Two years ago, Nike was criticized for featuring football athelete Wayne Rooney in a cross-pose which was described as “chilling” by a story on the Daily Mail.
An inadvertent reprise to this is a recent ad for Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao in anticipation of his fight with Oscar dela Hoya:
Advertising blogger, WAWAM, describes the ad as offensive to Christian sensibilities:
the art director choosing to show manny with his hands stretched apart is not really to show manny in prayer, but it mimicks the position of Christ on the cross. manny’s hands stretched out that way in front of a cross is what i find offensive. it violates one of the most revered images in the catholic faith – Christ’s sacrifice of his life during the crucifiction. the nike ad wants us to think that manny is nailed to the cross, as Christ was. that is very offensive.
Granted that the cross symbol is important to Christians, but the usage is so ubiquitious and prevalent throughout history that perhaps the religious sentiment might be taking it a little too seriously.
However, the Pacquiao ad does have blatant references to Christian prayers–which to a country like the Philippines that is 80% Catholic might be really toeing the line of religious tolerance.
I agree. The religious are always taking it seriously. Dogmatics. Anyway, most media and ad co.s only have filthy money on their minds.
Context is wasted on the overly-zealous.
non-ownership of a symbol, if it all “total ownership” in this sense exist, does not give license for anyone to use the symbol in an offensive manner. the fact of that matter is, it is a widely accepted and regarded fact that the cross is a symbol owned by christianity.
it is also widely known and that includes even the filipino art director who is most likely a catholic (given that 80% are in the country), that christ on the cross is central to the catholic faith.
^ It’s also a historical fact that other parties have used crosses and cross-symbology pre-dating and ante-dating the emergence of Christianity.
Offense is the prerogative of the viewer, but jump from taking offense to taking ownership is quite a leap of faith don’t you think?
As you have mentioned, the impact (in your case: offense) of the act is dependent on the prevalance of Catholicism here in the Philippines. Does a localized context imply ownership?
What you should be probably asking: did Nike intend to offend you or Catholics by running the ad?
nice reply Mark.
MTM, for me the issue is not ownership but sensitivity to and respect of the religious beliefs of other people.
Agnostics and atheists are entitled to their own beliefs (or non-belief) and that is perfectly fine with me. I am entitled to my religious beliefs and I would take offense if a prayer and the cross that both have strong personal meanings to Christians and to me personally are used for something bordering on sacrilege.
On the aspect of local context, would Nike put a similar ad in Muslim Saudi Arabia that would allude to the Koran or Mohammed, for example? The “overly-zealous” (as called by aratron) populace there will immediately impose a death sentence on the infidels for insulting their religion. Is their response correct? Maybe not from a non-Muslim point of view. Do they have the right to feel offended? This non-Muslim thinks so.
To quote the related article that MTM last posted: “Context is the important factor to consider when facing similar cases of pareidolia–although the cause of the phenomenon is still debatable amongst researchers. In the case of the aforementioned Nike ad–pareidolia tendencies merge with intentional marketing to create the impact and arguably this is proving to be a very effective strategy although evidently some Christians do not enjoy the effect.”
The Wayne Rooney ad is gross for its shock effect. The Pacquiao ad is not gross but can be offensive to some Christians, regardless of whether there was intent or not from Nike.
Again, respect and sensitivity are the foundations of tolerance. And this applies to everyone – believers or agnostics.
Like I said earlier, the right to offense is the prerogative of the viewer–but imposing an action based on context is debatable.
I wonder if a unilateral “avoid ads with religious connotations” pacifies both sides satisfactorily–although it would have definitely prevented these kinds of ads (and the consequent offense) from airing.
Like the recent cease and desist order from the ASC could be misconstrued as restricting creative expression. Objectively though, the reference to prayer (i.e. “Give us this day”) can be pinned, but the liking of Pacquiao kneeling to Christ on the cross can be a bit of stretch. And there have been people that pointed out that Rooney’s ad was a spin on the British Union Jack and not Christ as well. This difference of opinion is what led me to study pareidolia later.
But I agree with your statement on respect. It really is a fine line between religious freedom and freedom of expression sometimes–and I think both are deserving of our respect on equal levels.
I wonder if Newsweek got any flak for their appropriation of cross imagery on the cover of their July 23, 2007, issue.
Cover reproduced with commentary here:
http://starlarvae.blogspot.com/2007/07/it-takes-village-to-raise-dead.html
The Rooney Ad seems gory. The Pacman Ad looks fine. He always does that during his fights.
people are stupid. why should this offend. that has already happened. its doesnt offend Yahweh. trust me.
This physical position has (good health) equivalents in yoga and chigong.
And DJ’s do this a lot. It reminded me of Tiesto, actually. One example: