According to Kress & van Leeuwen, a visual message for a particular audience, in particular modes and contexts, should be clear and transparent (see lecture slides for September 29).
How does the message change when the luxury watch is replaced with a Mickey Mouse Timex? 
GorillaHAUSBlOG 
Interesting post Mr. Ruck, and I applaud your use of photoshop to skew the clarity of this image. I find KVL’s use of the phrase, “Particular Audience” very remiscent of the rhetorician Chaim Perelman’s use of the word. Perelman, while specifically talking about a live speech, divides audiences into the Particular and the Universal. The particular applies to only those in person at an orator’s speech, while the universal encapsulates all rational beings able to comprehend the speech.
Applying that to this post, KVL wants presentations to the particular audience to be very clear and concise. By taking the high-class watch, and replacing it with a generic “Mickey Mouse,” version, I would argue that you have turned a clear message for a particular audience, into a cloudy message for a much larger and possibly universal audience. While Cristiano Ronaldo is a symbol that is only recognized by someone versed in either sports or popular culture, Mickey Mouse is arguably a transcedent symbol than breaks down the barriers of country and culture. The inclusion of Mickey, certainly removes the clarity from the ad, making it no longer about class, performance, or luxury. But with Mickey AND Ronaldo working together in the same image, it may actually appeal to a larger audience. Any thoughts?
LikeLike