Designer & Fashion Insiders Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[Drusilla_]

I thought this was made up, but apparently not?! If it was really a matter of artistic integrity, then they'd have had the guts to own what they did but nope, plausible (not really) deniability it is because even high fashion knows this crossed a line.

 

[tapenerd]

Yeah they know exactly what they did. You know damn well Demna saw that like 10 times.

 

[upNorth]

Surely there are laws and regulations for having children in advertising, what is permitted and not permitted? How on earth was this ever signed off by a big fashion house, is beyond me.

 

[Hchloe]

That campaign is creepy and inappropriate. I don’t know how anyone can even defend it.

It’s also really annoying that this plays into the right-wing’s obsession with ped0 conspiracy theories.

 

[gunsnroses]

Sorry for not being Open Mind enough, but there's an obvious intention in that campaign. Free speech coalition vs Ashcroft? Really?

View attachment 1221153
twitter.com

The second photo is not part of the campaign with children. It’s part of the adidas x Balenciaga campaign with Bella Hadid and Isabelle Huppert. This story got out of hand when the Republicans and maga losers picked it up. It’s all over Fox News now.

Tbh I don’t see the big deal with the kids holding these teddy bears. I wouldn’t really say the teddy bears are wearing fetish gear. They just look like emo bears.

 

[KoV]

If anyone saw something sexual about that campaign... they're telling on themselves actually.

The second photo is not part of the campaign with children. It’s part of the adidas x Balenciaga campaign with Bella Hadid and Isabelle Huppert. This story got out of hand when the Republicans and maga losers picked it up. It’s all over Fox News now.

Tbh I don’t see the big deal with the kids holding these teddy bears. I wouldn’t really say the teddy bears are wearing fetish gear. They just look like emo bears.

I disagree. I mean, they're not p*rn*gr*ph*c but obviously there was some thought behind choosing to advertise with these specific images. Some of the bears ARE wearing fetish gear, that's just a fact. Like the leather crossbody harness things that two of the bears are wearing. In what context, other than sexual, would someone ever put a teddy bear in a leather harness outfit? lol. I think the whole POINT of it is the juxtaposition of innocent childhood toy and edgy adult gear. This wasn't a random coincidence, it was a creative choice to cast only children in a campaign for an adult collection of products to try and be edgy. And it backfired - or maybe Demna wanted the backlash, I don't even know at this point.

I understand that the court document photo is not from the same campaign, however it is from the same brand and presumably some of the same creative team, produced only weeks apart from one another. It's not crazy to connect the two. The court documents in question refer to a case specifically dealing with child p*rn*gr*phy and advertising. In and of itself that's a curious choice, but to then release these photos of children holding bdsm-themed teddy bears so soon after.... that's enough of a link, I think, to justify people finding it disturbing.

 

[McKinney]

I love the ad! It's enough to trigger a bunch of virtue signaling folks who mask their twisted minds, without losing any money in the process because balenciaga customers aren't the type to get offended over this and rather feed off of transgressions. I would have not apologized.

 

[FelipeV]

I disagree. I mean, they're not p*rn*gr*ph*c but obviously there was some thought behind choosing to advertise with these specific images. Some of the bears ARE wearing fetish gear, that's just a fact. Like the leather crossbody harness things that two of the bears are wearing. In what context, other than sexual, would someone ever put a teddy bear in a leather harness outfit? lol. I think the whole POINT of it is the juxtaposition of innocent childhood toy and edgy adult gear. This wasn't a random coincidence, it was a creative choice to cast only children in a campaign for an adult collection of products to try and be edgy. And it backfired - or maybe Demna wanted the backlash, I don't even know at this point.

I understand that the court document photo is not from the same campaign, however it is from the same brand and presumably some of the same creative team, produced only weeks apart from one another. It's not crazy to connect the two. The court documents in question refer to a case specifically dealing with child p*rn*gr*phy and advertising. In and of itself that's a curious choice, but to then release these photos of children holding bdsm-themed teddy bears so soon after.... that's enough of a link, I think, to justify people finding it disturbing.

Like you said, also I'm really tired of the gaslight "If you see something wrong it's because of you" or trying to define anyone that points the campaigns has maga far-right extremist (like if the world revolved around USA). In the last decade, media (and fashion) has crossed several lines about children sxuallization and this has to stop.

 

[McKinney]

The only thing that would make this ad even better is if they plopped a drag queen alongside the kids

 

[KoV]

The only thing that would make this ad even better is if they plopped a drag queen alongside the kids

A good example of why it's hard to have actual discussions these days. No room for nuance. At least one of the bears being clutched by a small child in the advertisement is wearing BDSM gear. That is a bondage harness. Point blank period. Seeing it as such does not mean you have a "twisted mind" or that you're "telling on yourself". Balenciaga tries to be subversive. What is the point of the bears if not the dichotomy between beloved childhood toy and adult kink/edge? Seeing it as such and thus finding the ad inappropriate also doesn't mean you're a MAGA "free the children" person. If this image was being presented in a gallery, I don't think anyone would be trying to deny that the choice to have a child hold said BDSM bear is some kind of statement or irony, done for shock value. And in the context of art, I'm not sure people would have such a problem with it. But because it's an advertisement, because it's selling you something and the brand is viewed by the general public as elite-adjacent, it's being viewed more harshly. I think that's fair. There has to be a line, especially for advertising. It's possible that two things can be true; that the ad is inappropriate and that some people who are critical of the ad are engaging in hypocritical hand-wringing and not criticizing in good faith. Anyone implying that everyone who finds the ad inappropriate is either a pervert themselves and/or a MAGA alt-right person, the type that also has issues with drag queens, is making no less a reach than those saying anyone involved in the ad is a p*dophile.

