Let's take a concrete example. A clothing brand decides to use avatars to illustrate its collections ( Mango or Calida have done this ). Why not, if it makes it possible to imagine looks in surreal settings or to see the product from all possible angles. But if the same brand starts using synthetic models without ever showing a real person, then I say: beware! Because there is a risk that you send a message that does not correspond to what people expect. Trying to have everything under control ends up dehumanizing the message.
So where does this leave us? are the future indonesia rcs data of visual marketing? Yes, and no. They are part of it, that's for sure. But I am convinced that the key is a subtle balance. Artificial intelligence and digital avatars can and should be tools to enrich human creativity, but they must not replace it. They are a bit like an assistant that saves you time, but never replaces your creative vision. Their use must be clear and, above all, it must enrich the experience rather than diluting it with superficialities. They should serve humans, not replace them.
The so-called "gender-neutral language" is imprecise, and the gender star is just the special symbol of an ideology. If you don't want to refer to a specific gender, you can consistently use the generic masculine. It's only when you avoid it that it becomes awkward, misleading and often simply wrong. The fact that it's called "die Gabel" and "der Löffel" has just as little to do with the gender of cutlery as "die Orphan" or "der Werber" has to do with the sex of people: The article refers to the gender of the word, not the sex of the person. That's it. Or has anyone ever said "der Leicherich" (instead of "die Leiche") because a man was dead?
- Board index
- All times are UTC
- Delete cookies
- Contact us