Alexander Wang S/S 2017 by Inez van Lamsweerde & Vinoodh Matadin

[dsamg]

Yet, people on here will still say 'oh, but this is real! Me and my friends act like this every weekend'. *extended eyeroll*

Umm, no. I get that many guys have a vague understanding of r*pe culture but just, wow. When people say this is what they do every weekend, they mean drink, 420, etc. NOT glamourise r*pe. Partying and r*pe - two completely different topics. That is NOT what people here are saying they do.

 

[sixtdaily]

This is nothing new to be honest. Dolce & Gabbana did that 10 years ago...

Hmm the fact that DG did it 10 years ago does not make it more acceptable. It wasn't okay in 2007 and it's still not okay today.

I'm not offended, but you can't deny that this image is disturbing. I don't mind the use of provocation or sexuality in fashion photography, but I think Wang has crossed the line here. What kind of message do you send when you use such a picture in your marketing, or when you have a man accused of pedophilia posing next to a young model in your campaign? At some point big brands like Alexander Wang need to realize the influence they have and take responsibility, because the way they behave is not provocative, but pathetic.

I liked the first images of the campaign that were posted here, but I hope they will ditch the wangover concept next season.

 

[June]

Not that I applaud for using R Kelly in this campaign but Anna Ewers is certainly no minor and doesn't look like one. If that is what they were going for she would have been a miscast so I guess it was not. And I don't see those pictures as glorifying pedophilia. I don't love them either but I think this is just too much ado about not so much.

 

[Spike413]

Maybe I'm dense, maybe I'm a closet optimist, maybe I just don't read enough Buzzfeed, but the fact that the immediate conclusion that some have jumped to after seeing the last batch of of pics is "pedophilia" and "r*pe" disturbs me a hell of a lot more than the content of the photos themselves. Have we really, as a culture, been so thoroughly conditioned to think the absolute worst about everything over the last handful of years that we can look at a photo and immediately assume that the woman or women is/are being victimized?!

Jesus Christ! How on earth is assuming that every young woman who's being depicted in some sort of subtly or overtly sexual scenario is doing so against her free will somehow conflated with taking a feminist perspective of it? Am I the damaged one for looking at that last black and white picture and not immediately thinking he's forcing himself on her, thinking that she's a willing participant, that they're both totally drunk, and uninhibited, and so horny and into each other in that instant that they don't care if they have sex on the floor?

And please don't anyone try to tell me that there's only one single, concrete way of reading that image. There absolutely isn't. Just as there are a multitude of ways in which to view the content of a photograph by Newton, or Von Wangenheim, or Bourdin, there's more than one story that can be gleaned from this photo as well. I'm well aware that sexual assault against women is a massive issue still plaguing society, and that it ties into much larger issues regarding how women are valued in general -- I'm not questioning those facts. I'm not even questioning why people don't like the photo as a creation, because from a composition standpoint I don't like it very much myself. I'm questioning why the assumption of some is that the woman in that embrace is a helpless victim rather than an active participant who's enjoying herself.

 

[artemovartem]

+Issa Lish, Adwoa Aboah and Stella Lucia.

instagram/alexanderwangny

 

[guimon]

Tragic.

 

[artemovartem]

More pics with Issa, Adwoa & Stella


instagram/alexanderwangny

 

[Benn98]

Maybe I'm dense, maybe I'm a closet optimist, maybe I just don't read enough Buzzfeed, but the fact that the immediate conclusion that some have jumped to after seeing the last batch of of pics is "pedophilia" and "r*pe" disturbs me a hell of a lot more than the content of the photos themselves. Have we really, as a culture, been so thoroughly conditioned to think the absolute worst about everything over the last handful of years that we can look at a photo and immediately assume that the woman or women is/are being victimized?!

Jesus Christ! How on earth is assuming that every young woman who's being depicted in some sort of subtly or overtly sexual scenario is doing so against her free will somehow conflated with taking a feminist perspective of it? Am I the damaged one for looking at that last black and white picture and not immediately thinking he's forcing himself on her, thinking that she's a willing participant, that they're both totally drunk, and uninhibited, and so horny and into each other in that instant that they don't care if they have sex on the floor?

And please don't anyone try to tell me that there's only one single, concrete way of reading that image. There absolutely isn't. Just as there are a multitude of ways in which to view the content of a photograph by Newton, or Von Wangenheim, or Bourdin, there's more than one story that can be gleaned from this photo as well. I'm well aware that sexual assault against women is a massive issue still plaguing society, and that it ties into much larger issues regarding how women are valued in general -- I'm not questioning those facts. I'm not even questioning why people don't like the photo as a creation, because from a composition standpoint I don't like it very much myself. I'm questioning why the assumption of some is that the woman in that embrace is a helpless victim rather than an active participant who's enjoying herself.