 

[Machinegumm]

If they wanted to create a dichotomy between innocent childhood and growing up they could've put the bears in some punk outfits or something along those lines. Or put them in a boring office setting.
But no, they had to go all 3edgy5me.

I hope they try to spin it. Like, it was just satire, guys! Or my favorite: "it was a social experiment"!

 

[WilliamsLe010919]

They said they’re taking legal actions againts the creatives involved in the set design. My a*s. They know what they did and of course important people from the brand was involved in the production (Denma included) I don’t know if they thought they were Carine or if they were doing something groundbreaking, but it is absolutely disgusting.

f*ck Kering! legal action against the set designer??? Who's the one approved the concept and the final images? The set designer must have done that too right?
Own up your f*cking mess and shut up!

 

[YohjiAddict]

I find it fun. To me it’s just about to cross a line…but I don’t really see how it harms children. Maybe I’m the problem…

 

[HeatherAnne]

I find it fun. To me it’s just about to cross a line…but I don’t really see how it harms children. Maybe I’m the problem…

You don't see how promoting child p*rn*gr*phy is dangerous? Yeah, sorry, you are the problem. And don't come at me with "it's not doing that", the court papers make the statement with a exclamation mark behind it.

Sadly Balenciaga got the attention they wanted from this, and enticed creeps everywhere in doing so [including a few around here who have sprung out from the woodwork after never posting -- vile].

Let's face it: Stunts like these in the name of "pushing fashion boundaries" is what they have to do now, because nobody has given a sh*t about their label since Ghesquiere was there. [Yawn].

 

[HeatherAnne]

The only thing that would make this ad even better is if they plopped a drag queen alongside the kids

Jesus, what?? Let's not put drag queens in the same conversation as child exploitation, don't know where the heck you're going with this.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

I wanna hear more from Kering/Balenciaga. Somebody said the brand is scaling back Demna's creative control now and Kim might sever her ties. It seems like his bubble of edgy fashion friends has created a strong enough barrier to not see that regular people may think his ironic "art" may cross the line, even if they're trying to provoke for attention. Demna is from a circle of people that draw a lot of their inspiration from that chronically online schizo 4chan culture. Just go on /b/ (don't) and it is clear as day. The last show with everyone looking like a depressed schizoid eating junk food living in squalor is a great example. Look his friends, was bffs with Gosha, who was obsessed with kids and got caught asking a 16 y/o for nudes. Always used literal boy models and even had very disturbing imagery in his actual clothes at times. Lotta is quite into with the Lolita look [which of course isn't a crime and can obv be very chic (e.g. miumiu etc)]. I really don't know if Demna is a "pedo", I kinda really don't think he is, but this whole situation goes to show that rich people are on another level than us and don't have the same types of human interactions. We aren't the same lol and it is kind of hard to hold them to a standard of being "moral" when they just are not, but the least they could do was draw the line on something like this. Demna needs a hard reality check. It's totally inappropriate and creepy to normal people to be spreading stuff like this around.

 

[MulletProof]

^ I don't think it has to do with wealth and they are the same, same if not more mundane when it comes to human interactions. They're just so corporate, and simultaneously wanting so bad the cultural capital that proves they're not. They want to be transgressive in a way that validates them in the eyes of the art world, the last frontier for some of them. They sell the most commercial, simplistic, widely advertised type of fashion but market themselves as art scene oddballs with a penchant for images that's 'not like everybody else's feed' (even if it's the exact same as everybody else trying to make it in that scene)-: picture of a teddy bear in heels, a pixelated screenshot of a vacuum informercial in the 1994, toddlers in mud, Dsquared in 2004, Jeff Koons and Anna Nicole Smith eating lobster together. Could go on. But hm sure, you're.. unpredictable. A 'sharp' eye for the bizarre humor of societal life that is only surpassed by your dedication in carefully nailing this long application for access into a world that doesn't even ask for 1/3 of that lol.

I find it fun. To me it’s just about to cross a line…but I don’t really see how it harms children. Maybe I’m the problem…

I wonder if you're like me and initially just saw a pic of the kid holding that plush animal and were like ??.. it's the documents what solidify the point of the story and make it kind of awful.

That being said, maybe people could leave Michael Borremans out of this? his book was just dumped into this cause you know.. first paragraph of this post.

 

[GivenchyHomme]

Imgflip

 

[LadyJunon]

I don't think this is pedophilic, but more just outright ********, tone-deaf and senseless.

In full brutal honesty, Demna's whole fashion identity is controversy. He presents his Balenciaga as this "radical industry changing social commentary visionary narrated through the art of fashion" when in truth, he sells hoodies, sneakers and the occasional puffer jacket or windbreaker.

Of course, Demna would never admit that his Balenciaga is purely commercial, so he'll push his shows, his campaigns, his storefront to do the "transgression" his clothes alone can't.

His desperation to appear as he has retained any sort of creative integrity, to appear that he's above being a cog in a corporate machine leads to him making sh*t like this, hoping that the fashion industry will continue to see him as the iconic artistic visionary for the future for high fashion, when he'll soon be in its past.

It happened to Poiret, Schiaparelli, Balenciaga, Saint Laurent, Westwood, Galliano, McQueen and it will happen to Demna and Ghesquiére is probably salty enough to cackle at him and Kering as it happens.

 

[LadyJunon]

Hedi and Nicolas right now: