Louis Vuitton F/W 09.10 : Madonna by Steven Meisel

[Jacque Marcel]

Ugh, I thought it would get better than the first shot but obviously not. It was a "fun" collection and these ads do not reflect that.

 

[testinofan]

more ads more i hate more auful Meisel this a joke??

 

[gossiping]

what's up with the colouring?

 

[XavierRaphael]

Safe to say this is a lost cause.

 

[tigerrouge]

Some of the colours are nice, they look like "strange negatives", I'll be interested to see the colours in print.

But in general, the colour effect doesn't add much to the image for me, I don't see any 'story' in it. Adding another layer of photo manipulation (the colour) over an existing layer (Madonna's appearance) doesn't automatically make an image more artistic.

 

[AnaBGD]

umm... ha ha... does this really sell?

 

[mikel]

LV will always sell no matter what.

 

[ForChicSake]

holy crap, the first ad looked okay to me but this is rubbish

 

[b9409]

Well it's terrible, but it does what it's supposed.
I'm drawn to the bag.
I'm sure women will be too and they would buy it!

Do you guys realize that the ads somehow camouflage/conceal the clothes and even Madonna, but push forward solely the bags? The only thing you can see clearly in these frames are the perfectly-lit bags which have been carefully protected from the photoshop filters, neon negatives and/or dark shadows. It is quite transparent really what they try to accomplish: SELL BADS ANS BAGS AND BAGS... immediately. They do not risk this mission by randomly pushing forward anything else in the frame or aiming too create some sense of democracy in the frames. And that is precisely why the filter used here is particularly robust in style.

I like the fact that this is a brand new look and fresh visual style- for LV that is, but it is not really unique, but rather tacky. And Madonna adds another thick layer of 'cheese' to these images, which are already, and thematically, tacky to begin with: with the silk bunny ears and neon lights and everything.



PS: Could this somehow be some glam version of Donnie Darko or whatever that movie was called with the bunny and shadows and everything?? If it is then I daresay it is unsuccessful.

smh.com.au
queensofrandom.com
filmfestivals.com

 

[avantgarde]

i like the very last one posted, but that's about it

i hate the unnecessary exclusion layer on all of these

 

[b9409]

EDIT: I have tried to post pics from the blog, but no luck. But visit it and you can see all of images from the campaign.


http://www.designscene.net/2009/06/madonna-for-louis-vuitton-part-2.html

 

[Miss Dalloway]

The new one looks okay, but I don't like the Man Ray like effects going on, it's too much.

Mikel you totally nailed it! Was wondering about the reference of the glaring back color effect and where i seen it, its very Man Ray without his brilliant touch of course. Meisel totally ruined this imo, it could have been good actually.

 

[mikel]

EDIT: I have tried to post pics from the blog, but no luck. But visit it and you can see all of images from the campaign.


http://www.designscene.net/2009/06/madonna-for-louis-vuitton-part-2.html

Thanks for sharing!

Seeing them altogether is just extra prove to me that the entire campaign is a joke!

 

[mikel]

Mikel you totally nailed it! Was wondering about the reference of the glaring back color effect and where i seen it, its very Man Ray without his brilliant touch of course. Meisel totally ruined this imo, it could have been good actually.

Thanks. I agree with you. The Man Ray (or solarization) effect would have been okay if the ads were not as layered and were in black and white.

 

[haksare]

The coloring is sooo distracting
She looks so lifeless, a mannequin would have more emotion. Seeing the collection, I was expecting French play girl frolicking for men, not Alice on a psychedelic acid trip.

 

[Fabulyss]

"One interesting part is that each image is digitally enhanced with colorizing effects that somehow recall the high-dynamic range photography, giving to the new campaign an absolutely contemporary yet timeless vibe. "


^Can someone please explain what they mean by 'range photography'?

 

[mikel]

^I'm not familiar with that term, but I think they mean the solarized photos from early 20th century. Like in the work of Man Ray.

 

[LagerfeldBoy]

unfortunately i'm not loving the campaign as much as the collection. The set and poses are what annoy me the most. I mean seriously she's gonna be sitting or laying in every shot with such stiff poses with a curtain in the back and by adding effects they expect it to pop? no thank you.

 

[cottonmouth13]

i love the new shots!

 

[Squizree]

You can airbrush and photoshop Madonna as much as you like, but in the end she always looks like a tired old lady.

But that being said, I still think the ad is a good idea. She looks like a mental Barbie Doll, which is what the collection was about.