Firstly, just to clarify...I don't read Buzzfeed. It wouldn't have made any difference either way imo, but it seems this is used as a detraction (or put-down) in many 'pro' arguments on this forum. It's getting old really fast!
Secondly, I think what you're failing to understand is how opinions are formed. You're making the mistake of assuming that everyone opposing that image is clutching their pearls, or 'conditioned' to scream 'outrage' for the faintest sight of subversion. Not true! Do you go to mainstream clubs, do you ever hang out with straight all-male circles and hear the type of chatter which goes around, do you watch straight p*rn generated by men for men, read the news, or are you even familiar with the struggles most young women face? Factor in all these influences and maybe you'd be inclined to have a little bit more empathy to at least try and comprehend why some regard that image as glamorising r*pe/violence.
Same applies to the R Kelly shot. Context is everything. If he was shot on his own, no allusions to paedophilia would've been mentioned, I'm sure. But for many of us who are familiar with his history, a very clear image was etched and stored subconsciously at the time. So the moment we'd see him with a young girl, of course that image will be revisited. Does that mean we are unable to regard anything he does with a young-looking girl without bias? Maybe. But the same would apply to a convicted paedophile, so why must there be a distinction? With such sensitive issues the imperfect human thought-processing doesn't always allow for fair and logical thinking. Count yourself lucky that you're one of the few who just see the image for what it is....

I personally feel your comments are out of touch. But then I'm sure you'd think even less about my thoughts, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

I will agree with you that the 'outrage brigade' in general have reached fever pitch, and that in some cases it's rather exasperating. But it's important not to be dismissive and to look at every single case and see which is justified, and which isn't.

 

[Perickles]

I like it. They are very provoking and they are selling a concept more than neat, high definition with fabulous supermodels images. They are different and cool.

 

[jeremydante]

i like the casting. but this looks boring, too pedestrian. i know that was the vibe, but i like the usual black and white, street chic thing they do.

 

[Spike413]

Firstly, just to clarify...I don't read Buzzfeed. It wouldn't have made any difference either way imo, but it seems this is used as a detraction (or put-down) in many 'pro' arguments on this forum. It's getting old really fast!
Secondly, I think what you're failing to understand is how opinions are formed. You're making the mistake of assuming that everyone opposing that image is clutching their pearls, or 'conditioned' to scream 'outrage' for the faintest sight of subversion. Not true! Do you go to mainstream clubs, do you ever hang out with straight all-male circles and hear the type of chatter which goes around, do you watch straight p*rn generated by men for men, read the news, or are you even familiar with the struggles most young women face? Factor in all these influences and maybe you'd be inclined to have a little bit more empathy to at least try and comprehend why some regard that image as glamorising r*pe/violence.
Same applies to the R Kelly shot. Context is everything. If he was shot on his own, no allusions to paedophilia would've been mentioned, I'm sure. But for many of us who are familiar with his history, a very clear image was etched and stored subconsciously at the time. So the moment we'd see him with a young girl, of course that image will be revisited. Does that mean we are unable to regard anything he does with a young-looking girl without bias? Maybe. But the same would apply to a convicted paedophile, so why must there be a distinction? With such sensitive issues the imperfect human thought-processing doesn't always allow for fair and logical thinking. Count yourself lucky that you're one of the few who just see the image for what it is....

I personally feel your comments are out of touch. But then I'm sure you'd think even less about my thoughts, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

I will agree with you that the 'outrage brigade' in general have reached fever pitch, and that in some cases it's rather exasperating. But it's important not to be dismissive and to look at every single case and see which is justified, and which isn't.

Firstly, my remark about Buzzfeed wasn't solely directed at you, so you can rest easy in the knowledge that I wasn't taking some potshot at you or your opinion alone, nor was I saying it was invalid. In all actuality, I was questioning the opinions I saw and why they immediately skewed in the direction they did.

