Tiffany & Co. 'About Love' 2021 : Beyoncé & Jay-Z by Mason Poole

This looks like a story about material possessions being no substitute for real love.

Very much so! All fur coat no knickers.
I'm sorry to say, but I've always found the diamond itself really quite gaudy. Not only for its urine colour, but the actual cut is awful. I'm sure it was cut in America. Even the smallest of the Crown Jewels are better cut than this piece.
 
I think it has more to do with the people starring in it than the campaign itself for a lot of people.

They represents the incursion of the world of Hip-Hop in this big American institution and people are still uncomfortable with this idea. He is a rapper and her an R&B singer…And they are mainstream. A lot of people (me included sometimes) don’t like the idea of mainstream in fashion.
There’s no outrage when Alicia Vikander becomes the face of Vuitton…Nobody knows her despite her success.

And I think also a lot of people don’t like their narrative of a « Power Couple » in music…Even if it wasn’t created by them, they embodied that.
Overall, it’s mostly classist.

But I don’t think any campaign for Tiffany or any jewelry brand has generated so much conversation. The campaign itself is disappointing but having those two together is a great idea.

I must admit this campaign made me go to their website. I have some Elsa Perretti stuff but for me, Tiffany is about good everyday jewelry and Elsa Perretti…But it’s also a very « American brand » that I’m only interested in when I’m in the US.

But back to the campaign, Thank god it’s not the Kardashian/Jenner..(see, I’m being classist here)!

Don’t feel that the Carters are the reason for whatever backlash it is for this campaign. They are so admired by Americans— and White Americans at that, that they’ve become critic-proof.

As usual, the twitter SJW are always desperately attempting to search out any signs of slander of Black-Americans and scoring their PC points within their echo chambers. That it’s ultra-bourgeois Tiffany supposedly exploiting a Black-American painter just excites them beyond belief to condemn. And all done so ignorantly without actually understanding the artist himself. That they actually buy the silly blurb of "pain and beauty in low places” shows another brand of racism that’s no different than Basquiat’s first dealer Anina claiming something along the lines of him being “the voice of the ghetto”. You know, this kind of accepted ghettoizing and romanticizing of Black individuals as the long-suffering victim that need to be rescued by the white saviour, that’s even further encouraged by so-called progressives in 2021 is as racist AF but they just don’t know it. Don’t really need to get into lecturing about Basquiat’s background, but he was anything but "pain and beauty in low places”.

It’s an awfully executed campaign and deserves the wrath of incompetence— but not for supposedly exploiting Basquiat’s work. Blame the mess on the blatant incompetence of the photographer, CD/AD, stylist etc all of whom lack vision and style. And you know what, had Basquat been around today— or the Carters been around back in the 80s, I’ve no doubt Basquiat would have been overjoyed to have worked with them; He was a DJ and mixed his own beats as well, so a collab with 2 recording artists of their calibre would have been so coveted. All those people— him, Haring, Schnabel, Clemente, Salle, Kruger all eased effortlessly between fine art, theatre, fashion, and pop culture so seamlessly. They wouldn’t have self-segregated and limited themselves to any advantage that would have propelled their names with prestigious brands.
 
I love how Meisel constantly refuses to work with her, and there have been multiple instances when they could've worked together and it probably was suggested a lot (Vogue US, ahem, Vogue UK, cough, and here too). I hugely respect his stance to not work with certain people, and makes me love him even more that Beyonce and Rihanna can only dream of being shot by Steven.

Where did you hear this? I never have, but would be curious to hear otherwise. I imagine Beyonce and Rihanna like to promote black photographers rather than work with the 'industry-norm.'
Meisel doesn't like a lot of complicated, demanding sets, but I've yet to hear he 'refuses' to work with Beyonce. I know several people both working with him and working for him.
 
Strange choice. Tiffany is the last brand I would associate with a nouveau riche couple like them.
 
Oh dear, looks like the nightmare clothing was made by Matthew Williams for Givenchy...they just posted it to their instagram.
 
Where did you hear this? I never have, but would be curious to hear otherwise. I imagine Beyonce and Rihanna like to promote black photographers rather than work with the 'industry-norm.'
Meisel doesn't like a lot of complicated, demanding sets, but I've yet to hear he 'refuses' to work with Beyonce. I know several people both working with him and working for him.

