Hello everyone,
I believe this campaign might be the wrong way to utilize money and research; this might be a negative way of promoting public habits in attempts to change the environment. The amount of research that is needed to identify every individual seems like it would be a waste of scientific time and energy. It would be almost impossible to be able to detect or “recreate the faces of litterbugs” for everyone who resides in Hong Kong. If littering is such an issue to the country then there should be more things done about the recycling system and the use of products. I don’t think the by targeting individuals in society will help them change or encourage any type of promotion of change. The money could be used to make more efficient …show more content…
This scientific knowledge is being conveyed through a large public demonstration of the current behaviour in their society. Relating this back to how art and science have been complementing each other since the 19th century. This was a strong way to utilize the abilities that science has and the art of technology to create this campaign that can try to publicly alter the decisions of the citizens. The Natural History Museum at Harvard used science to allow students to gain further knowledge about botany. Although the campaign may not be successful the goal of the campaign was to make society aware of the issues in their country, like Harvard intended to do as well. This campaign can also relate to other topics covered in class like “the Masses”, the concept of expressing ideas through mass media complex like this billboard campaign. The general idea is for people to recognize the individuals committing the littering crime. This campaign also can cause some ownership complications with the fact that these “criminals” are not yet officially criminals so their photo or recreated photograph should not be published to the public.
Please let me know if you think this would cause any issues with
I believe this campaign might be the wrong way to utilize money and research; this might be a negative way of promoting public habits in attempts to change the environment. The amount of research that is needed to identify every individual seems like it would be a waste of scientific time and energy. It would be almost impossible to be able to detect or “recreate the faces of litterbugs” for everyone who resides in Hong Kong. If littering is such an issue to the country then there should be more things done about the recycling system and the use of products. I don’t think the by targeting individuals in society will help them change or encourage any type of promotion of change. The money could be used to make more efficient …show more content…
This scientific knowledge is being conveyed through a large public demonstration of the current behaviour in their society. Relating this back to how art and science have been complementing each other since the 19th century. This was a strong way to utilize the abilities that science has and the art of technology to create this campaign that can try to publicly alter the decisions of the citizens. The Natural History Museum at Harvard used science to allow students to gain further knowledge about botany. Although the campaign may not be successful the goal of the campaign was to make society aware of the issues in their country, like Harvard intended to do as well. This campaign can also relate to other topics covered in class like “the Masses”, the concept of expressing ideas through mass media complex like this billboard campaign. The general idea is for people to recognize the individuals committing the littering crime. This campaign also can cause some ownership complications with the fact that these “criminals” are not yet officially criminals so their photo or recreated photograph should not be published to the public.
Please let me know if you think this would cause any issues with