What a spectacle this ad is.
Is it me, or is the irony of the Polar Bear as the monster mascot of environmentalism passed its expiration date? Animals in advertising reach us on a very basic level, I think. But it's possible that the animals with which we identify the most are the ones that remind of us ourselves... the comic clown of the lesser apes, the moony eyes of baby seals, or the chatty dolphin are easily commercialized symbols because they're non-threatening and there's something primal and appealing about them.
Polar bears, as majestic and vulnerable as they are, are terrifying. Why haven't environmental organization picked up on the fact that if you don't already understand the issues of global climate change, felling a monster in dramatic fashion isn't going to help with the uptake of the real issue? Now, an actual polar bear corpse on a London street might be more jarring and affective, but I wonder if the metaphorical purchase of these bears as victims is culturally specific and, as such, lost on urban Europeans.
Tony Bianco's design for the twonie's 10th anniversary in 2000
depicts the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next.
This image is familiar and germane to Canadians who are familiar with
theecological niche of these animals.
I think Canadians (maybe some Russians too) are predisposed to revere the creatures of the far north because our national mythology is tied up with these animals, but do images of polar bears resonate with European or American audiences? How about Chinese or East Indian? Is it enough that the white bear is already the poster-beast for global warming, or should campaigns like these be re-tooled to convey the human cost of greenhouse emissions.
Thoughts?
