As I was reading the paper this morning, I came across this photo taken by Karel Prinsloo of the Associated Press. The caption explained how ethnic clashes in Kenya have claimed more than 650 people this month. Names of opposition forces were given, but the names meant nothing to me. In any other case, I am ashamed to say, it is a photo I would have let me eyes travel over without stopping. My understanding of Kenyan politics is such that a photo of the conflict would not have any context for me. But that was not the case today. The photo was riveting. So, of course, the question is what in the photo captured me. It is well composed, full of emotion, and immediate, yes. But I think that what captured me most was the GAP logo on the central figure's sweatshirt. The prominent, global brand blazoned on the picture of ethnic violence made it more palpable for some reason.
For my students, the war ravaged buildings, the outrage and aggression, and the use of a machette to threaten seem to be things that they have seen only in film and therefore have no sense of reality to them. That sweatshirt, though. That they, and I , can understand.
For my students, the war ravaged buildings, the outrage and aggression, and the use of a machette to threaten seem to be things that they have seen only in film and therefore have no sense of reality to them. That sweatshirt, though. That they, and I , can understand.
2 comments:
Isn't it interesting that our interest and connection to a global event depends on some personal connection.
I love this picture! When I teach advertising, I have my students stand if they are advertising a product by wearing its logo. Most students stand. I, on the other hand, refuse to wear logos. I think companies should pay me to advertise for them, not me buy their product and advertise for free. But I digress. I just wonder how GAP feels about their product being advertised in this way?
Post a Comment