Most campaigns rely on photographs because the moment you do something that is a graphic interpretation where any artistic license has been taken, I think a lot of people are scared that it's going to be perceived as propaganda.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There's a pressure to conform to particular images, and it feels a pretty exclusive pool of body image or facial image that is considered appealing. And in a way, that feels like pre-judging what an audience might actually want.
Art is more engaging that propaganda.
We are obsessed with image. I don't think we should take it that seriously.
The reporting of news has to be understood as propaganda for commodities, and events by images.
Our photographs are filthier and our stories are more disgusting. We make no effort to be artistic.
I think people are more apt to believe photographs, especially if it's something fantastic. They're willing to be more gullible. Sometimes they want fantasy.
Editorial imagery licensing includes celebrity, entertainment, sports, and news images that capture what is happening in the world around us.
We live in an image society. Speeches are not what anybody cares about; what they care about is the picture.
In any country, in any city, there will be political influence on what is said, what kind of images are to be projected and, yes, of course artists can be and are influenced by politicians.
Fashion pictures show people looking glamorous. Travel pictures show a place looking at its best, nothing to do with the reality. In the cookery pages, the food always looks amazing, right? Most of the pictures we consume are propaganda.