It was just talk in her recent HB US September Cover thread, how everyone would want a shoot with Beyoncé and Meisel and probably Edward would be the one to bring them together but it didn’t happen. Since it hasn’t happened now it’s the fashion spots narrative that Meisel is the one who refuses to work with her, you know since she’s so tacky and all.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/24/slathering-culture-top-capitalism/

Ouch... from Robin Givhan;


Like a lot of legacy brands, Tiffany & Co. has been in the process of reinventing itself for a new generation of customers. And to that end, the jeweler has enlisted the help of Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Mrs. Carter and the mister. They appear alongside a painting by Jean-Michel Basquiat in the brand’s fall advertisement, in which capitalism collides with popular culture, race, sex and no small amount of magical thinking and good-for-the-gander hubris.

The campaign’s signature image is choked with references. It’s clogged with allusions. It isn’t aimed at selling a particular piece of merchandise, but rather the relevance and importance of the brand itself. But mostly what it’s selling is the Carters. And they are selling the glories of wealth, specifically to Black and Brown people.

They don’t shy away from it. They attend to it with loving seriousness. The husband and wife have weaponized and refined boastfulness.

The centerpiece of the image is Basquiat’s “Equals Pi,” a painting that rarely had been publicly seen and was recently acquired by Tiffany. It will hang in the company’s New York flagship, according to a story in Women’s Wear Daily. The artwork bears all the hallmarks of Basquiat — the skulls, crowns, graffiti tags — against a pale blue backdrop. The painting’s particular shade of robin’s egg blue, and Basquiat’s affection for jewelry, has convinced Tiffany’s Alexandre Arnault, executive vice president of product and communications, that the work is a celebration of the brand, which packages its goods in similarly blue gift boxes. The company admittedly has no actual evidence that this is true. Arnault’s imagined homage by the late artist is a feeling, a coincidence that’s apparently too marketable to ignore.

The use of the painting in the advertisement has led to a social media debate over whether Basquiat would approve of his work serving such commercial purposes, which seems like a conversation rooted in another century, back before his artwork started selling for $110.5 million at auction and before one could buy Basquiat skateboards, Doc Martens and side chairs.

In the ad, Beyoncé stands stiffly alongside the painting with her hands gripping her hips. Her sleeveless black gown, her updo and long gloves hark back to Audrey Hepburn in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” Beyoncé wears Tiffany’s 128.54-carat yellow diamond, which was mined in South Africa in 1877, around her neck. Her hourglass figure takes the place of Hepburn’s gamine frame. Her brown skin reflects the light instead of Hepburn’s ivory complexion. The enormous diamond, freighted with the history of colonialism, hangs around a Black woman’s neck. Beyoncé is a sculpture. She’s a reimagining of feminine iconography. She’s an entitled sentinel.

Jay-Z, dressed in a tuxedo, is comfortably slouched in a club chair. His hair is a rakish, pig-tailed, dreaded nod to Basquiat. He gazes soberly at Beyoncé — another object for the avowed collector to admire.

The campaign is titled “About Love,” but the image is static rather than roiling with emotion. The Carters are both distant and affectless. They don’t invite the viewer into their world as much as they stand pridefully over it. This Basquiat isn’t theirs, but they have intimate access to it. The contents of the Louvre didn’t belong to them either, but they laid claim to the “Mona Lisa” as they danced and strutted through the museum in their 2018 video for “Apes--t.” Jay-Z took on the world of art insiders back in 2013 with his marathon performance of “Picasso Baby” at the Pace Gallery in New York. Capitalism may not have been built for the Carters, but they’ve made it their own.

Tiffany is hoping to bask in their light. But the Carters are stingy with their reflected glory. They’ve entwined themselves with high art — not simply with the heady aesthetics of it, but the finances of it and the generational wealth that it represents.

Tiffany, founded in New York City in 1837, is now owned by the French luxury conglomerate LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton after a contentious merger in 2020. While the Carters have no particular public affection for Tiffany, Jay-Z sold part of his sparkling wine brand to LVMH earlier this year. Business and more business. Tiffany has also pledged $2 million for scholarships and internships at historically Black colleges and universities. Its parent company, LVMH, is worth well over $300 billion.

What is Tiffany selling here? What story is it trying to tell? This Tiffany campaign promotes everything except the merchandise that the stores actually sell. Another set of advertisements did that. “It’s Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” featured images of young women in tank tops and T-shirts wearing the very jewelry that has been part of the company’s lineage for decades, such as the cuff bracelets designed by Elsa Peretti, who joined the brand in the 1970s. That campaign caused a kerfuffle for its dismissive tone toward older women.

But apparently the company remains your father’s Tiffany, as mature men are still welcome to buy necklaces and watches and engagement rings, and that includes Jay-Z, who is 51 years old and a father.

So much that roils the culture is packed into Tiffany’s search for a new identity. Tiffany is trying mightily to speak to younger customers. It’s looking to attract an admiring gaze from an increasingly diverse population. It aims to highlight creativity. It’s attempting to elevate its merchandise to more than just stuff, but rather stuff with meaning. It wants to be aware and sensitive and enlightened.

