Off the wall.
Just a little fun? Or advertising that plumbs new depths of cynicism?
Back in 1972, in Ways of Seeing, John Berger noted the way that advertising takes world events and trivialises them, to create the distance necessary to use the imagery for advertising. But surely even he could not have imagined the cynicism of this ad.
The ad opens with an Israeli Defence Forces vehicle slamming to a halt after something – it turns out to be a football – lands on its bonnet from the other side of the West Bank security wall. One of the Israeli soldiers kicks the ball back over to the Palestinian side, but it soon bounces back, at which point the soldiers decide to hold an impromptu game with the faceless ‘others’, cheered on by female soldiers.
When the ball comes back a further time, one of the soldiers alludes to the ‘naughtiness’ of the invisible Palestinians who return the ball.
‘After all,’ says the voiceover, ‘what are we all after? Just a little fun.’
This disgusting ad perpetuates the dehumanisation of the Palestinians, whom we never see, and trivialises their oppression. Any real attempt to breach the wall would be met with gunfire, not laughter.
Encouragingly, there is already some resistance in Israel, where a Facebook group has called for the ad to be banned.
There seems to be a disturbing trend toward normalising war in visual culture – for further evidence, check the recent, oddly melancholic and troubling Matchbox army ads (discussed on the Creative Review blog.
This 21st-century trend must be challenged, because war is no laughing matter.
See also: Noel Douglas’s article ‘Whose space?’ on the Eye website.
And ‘Treasure trove of graphic resistance. Black Panther: Emory Douglas and the Art of Revolution’ on the Eye blog.
* The fake suicide bomber ad is not on their website, http://leeanddan.com/, ‘for legal reasons’, but you can still see it on http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/vwpolo.asp)
July 15th, 2009 at 11:25 am | by Ricarddo C
I don’t agree with you. This wall defense, unfortunately, affects some innocent palestinian people, but defend the Israeli people (jews and muslims) from the terrorist groups like Hamas. Disgusting is this primary criticism (without deeply research) against Israel. Easy words for an hard conflict without solution. Please try to watch the advertisement from the national television of Gaza when they promote the child violence against israelites. That is also disgusting and you, UNICEF and other NGO are completely blind about that situation. Please, to be a good designer and do a good criticism you should try to understand the both sides of a conflict. And remember, one of the major problem of that conflict is the press interests to continue to get shock news…
July 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm | by noel douglas
Ricarddo C,
I’m sorry I don’t agree that “be a good designer and do good criticism you need to try to understand both sides of a conflict”
No, good criticism takes sides, and to be ‘good’ is to be on the side of the oppressed.
The ad lies, that is why it is wrong–I should have said this in the original piece– it lies because it uses a symbol of actual separation (the wall) to sell the idea that through purchasing a phone you can come together with others and have fun, in that sense it turns the real world on its head; separation selling community.
This conflict is unequal, one side is oppressed and one side is the oppressor, one side is backed by billions of US state money and arms and is continually killing and taking land from the other, and flouting international law as it does so, the Palestinian reactions to this, flow from this, not the other way round.
There is a resolution, one secular state where Arab and Jew live side by side as they did before Zionism took hold.
But that won’t happen if Israeli’s continue to ignore the brutality being carried out in their name.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:30 pm | by Elizabeth
Sorry Noel but I must agree that your analysis is poorly researched. I don’t have a very agreeable response to the ad either but to say that one side is the aggressor and the other the oppressed is naive and smacks of a late arrival to the dialogue surrounding the debate. It is furthermore curious that you delineate sides while calling for a one state solution. Hamas does not recognize israel’s right to exist because they think Jews should be exterminated; this is not simply a territory issue.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:26 pm | by Adam
Ricarddo, Noel, Elisabeth
>>Back in 1972, in Ways of Seeing, John Berger noted the way that advertising takes world events and trivialises them.
isn’t that the point of this blog, that whatever your view of the tragedy, an ad agency is using it to sell cellphones
isn’t that Disgusting?
