don’t mention that the house in Elmira and the boy himself are stop-motion animated pieces of fabric?

    The voiceover does explain the rarity of a boy making it in fashion, but it certainly doesn’t identify him as autistic.

    Why the models?
    Why the man after the show?
    We’re not learning much about the argument being made here, Nicole. Ask yourself at every frame what choice you would have made if the spot had been yours to make. Old family photos of young Tommy Hilfiger were probably available. Why not use those instead of making a boy out of fabric? Just an example.

    It may be, and you may draw that conclusion, but the voiceover does not identify the man in the video as Tommy Hilfiger. Does it?

    What about the spot would make you want to learn more about autism? Does it change your mind about anything at all?

    If it’s an argument, what does it convince you to think or do? If it accomplishes neither, why does it fail? Are you not the right audience to receive this message?

    Grade recorded.
    (Anyone considering revising these arguments should review the Model Visual Argument first.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s