Total annihilation is the most probable outcome when there is no end worldwide warfare, especially when there hydrogen bombs to be worried about. ~ThomasThe United States, and the major countries alike, are all power hungry, and competing against each other in an arms race. If we stop fighting on the other hand, we will lose our arms as the war sky-rockets. ~Michael
As we raise our white flag in order to surrender, we must raise it for all the deaths that the war caused. We will always have competition which led to the fighting; therefore, another end and want for 'No War.' ~Julia
This cartoon reminded me of the Lyndon B Johnson presidential campaign ad ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYcgw0xfAZ0 ). The whole goal of the ad was to scare voters into thinking Johnson's opponents would lead them all to WWIII. This cartoon has the same effect. A child's arm floating up on a balloon advising an end to war is a pretty powerful persuasion for the audience to move toward peace. ~Ambria ;)
15 comments:
KRISTEN CUEVAS: Death is one of the major consequences of war. It not only hurts those in the midst of it, but everyone who is a member of the countries fighting. This cartoon is saying that enough is enough. Especially in a war like The War on Terrorism, the US is losing more than it is gaining. Too many lives have been lost because of this 10+ year war. Countries need to think about the severe consequences of war. They need to think about all the lives that will be lost. End the killing. End the suffering. End all war.
ANGEL ALGARIN: I feel that the lack of color in this ad makes the picture show its sadness even stronger because color symbolizes a hapiness.In the picture why does the balloon say no war? I think this may have been a child protesters arm because of how small the hand is. I feel they used a child, to make the piece more emotional because children are so innocent. I also think he/she was a protester rally because the ballon says NO WAR. If there were actually no war then why wouldn't peace be written onto the balloon? I feel this may have been a campain against a war.
SHELBY CALDWELL: My belief on this immage is that it is producing a very powerful message. The hand is torn off and there is blood dripping from it. The hand being lifted into the sky makes me bleieve it is from a soldier and part of him is floating into heaven because he dies fighting for his country and he deserves to be in peace. It is also saying that there needs to be NO WAR because innoncent people are dying and we are loosing so many americans in War and its just not right.
ALEX LEWIS: "I find this picture captivating, intense, and slightly scary. It is interesting that only an arm is holding up the balloon that says, “No War”. It is like whoever lost the arm is finally realizing that war gets people nowhere, like an after the fact thought or hindsight bias. The clouds are shaped like flowers which reminds me of the 70s era when thousands of people protested war. Although that thought is a stretch, it was honestly one of the first things that came to mind. I am curious as to why a balloon was picked to hold this message, but nothing comes to me. Overall, the image does what it is intended to do and that is to get a rise out of the viewer. It makes you think and that is definitely an important aspect when talking about such a controversial subject."
When I first saw this image I was confused, but as I observed it more I began to think of it as an overall message that fights and disagreements should be resolved before the war begins. I thought the biggest point that comes across this picture is that war can never really be resolved or fixed because it's a bloody battle where many people die, then the war is left there to hang out our heads.
The simplicity of the drawing really makes the observer focus on the balloon and the arm. If we hide the arm, the cartoon looks like a peaceful a protest against war. Once the gruesome arm is uncovered though, we can see that innocent civilians, particularly children, are in harms way when a war is occurring. They can loose their family, happiness, and their lives. But these children seem to have little say in what goes on in the world. They see the world in a different way than adults do. To them, war doesn't make any sense. Do we really need war? Who said they were wrong?
Along with what Angel said the fact that the balloon says "NO WAR" alludes to the possibility that there is a war going on now and that the arm that is holding on to the idea of no war is a protestor. the disembodied arm holding on to the balloon could also symbolize that person being a martyr. The fact that "NO WAR" is on a balloon floating away from the earth shows that having "NO WAR" could be out of reach.
This cartoon presents an interesting objective to the subject of war. The lack of color in accordance with the dangling arm represent the brutality and devastation that war produces. Additionally, the simplicity of the cartoon could suggest the potential simplicity in the world if the world did not participate in war. The arm could be of a person who strongly believes in a "no war" mentality but has unfortunately suffered the consequences of war itself and is therefore floating to join all of the others who died with the same view. This is likely because the idea of "no war" is quite unattainable. The darker color at the bottom where the arm is located represents the darkness of war; whereas, the lighter color at the top displays the balloon with the "no war" message.
The pairing of the simple and non-violent balloon and the human arm gives an interesting contrast in this cartoon. The symbolism here may be that even though the war is being protested, violence continues to happen. This cartoon may also represent the soldiers' opposition to the war. It may be suggesting that the people who are protesting the war are the ones subjected to the violence of the wars, with the "no war" balloon representing protest and the arm representing the violence the soldiers are subject to.
Along with what Angel said, I think the lack of color is an important aspect of the ad. The lack of color may go along with the emotion the creator was trying to get out from the viewer. Because there is no color they viewer is trying to convey the message that war is sad, and depressing. Also the arm is important in conveying the message of death in the advertisement. Because the arm is separated from the body, it might mean that war is destructive and causes a separation between a group of people, or between countries.
I think that the dull colors and bleeding arm represent the amount of violence that occurs during war. The clouds to the side might symbolize the peace between the two fighting sides after the war. The artist made NO WAR in all capitals to try to show the audience how strongly his beliefs are. I think that if NO WAR would have been in lowercase that it would have been less effective. The artist knows that many peoples lives will be lost and he wants all war to end.
I completely understand that war is horrible and many innocent people die when war occurs. However, I also believe that in certain wars, people are helped as well. In general, war is awful and the benefits don't always outweigh the deaths. Although, the United States has joined wars to help other countries and in some instances the world is left a better place because of our involvement.
I feel this cartoon is the epitome of the phrase "big things come in small packages." While it is so simple, this ad speaks a powerful massage in regards to way and can be interpreted in numerous ways. ONe being the right for "no war" is futile and will only gave a painful end emotionally and maybe even physically for those fighting for peace. Also, there is a rather erie feel to this picture as when one sees a balloon, happy thoughts usually come to mind. However, the decapitated arm throws off the exciting and happy idea of peace and ends a message that "no war" is very unlikely or as stated early would be painful to achieve. But it is well accepted that most things worth while in life should be a struggle to achieve.
I think it is too idealistic to request peace from all countries. There will always be ones who wish to exploit the situation when others are weaker than them. Unfortunately, the fear of retaliation was a major factor that prevented WW III. Probably, asking to reduce the number of military operations and be humane is more realistic?
Post a Comment