PSA or Art?
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/most-horrifying-psa-portrays-addiction-one-worlds-deadliest-drugs-174138
In my previous post, it was mentioned that advertising is a new powerhouse industry that instead of harvesting crops, it harvests attention. With the idea of harvesting attention in mind, where does advertising, regardless of medium, lose its intention? Can something too pretty or too ugly, become a distraction? With content being driven towards inciting emotions or driving triggers, is there a risk for things being lost in translation or transmission?
A film titled “Krokodil Requiem” is making its rounds in Europe as an anti-drug PSA. The lengthy six minute video places the viewer inside the mind of a drug addict. Most are familiar with the endless loop that an addict faces, but the video directed by Romain Demongeot and Sonia Presne, places the audience in a surrealist landscape fueled by a drug known for its ill effects: rotting flesh and heavy psychosis.
This ad is being circulated as a PSA overall of Europe. This is suppose to be an anti-drug message against a cheap heroin alternative that is a derivative of codeine. However, in my opinion, I find myself questioning the value of this ad as a true representative of an anti-drug campaign. Just like the author of the article from adweek.com, Gabriel Beltrone, I too find the video to be more like a promotional work showcasing the skills of the two directors. It’s a music video. I understand the intention of highlighting the ill effects of the drug, both through the animation and the narration. However, are these not the similar concepts found on some of the most popular music videos? For example...
A$AP Rocky - L$D (LOVE x $EX x DREAMS)
Even the length of the PSA video is similar to the length of a music video. The artistic value of both videos is similar, combining live action and animation. Aesthetic qualities aside, how much value did “Krokodil Requiem” actually place on its anti-drug message? Is “Krokodil Requiem” treading on the same thin line that Nancy Reagan’s “Say No” campaign once walked on? The thin line being the campaign’s intended anti-drug message versus its inadvertent intention of making the public more aware of this cheap alternative to heroin. The article mentions that Krokodil use is heavily confined to Russia, but could this campaign that is being broadcasted all over Europe, miss its intended anti-drug purpose with its artistic presentation and create Krokodil markets in other parts of the world?