Trust me, I'm quite aware of how opinions are formed. Spend 30 years living and growing in a place where you're surrounded by so many different
types of people and it becomes rather hard to be, as you've accused me of being, "out of touch". As I made a point to say in my own post, I'm very well aware of the fact that r*pe and sexual assault against women is at once its own issue, and a symptom of a larger one. That does not, however, mean that I'm oblivious to the fact that the majority of straight men, for all of their flaws and faults and "behind the curve" qualities as a population within society, are not in fact r*pists. Yes, some are, too many in fact, but the picture you just painted while implying that I live in a bubble of gay men ("do you go to mainstream clubs, do you ever hang out with straight all-male circles and hear the type of chatter which goes around, do you watch straight p*rn generated by men for men, read the news, or are you even familiar with the struggles most young women face?" - talk about being dismissive of someone's opinion while accusing them of dismissing yours) is essentially that most if not all straight men mistreat women as a rule. Again, plenty do, but to paint all of them as r*pists or even as being predisposed to wanting to r*pe someone, and then to allow that dangerous over-generalization to color your perception of a photograph is really not okay. It's no different than when all gay men were (and still are) painted as pedophiles, or as mistrustful deviants trying to lure straight men down a path of sodomy and damnation simply because some happen to be. Fact.

As for the last question you posed before lecturing me on my lack of empathy, I'm acutely aware of the struggles that women face. Being raised by a single mother, surrounded by a predominantly female-led family, engaging throughout my entire life with a majority of female friends, and working/interacting with at least as many women as I do men, I'm well versed in what women face, and I stand with them while facing it. But I also know that not every single woman in my life would look at that picture of a young woman who does not appear to be fighting that young man off -- her hands are not pushing him away or trying to fight him, her face is tilted backwards in what looks like a moment of sexual gratification as opposed to expressing fear, pain or anger in any way that could be unambiguously read by the viewer -- and see a woman being raped or assaulted, again going back to my original point that there is simply no concrete way of interpreting the image, much as there is no concrete way of interpreting a Rorschach ink blot. If being able to look at a fashion photograph and not see r*pe where r*pe is not being unambiguously depicted makes me un-empathetic then so be it.

Funnily enough I do consider myself very lucky in my being able to differentiate between what I'm actually seeing and what I think I'm seeing. It's a gift that's proven very useful while navigating through this thing called life.

 

[Bahiyya]

Spike, I don't know if anyone has suggested that there is only a single valid interpretation to the images in question. I do think it is a bit to much to feel much amazement that others have a more negative interpretation than you do. It's pretty easy to see why--from the body positions to the liquor bottle. Images exist in various contexts and for so many the details line up with countless awful stories. (Then you include R Kelly in the campaign!?! Heavens to mergatroid.)

By so passionately defending what you may feel to be a minority position you've implied that those who disagree are "disturbed" somehow, thus attempting to invalidate their opinions right off the bat. It's a roundabout way to present what you yourself want to no one tell you -- that there's only one valid/right/objective/unbiased way of reading the image.

There's perhaps an interesting dialogue that can talk place about those particular images in this campaign but idk if it will happen if one thinks we're bent and the other thinks we don't understand how this opinion thing works .

I find the whole set uninspiring but it's Wang after all. Steven Klein did something similar in an ed (with Kidman...?) in a manner that encouraged a more thoughtful reaction than whatever that image is.

 

[guimon]

Funny how literally none of the semi exclusives got the campaign. It's the same old ''wang squad'' as usual. I'm bored. A batch of fresh new faces starring the campaign for once, would be quite refreshing.

Btw, he gave up on Katie Moore pretty fast, didn't he?

 

[Lax89]

Is there a campaign video ?

 

[gazebo]

I find it disturbing that some people don't find the "r*pe" pic disturbing.
You can tell yourself any story you want, but it's not about the story, it's not about a guessing game, it's about visibility.

The woman is on a concrete floor, there's a guy watching standing on some of her hair, the angle makes it look like one of the guys around is photographing them which is a real issue in itself. She is in a very compromising position, period.
You can say, some people are turned on by pain, or exhibitionism, or being completely submissive, but this is not what it LOOKS like.

I think it sends a wrong message to both girls and boys and is irresponsible. It's extremely unsexy and frankly disgusting.

 

[dsamg]

I find it disturbing that some people don't find the "r*pe" pic disturbing.
You can tell yourself any story you want, but it's not about the story, it's not about a guessing game, it's about visibility.

The woman is on a concrete floor, there's a guy watching standing on some of her hair, the angle makes it look like one of the guys around is photographing them which is a real issue in itself. She is in a very compromising position, period.
You can say, some people are turned on by pain, or exhibitionism, or being completely submissive, but this is not what it LOOKS like.

I think it sends a wrong message to both girls and boys and is irresponsible. It's extremely unsexy and frankly disgusting.

I do find it very disturbing but I guess the rationale is that these images were actually taken during the Beats party. Many Instagrams from the party showed these people hanging out in the same clothes in the same groups, even with the same drinks. A lot of these scenes were already in Insta stories on the night. And as the 'r*pe image' was a party scene, I don't think I&V were standing over taking pictures as she was getting raped. It was obvious something friendly going on, so I guess although our instincts are to interpret it is disturbing, it clearly wasn't.

