Incentives, motive and enticement; they are all great at convincing society to participate in pretty much anything.  Then again, is it okay to primarily rely on undertaking a good deed as long as 'good karma' will be returned back to you?  An anonymous quote that resonated with me and this subject matter states, "Generosity cannot be faked in order to achieve some other more valued self-serving end."  People can be as generous as Mother Theresa, but if they are doing it just for the fame or for something in return, it really isn't considered generosity.  A picture meant to influence people to donate to a cause focused on feeding the hungry is doing so with a rewarded outcome.  While the donations could actually go to feed people in need, society is more likely to contribute when they receive something in return.  One could argue that by looking at the typography of the caption under the handbag creates persuasion to donate to the cause, also how the white bag in the dull background is one of the main attractions, and how the symbolism of the frail African American model has very problematic intentions.

Many Public Service Announcements and other popular ads are meant to persuade people to donate to a deserving cause or to believe certain perspectives to create an incentive to jump on their bandwagon.  The selling factor in the picture, the handbag, is one of the main focuses and the price is listed clear and bolded.  Although, in the fine print underneath it, a new caption states, "food for a week", which creates a completely different mood for this picture.  If one were just walking past this ad on the street, they may just think this is just a woman modeling for a handbag billboard.  Also, if donating money to an organization that fed starving people wasn't honorable enough, incorporating a purse to help entice people to spend money would, if they got it as a reward.  Likewise, the model is elevating the bag above her, while she is laying in a very low position, which symbolizes that the bag has more supremacy over her.  Still discussing the typography in the photo, the logo of "People In Need" is very small in relation to the model and the handbag.  This supports my earlier statement about how this picture looks like a handbag advertisement instead of a fundraiser for a good cause. 

 Color is very important when discussing a picture, its intentions and what the true meaning behind the camera is.  The main 'selling feature' or 'persuasion factor' in this photo is the bright white handbag.  The color white is known for perfection, innocence and light.  Compared to the other dull blue, black and brown colors, this one stands out the most and catches the viewers' eye.  This is why it is understandable that people think this picture is an advertisement for the handbag, instead of convincing society to give their hard earned money to help a good cause.  The background colors are also very dull and almost blurry, because it is so far away.  I believe that the photographer decided to almost blur the background to add symbolism to the picture.  The blurriness could represent how society's perspective of charity and donation is 'blurry' because they wouldn't have the internal desire to donate unless they receive something in return for their act of "kindness".  The landscape also looks scarce and sparse which correlates well with the cause of feeding those who have scarce food supply.  

The decision to have an African American model who is very slim, is problematic whether you look at the photo from the advertisement or desired donations perspective.  Most often, models are very slender, but this model is almost frail which associates to the "People In Need" campaign.  Also, a somewhat controversial opinion, is she depicting that the charity primarily focuses on African nations to aid and support?  Or is she chosen because her skin color does not interfere with the 'perfection, innocence and light' of the handbag?  I think this is very controversial because the photographer would have gotten the same effect if they would have used a Caucasian model and a black handbag.  Also, the facial expression the model possesses is quite alarming.  She looks almost annoyed or angry with her clinched eyebrows and her hand on her head in such position.   This could represent the opinions of the people who are in need of charitable support.  When they see people donating just because they can get a fancy handbag, it is counterintuitive. I too, would feel irritated that humanity doesn't have the true generosity in their hearts to make a contribution to those who actually need it.

Many people could have different perspectives of this photo and believe its' main objective is to donate to the worthy organization with the compensation of a bright white handbag.  But the main point is that there shouldn't have to be a reward involved for someone to have the desire to do a good deed and help someone who is in need, even if no one else is looking to applaud their respectable endeavors.  No matter what the overall purpose or goals of this photograph, through the "food for a week" typography, the bleached purse, or the representation of the delicate model, it is important to look past the superficiality and do well in the world and to help those who are in true need.

 

