Provocative / Offensive Ads #1 | Page 58 | the Fashion Spot

Provocative / Offensive Ads #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
^True, but what about the notion that the models portrayed here cross a certain boundary by looking "just enough" like a hybrid of mannequins and real people? Should they have cast real models at all if they were to end up looking like this?

I am indifferent to the campaign myself - just trying to get some consumer/public response to what others outside of this forum have brought to question :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly Faith! no, I don´t think they even need to spend money in real models to do that.
 
I don't believe this campaign was previously discussed here, so I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on it:

Barbie Loves M.A.C. (SS07)
Models: Mona Johannesson and Emanuela de Paula

When the campaign was initially released, there were complaints that the post-production "plasticizing" of the models completely dehumanized women and propelled the vision of Barbie as a kind of "Ideal Beauty" in society (When it shouldn't be). There were also concerns that it detracted from the M.A.C. brand image...Though it wasn't necessarily provocative or offensive to most, it was still controversial to particular groups.

Any personal views/opinions on this particular campaign? :flower:

I definitely think you have a point here. I don't know if I have anything to add persay. The models in the ad don't look human. They look plastic, and more like Real Dolls than anything else. They are objectifying the models. They aren't even people anymore, just things.

Is that what we should aspire to? To be objects?
 
i think considering that the line was specifically called "barbie loves m.a.c.," the campaign makes sense...
barbie herself is airbrushed to death and plastic looking, so the campaign should be too...
what i do love is that they included a woman of color, because usually in barbie ads, they are in the background (or not included at all)...

i don't think m.a.c. is the problem, but i suppose i could see how some wouldn't want them to enter into a partnership with barbie...
if you want to deal with they way girls/women are perceived and how barbie contributes to that, that's an entirely different discussion...:lol:
 
^Models also pose as animals and other non-human things.

We don't aspire to be animals or any of those non-human things.

So point is, people need to learn not to aspire to be models b/c they in a sense are "objects" for the designers to edit and portray however the designers want.

Damn. I'm so eloquent *rolls eyes*. No wonder my papers are bad.
 
no but what you are saying is totally right!! sadly models have to do what designers or photograpers tell them, THATS THEIR work, wo its really odd when people aspire to be like a model cuase that means become a person with no opinions
 
I love this thread I am not offended often so I think most of this is funny or pretty or both, one of my guy friends asked me if a girl would be offended by something and of course I said no but I am such a bad example. I think the barbie M.A.C. ads have the barbie feel to them so it is appropriate to the ad and M.A.C. really is not a heavy advertiser so I think it is unlikely that little girls will be all that influenced. And for the Tom Ford Ads I love them and Tom Ford himself says he is a "an equal opportunity objectifier" (men and women as can be seen on his web site) so whats wrong with that and half of them dont even end up in print.
 
Since when did ad campaigns become the standard of what we look up to and aspire to be. Not to mention Barbie is PLASTIC. Seriously?? It's playing up a theme, it's a fantasy for goodness sake.
 
Advertising has always portrayed aspirations and fantasy -- isn't that the point of marketing to the general public (Otherwise there is no act of persuasion at all)? :)

It's the true source for the concept of "Keeping Up with the Joneses!"
 
I'm torn on the MAC campaign.

On the one hand you can see that they were trying to draw the parallel between MAC and Barbie by making an image that looks very similar to that of the Barbie dolls. In the picture Mona and Emanuela are almost exact approximations of Barbie. I don't feel as though this image is any more airbrushed than most of the other MAC ads - they thrive on the very surreal interpretation of beauty. Everything is airbrushed into oblivion in that Mert & Marcus very stylized way.

On the other hand this kind of thing can always be viewed as dehumanizing and/or wrong given that Barbie in and of itself is a controversial item. The doll comes with social connotations that go beyond the ad. I don't see as much complaint stemming from the other MAC ads which are in my opinion very similar. I personally don't find this image offensive but I can see where it would strike a cord with those who believe that the link between visual imagery and personal perception is an especially tangible one.

 
From flickr, I don't know the original source of the ad:

70713561_2bbb5ec2f5.jpg
 
:shock: holy crap that is bad

haha i gotta laugh thought that ad is pretty ignorant
 
The Barbie ad is actually one of the best MAC ads, but I can understand because people will find controversy in everything.
 
BLOW in her face -- you know what blow is, right?

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the MAC ad.
 
ooh really thats the offensive stuff?? Hahah I don't find it that way LOL
 
I think that the offensive part is that he can seduce her just by blowing (not in that way) smoke in her face which is gross and dominating as in he can do something stupid and without meaning and she will follow him blindly. The actual photo adds to that or it can be taken sexualy as oiselet said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,594
Messages
15,308,448
Members
89,616
Latest member
wynshan
Back
Top