 

[Spike413]

Spike, I don't know if anyone has suggested that there is only a single valid interpretation to the images in question. I do think it is a bit to much to feel much amazement that others have a more negative interpretation than you do. It's pretty easy to see why--from the body positions to the liquor bottle. Images exist in various contexts and for so many the details line up with countless awful stories. (Then you include R Kelly in the campaign!?! Heavens to mergatroid.)

By so passionately defending what you may feel to be a minority position you've implied that those who disagree are "disturbed" somehow, thus attempting to invalidate their opinions right off the bat. It's a roundabout way to present what you yourself want to no one tell you -- that there's only one valid/right/objective/unbiased way of reading the image.

There's perhaps an interesting dialogue that can talk place about those particular images in this campaign but idk if it will happen if one thinks we're bent and the other thinks we don't understand how this opinion thing works .

I find the whole set uninspiring but it's Wang after all. Steven Klein did something similar in an ed (with Kidman...?) in a manner that encouraged a more thoughtful reaction than whatever that image is.

You've completely misinterpreted almost everything I said if that's what you took away from it. My initial post expressed the fact that I was disturbed that some people immediately jumped to the worst possible interpretation of the image, as well as questioning (quite fairly, unless questioning someone's opinion is off limits) why it is that that's the case, so with all due respect please don't incorrectly summarize what I said as having been an implication that anyone is disturbed. If that had been what I meant to say I would have stated it outright instead of implying it.

Furthermore, to your first point, the person I responded to very much did hint that there is a "valid" way of interpreting the image which speaks to a person's empathy level, and one which does not. That may not be as simple as saying one opinion is correct and the other is not, or one which matters more than the other, but I'd say that positioning one view of the image as being that of someone with an awareness of the feelings of others and another view of the image as being that of someone with no awareness of/regard for the feelings of others is pretty much the same as dividing the opinions about it into categories of "valid" and "invalid". In fact, perhaps it's slightly worse since it indirectly questions someone's decency as a human being.

 

[Spike413]

I find it disturbing that some people don't find the "r*pe" pic disturbing.
You can tell yourself any story you want, but it's not about the story, it's not about a guessing game, it's about visibility.

The woman is on a concrete floor, there's a guy watching standing on some of her hair, the angle makes it look like one of the guys around is photographing them which is a real issue in itself. She is in a very compromising position, period.
You can say, some people are turned on by pain, or exhibitionism, or being completely submissive, but this is not what it LOOKS like.

I think it sends a wrong message to both girls and boys and is irresponsible. It's extremely unsexy and frankly disgusting.

You left out the part of that statement which should have said "to me".

And speaking of compromising positions, since you used that as the basis for why you see it the way you see it, would you be as disgusted by it and would you have labeled it "the r*pe pic" if the guy and the girl were literally swapped? If he were prone on the floor holding himself up the exact same way that she is and if she were straddling him like that with a bottle of booze in her hand while people watched them would you automatically assume that he was being forced against his will to have sex, or would you assume that she's just taking the lead in whatever tryst may be about to occur now that she's in the "dominant" position?

If it's the latter, it raises some pretty interesting questions for me.

 

[sixtdaily]

I think we all agree that there is not one correct way of reading this image. With no context, it's the experiences we've had, situations we've witnessed, Buzzfeed articles we've read shifty or simply the reality we live in as individuals of different ages, origins etc. that lead us to our own interpretation of what's going on here.

However, Spike, we have a context here. This image is on the instagram of a fashion brand with millions of followers, next to several pictures of a man known for his predatory behavior towards young girls. That doesn't leave much room for interpretation and in my humble opinion, this is wrong and very irresponsible. If you disagree that's okay for me, I don't think you're disturbed. The disturbed one here is Wang for profiting off of a sex offender in order to sell his clothes.

 

[gazebo]

Spike, I actually did try to envision the same pic with man on man, woman on woman and of course woman on man. Each one would have a different cultural context.

The scenario shown is the most sensitive and problematic one.
Maybe this girl likes it, but maybe just maybe, she doesn't, and does it really matter if she wants it or not?

Wang is trying to sell a brand of cool.
There is an insinuation that most girls are uptight, but some girls, who wear Wang, are cool, and wild and like it hard on a concrete floor with other people watching, and if you wanna be cool just like them you should be like that too or at least pretend to like it.

It might seem progressive, like gender equality, but to me it's very archaic and sexist and frankly dangerous.

It's not cool, it's pathetic.