Catherine Lutz and Jane Collins have written about the various intersecting gazes found in photographs of exotic people and places, which create a certain impression of those people or places by the viewer. Wendy S. Hesford and Brenda Jo Brueggemann have written about the traveling gaze and the identification and difference involved in tourism. I will be using their previous work along with a Lonely Planet web page on Paraguayan tourism and an article by Toby Hill on violence, poverty and corruption in Paraguay, to compare the representation of Paraguay in the media today. I will also use information on Paraguay written by Elizabeth Purdy in the Encyclopedia of World Poverty to support my work. This essay will explore how Paraguay is currently
…show more content…
Hesford and Brueggemann say, “the visual lure of tourism . . . [is] based on a double-sided rhetoric involving identification and difference” (273). The Lonely Planet page displays images of cascading waterfalls (Fig. 1) and detailed historic architecture (Fig. 2), playing on the exotic difference of the images to appeal to tourists. The two images present the idea that Paraguay is a country of history, architecture, and natural beauty, and yet shy away from displaying any images of dirty streets lined with beggars and peddlers, because those images would be too different and “unsafe” in the eyes of a potential tourist. The choice of pictures is what Lutz and Collins call “[t]he magazine’s gaze”, in which the editor “bring[s] out the desired meaning” of the piece by choosing certain images to accompany the information (293). In this situation, the images serve to present Paraguay as a beautiful and exotic location. On the other hand, the news article has barely any picture to support its information and representation of Paraguay. The lone image accompanying the article is a small picture of three cows in a palm tree-riddled pasture (Fig. 3), which does little in promoting Paraguay as an amazing travel destination. Rather, it takes away from that traveling gaze and redirects the viewers attention to the …show more content…
The Lonely Planet site includes a brief introduction of the country, describing its appeal. It sells the idea that “Paraguay is a country of remarkable contrasts . . . it’s extremely poor and obscenely wealthy . . it is a place where horses and carts pull up alongside Mercedes-Benz vehicles” (“Introducing Paraguay”). In this write-up, theses points are presented as a positive and charming aspect of life in Paraguay. It is completely opposite of how Hill’s article sells the same point. Hill explains that Paraguay has “[t]he most unequal land distribution in Latin America,” and that “1.6% of Paraguay 's population controls 80% of its agricultural land” (Hill). The “public land [was divided] among the country 's military and political elite” the country’s former dictator of 35 years, General Stroessner. In addition to this, “a third of the rural population lives in extreme poverty” (Hill). In fact, “[o]ver 30 percent of Paraguayans live on less than $2 a day” (Purdy 2). The “remarkable contrasts” displayed by Lonely Planet are put into a context in which they seem much less charming and appealing, and much more of a serious internal issue (“Introducing Paraguay”). Hill’s article also explains how the vast inequality in wealth is a result of corruption at the
Hesford and Brueggemann say, “the visual lure of tourism . . . [is] based on a double-sided rhetoric involving identification and difference” (273). The Lonely Planet page displays images of cascading waterfalls (Fig. 1) and detailed historic architecture (Fig. 2), playing on the exotic difference of the images to appeal to tourists. The two images present the idea that Paraguay is a country of history, architecture, and natural beauty, and yet shy away from displaying any images of dirty streets lined with beggars and peddlers, because those images would be too different and “unsafe” in the eyes of a potential tourist. The choice of pictures is what Lutz and Collins call “[t]he magazine’s gaze”, in which the editor “bring[s] out the desired meaning” of the piece by choosing certain images to accompany the information (293). In this situation, the images serve to present Paraguay as a beautiful and exotic location. On the other hand, the news article has barely any picture to support its information and representation of Paraguay. The lone image accompanying the article is a small picture of three cows in a palm tree-riddled pasture (Fig. 3), which does little in promoting Paraguay as an amazing travel destination. Rather, it takes away from that traveling gaze and redirects the viewers attention to the …show more content…
The Lonely Planet site includes a brief introduction of the country, describing its appeal. It sells the idea that “Paraguay is a country of remarkable contrasts . . . it’s extremely poor and obscenely wealthy . . it is a place where horses and carts pull up alongside Mercedes-Benz vehicles” (“Introducing Paraguay”). In this write-up, theses points are presented as a positive and charming aspect of life in Paraguay. It is completely opposite of how Hill’s article sells the same point. Hill explains that Paraguay has “[t]he most unequal land distribution in Latin America,” and that “1.6% of Paraguay 's population controls 80% of its agricultural land” (Hill). The “public land [was divided] among the country 's military and political elite” the country’s former dictator of 35 years, General Stroessner. In addition to this, “a third of the rural population lives in extreme poverty” (Hill). In fact, “[o]ver 30 percent of Paraguayans live on less than $2 a day” (Purdy 2). The “remarkable contrasts” displayed by Lonely Planet are put into a context in which they seem much less charming and appealing, and much more of a serious internal issue (“Introducing Paraguay”). Hill’s article also explains how the vast inequality in wealth is a result of corruption at the