July 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pm | by johndiggity
politics aside, i think that no relevant conversation can happen within a vacuum. while you and i are lucky enough to live far enough removed from the daily occurrences of war, those whom this ad is geared towards are not as fortunate.
i think that your analysis of the ad—”it lies because it uses a symbol of actual separation (the wall) to sell the idea that through purchasing a phone you can come together with others and have fun”—is a bit short-sited and itself, removed from all context. to those who live in this part of the world, like it or not, violence and the threat of war is a very real part of their daily lives. to deny that would be to discount reality.
however your criticism does just this, arguing that the very premise of this ad is false because it makes light of the wall (which does exist), and uses this a central component to the ad’s execution. would the ad be as successful if the wall was removed? would it generate any sort of conversation on the topic as it is now? if this did in fact trivialize the wall, as john berger erroneously claimed, then why are we even talking about it?
advertising can be a powerful form of social and political commentary. while most advertising is trivial, those ads that provoke this type of critical thinking and conversation should be lauded.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:48 pm | by War and visual culture. « NWSAD COLLECTIVE
[...] and visual culture. Good read over at Eye blog. This entry was written by adam and posted on 16/07/2009 at 11:47 and filed under Theory. [...]
July 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm | by noel douglas
Hi Elisabeth,
well I do know a lot about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we just don’t agree when it comes down to what is going on, do we? But it seems pretty clear to me which side has the A16’s, the tanks and the ability to purchase arms direct from US manufacturers and the nod and the wink to use them against a largely defenseless refugee population as they just have in Gaza.
Hi John,
you seem to be getting confused, my problem with the ad is not just that it makes light of the wall, thought that is bad enough, it is that it makes light of the plight of the Palestinians through using the wall that is the problem, something I make clear in the piece.
Just because the ad has provoked (a necessary and just) reaction considering how appalling it is, doesn’t mean that, that’s a good thing, the lack of compassion and thinking going on in the production of it, that is, the fact that people can do this kind of thing and think it ‘ok’ is deeply troubling. Now advertising may in general lack morality but that is no excuse.
I for one would rather not be discussing this, and McCann shouldn’t think it’s ok to use it as a subject. Would it be ok to make an ad that used the Warsaw Ghettos in a similar way?
July 19th, 2009 at 1:12 pm | by » Ethical Advertising? / Milton Glaser’s ‘Road To Hell’
[...] Just a little fun? Or advertising that plumbs new depths of cynicism? [...]
July 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm | by an israeli designer
Israeli designers are banning these kind of ads, this is a degrease for visual culture.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pm | by another israeli designer
Noel,
Did you support the plight of the Jews until 1976? Or are you just a hypocrite with a bohemian bourgeois need to align yourself with impoverished cultures involved in situations you don’t completely understand?
The advert is clearly wrong, but no more so than you claiming to understand the situation.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:37 pm | by jessica jenkins
thanks, noel for bringing this ad to a much wider public. i find the most chilling aspect is the invisibility of the side, but its also this aspect that speaks volumes about how “the other side” is perceived. i agree with the comment that advertising can act as a powerful critique of our times, and often has done. but it would be much more preferable for ordinary people to have access to such powerful tools of communication.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm | by noel douglas
hello ‘another Israeli Designer’,
I am against oppression generally, but I do not support Zionism and what it is doing to the Palestinians, as do many other Jews and non-Jews all around the world (in fact my Israeli left-wing friends translated the ad for me).
It’s interesting how those that support Israel would rather attack my (supposed) lack of knowledge of the conflict–when in fact what you mean is you don’t agree and can’t answer me so you use a cheap shot to attack me–than engage with what we are talking about here, namely the dehumanisation, and attempt to wipe out a whole people both in real terms and at the level of the image and ideology.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm | by noel douglas
…and now it seems there is video response to the ad…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et8VGyCDt10
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 am | by Youtube gives an instant voice | Molt:n Core - A Molt:n Digital Blog
[...] won’t bother even commenting on this ad as countless others have done it better than I [...]
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am | by johng
why is it that people who clearly no absolutely nothing about the conflict all turn up like parrots suggesting that anyone who criticises the dehumanisation of Palestinians is ’simplistic’? Particularly telling was the suggestion that ‘taking sides’ suggests someone who has ‘come late’ to the conflict. Like the ad, such dehumanising sentiments are only possible by turning Palestinians into faceless creatures behind a wall.