Provocative / Offensive Ads #1

[tigerrouge]

But that Vogue Italia editorial did not educate, it glamorized the concept. How can war be entertaining? War has never been a person part of my life but I know people who have been through it and seen horrible things so for you sitting at your computer telling me that its normal is crazy.

That is precisely what I said - the Vogue Italia editorial is designed as entertainment, not education. And if we are honest, we are all guilty of enjoying 'war entertainment' at some point. We become offended when the conflict suddenly becomes personal to us.

As for myself, I live in Northern Ireland, and have lived through thirty years of terrorism in my own country. Thousands died. Everyone who has enjoyed a movie involving the IRA - such as The Devil's Own - has enjoyed a cheap thrill, without experiencing the reality of it. And it's the same with every conflict - from the World Wars right through to Iraq. They get used as entertainment. It's not right, but humans can't seem to help it.

 

[kissmesweet]

Just looking at the cover, I liked the war element... but throughout the ed, the use of women as almost... prostitutes was a little disturbing.

 

[kiefers]

But that Vogue Italia editorial did not educate, it glamorized the concept. How can war be entertaining? War has never been a person part of my life but I know people who have been through it and seen horrible things so for you sitting at your computer telling me that its normal is crazy.

That is precisely what I said - the Vogue Italia editorial is designed as entertainment, not education. And if we are honest, we are all guilty of enjoying 'war entertainment' at some point. We become offended when the conflict suddenly becomes personal to us.

As for myself, I live in Northern Ireland, and have lived through thirty years of terrorism in my own country. Thousands died. Everyone who has enjoyed a movie involving the IRA - such as The Devil's Own - has enjoyed a cheap thrill, without experiencing the reality of it. And it's the same with every conflict - from the World Wars right through to Iraq. They get used as entertainment. It's not right, but humans can't seem to help it.

It is entertaining war and that concept is not entertaining. How is war personal to me? I have never participated in a war but am from Russia so that concept is very familiar to me growing up in a post communist world. Vogue Italia has no place to put Chanel and Dior in the battlefield, where they do not belong. Want to educate? Write an article not half naked models prancing with soldiers.

 

[jjbunny79]

thinking of the event happen in burma right now, i just find the vogue italia editorial very sad.... not offendsive, but very very sad

 

[joiedemode]

I did not agree with that editorial, it did not seem to have a purpose other than to shock people, but how can some one honestly watch a war movie and then get upset because of the editorial?

 

[kiefers]

I am a fan of war movies when they educate like Clint Eastwoods film (name escapes me), but editorials like these and movies who simply venture out for shock value and to glamorize do not agree with me one bit. You could use that logic for anything though: How can one watch films that deal with racism yet find the ad with Bar offensive? How can one read memoirs and watch movies dealing with drugs and be offended by Sisley ads?

 

[joiedemode]

^Yeah, that is true. I didn't mean stuff like Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of our Fathers but there are some bad war movies out there that don't really do anything, and after all they are in the entertainment industry.

 

[xmodel citizen]

To whomever said that Meisel's editorial wasn't glamorizing anything; you think it's normal for oiled, half naked male soldiers to run around drinking and twirling around half naked women in dresses that cost as much as they make in a year? Goodness, I'd love to see you join the military and see what it's really like!

 

[CanonMan]

^Right, because all ads in fashion magazines are sooooo relevant to reality... . I see the point your trying to make on the topic, but that's just a poor argument for it. The realism of the ad has nothing to do with it's content pertaining to the current war.

 

[xmodel citizen]

Uh, I didn't say it did I was disputing the fact that people said it doesn't glamorize war.

 

[joiedemode]

^^She was saying that it WAS glamourizing...which it is...

Wait...I think I am missing the point you (canonman) are trying to make What are you trying to say?

 

[xmodel citizen]

LOL, and who are you referring to? I'm talking about people on this thread and the actual thread for the magazine who said it didn't glamorize war. And yes, people said that. I think it's tacky, pointless and just a poor editorial all around. Meisel's done far better.

 

[joiedemode]

^I was agreeing with you but I was talking to canonman...sorry I did not make that clear

 

[masquerade]

Tom Ford strikes again. This isn't an actual ad, but its interesting

Product Placement

Tom Ford recreates the double standard in an exclusive cheeky outtake that was too racy for Out to print in the magazine's pages

Photographed by Terry Richardson

Not only did Tom Ford drop his drawers for Out's photographer, he also commandeered our shoot to mock up the design for a new ad.

"It was meant to be a play on the new campaign," Ford says, "but there’s a double standard with featuring female nudity and featuring male nudity. When people say to me, ‘Well, you objectify women,” [I say,] I’m an equal opportunity objectifier. We had a lot of magazines reject the female version [of the campaign], so the male version is going to get rejected even more."

out.com

call me immature, but this was my reaction to that image

 

[Sweet rus]

My face was like that when I saw it
It's too much I think, even for me

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

HAHAHA ooooh tom is genius

 

[Trista]

I have to agree. Yeah it's vulgar but at least he's an equal opportunity objectifier.

 

[agoodfella]

The fact that the Tom Ford ads are getting all of this discussion (positive or negative) merely serves to underscore the fact that the ad campaign has (like it or not) done its job.

 

[Melisande]

I think we are missing the point re. the war editorial.

I understand these as images of the fleeting visions/hallucinations of beauty and loved ones seen by those suffering in combat, in pain and under extreme conditions...those visions that keep them going, keep them alive.

Notice the dream-like lighting, the far away looks in the eyes, the sense of wonder and innocence in the soldiers faces, the situations of tenderness or childlike frolic, combined with the etherial goddess/fairy/angel-like quality of the women. I see that this ad positions women as bringers of hope and light.

Like someone said, I dont think it's offensive in the least, it's just sad. I don't think it glamourizes war. In fact, I do believe that this editorial captures in a poignant way the significance of beauty and tenderness--and yes, fashion as a reflection of that--in our violence-ridden world. That said, I do not find the aesthetic value of the photos very high at all, but that's another matter.

What I did find misguided in terms of war and fashion was Junya's runway show a few seasons back where the clothes were overtly interpretations of military fatigues made to look like violence was a desirable expression of power. As much as I love Junya and even his military-inspired clothes, that show was a little low-minded, if not perhaps reflective of the coddled mentality where war is but a far-away macho dream "safely" contained in hollywood or the middle east.

 

[aaron95]

Tom Ford strikes again. This isn't an actual ad, but its interesting

*Please do not quote images*

out.com

call me immature, but this was my reaction to that image

I dont really understand this Ad hahahahaha but I think its really nasty LOL

Edit** I just read this wasnt an Ad hahaha