So today, I discussed in class the 16th century debate over religious imagery that came with the Protestant revolution. Erasmus of Amsterdam argued that religious artwork of the day was becoming too secularized, combining traditional religious personas with Greek & Roman humanist figures that appealed more to the sexuality of the figures than to their divine roles. He put forth quite a strong argument that people are far too emotionally impacted by visual imagery to let it go unchecked in religious settings. He posited that much of the decadence of the Catholic religion was due to the rampant use of humanist artwork and that the uneducated parishioners were losing spirituality because they were so physically impacted by the popular images of the era.
So - how does this translate to the image-sodden 21st century? Do pictures still hold an enormous grasp on our guts that can outweigh the information coming in on intellectual channels?
Is that the secret behind this?
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I think they clearly do... hence the insanely high prices companies will pay to put their product next to an attractive, scantily-clad model or next to a cultural icon.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
So... and I loathe to ask this seeing as it throws my future career in a whole new light... is advertising all about the visceral reaction?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You have 5 seconds with someone's eyes - do you appeal to logos, ethos, or pathos? Which is most likely to work in five seconds?
I hate to say this, but yeah. You're going for a reaction.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Annie> It doesn't have to be, but it almost certainly is. Nor do I see any useful way of changing that at present, as any alternatives will likely be overwhelmed by the visceral images.