I really like what you've done with the old imagery. In the past, it was much easier to distinguish between the wealthy and the poor based on dress and hairstyle. Since you used imagery from this era, it makes what you're trying to say here very clear. This bench is for rich people. That bench is for the poor. (As if anyone with any amount of money couldn't sit on any bench they want, just because it looks a certain way.) This says a lot about our society in the past and in the present. We've uncovered a perception or point of view that a certain style bench can connote social standing. You're imagery supports that this was true in the past and our conversations imply that this idea has been carried into the present. Almost as if it has been instilled in us, in some visceral way.After doing my research, I wonder why proliteriat is the dominant word in the image, and bourgeoisie is much smaller and secondary?I wonder this because I associate dominant image of the affluent people with proliteriat, which is from the latin for 'lowest citizen'. And bourgeoisie, which signifies the wealthy is very small and paired with the image of the working-class citizen. I think this is purely because the size and proximity of the text to the images. Why did you create these juxtapositions?
Post a Comment