Tiffany wants a lot. The Carters are giving them a little. The rich narrative belongs to Beyoncé and Jay-Z. They’re not sharing their cultural wealth.
 
^ This just confirmed me that Lola is just Robin in disguise :shifty:.

But I didn't expect the campaign to go this viral. This backlash only make everyone involved in this project more relevant. And Tiffany hasn't been this relevant in years. So LVMH got what they wanted.
 
^ This just confirmed me that Lola is just Robin in disguise :shifty:

LOL.

I have a love/hate relationship with Robin Givhan. She somehow has time to write lengthy critiques (and often praise) about American Vogue, but not a peep about Samira Nasr or Nina Garcia. Positive/negative commentary on lesser editors is an advancement of their careers, an acknowledgment of their existence at the very least.
And when it comes to this piece, her narrative is basically expected. She could only take one stance anyway. Anything to the contrary would not work for the mood we're in nor the thin-skinned Beyhive.

The idea that it is somehow the Carters who are rationing their cultural currency is delusional when you consider that an overwhelming percentage of media reporting on this campaign centers around Beyonce being the first black woman to wear the Tiffany Diamond. How is it then that a couple with such 'cultural wealth' *sic* is merely following in the footsteps of say Lady Gaga. Actually not quite, because Lady Gaga wore the necklace not only for a campaign but to the Oscars as well? Surely if Beyonce is as powerful as Robin claims, then she should be taking it 10 notches higher by demanding the diamond to be recut or to commission an even bolder diamond? Anything to raise the stakes.
Because ultimately my takeaway is that Tiffany is granting her access to their jewels, not the other way around. And Beyonce must've realised what a big deal this was when she not only razed the earth for that Basquiat but also got the hubby to feature. Probably to increase their 'currency'.
 
Last edited:
This latest image is so much better in all its simplicity. No pointless Basquiat, no cheap, messy bun hairstyle. This style makes her look much more elegant and I prefer the white background for Tiffany. Perhaps a saving grace of this questionable campaign:

 
Does anyone know if the video component of the campaign features a full version of Beyonce's rendition of "Moon River"?

Or will we only get a truncated version like Gisele's cover of "heart of glass" for H&M that's just looped?

There was yet another opinion piece in the Washington Post about the advertisement here from columnist Karen Attiah. I agree largely with the premise here - that the ad is tone deaf and a measly 2 million charity pledge is not enough.

The Moon River cover might redeem the campaign to some extent - but I'm not counting on it.
 
Beyonce's mother (mstinalawson on instagram) posted a response to anyone who notes that Beyonce is wearing a blood diamond originally mined under horrendous conditions:

tina.jpg
 
“Beyoncé is aware of the criticism and is disappointed and angry that she wasn't made aware of questions about its history,” an unnamed source told the paper. “She thought that every final detail had been better, but now she realises that the diamond itself was overlooked.”
thetimes.co.uk/

Seriously? It's one of the most famous and publicised diamonds in the world! What kind of businesswoman enters into a multi-million dollar contract without investigating the nuances and particulars of the contract and/or the products associated with said contact?

I digress, the reaction to this campaign was the opposite of what Tiffany was hoping for, and Tina's response just highlights the sheer arrogance and pretentiousness of the entire "Beyonce team" and the fact that everything that Beyonce creates is of a gold standard and somehow above criticism. Exactly what is she implying in her comment? That we are all buying blood diamonds? I'm not understanding her rhetoric on this one.

Also confused about how these kinds of reactions and readings to the campaign seem to have slipped the consciousness of "Vice President of Product and Communications" Alexandre Arnault? It's a multi-billion dollar brand with so much on the line, and the executive team couldn't have foreseen this? Seriously?
 
“I didn’t know!” was a ludicrous excuse for Greta Thunberg wearing $10,000 worth of wool and it’s ludicrous for Beyoncé. To be clear, I don’t think Beyoncé owes anyone an explanation nor do I think she did anything wrong, but it’s laughable to think that someone with such a tightly controlled image, in this context, wouldn’t be aware of the diamond they were about to be photographed wearing. Especially when one considers the “first Black woman to wear it!” angle was pushed, suggesting detailed knowledge of the diamond’s history. Either she and her team knew and didn’t care or they didn’t care to know. Neither excuses accountability, if that’s what the mob is after.



Ultimately I wonder if this will actually all end up being good for the brand. I doubt anyone doing the proverbial hand wringing on Twitter about Basquiat and blood diamonds is shopping there anyway. Maybe a whiff of “scandal” will enliven the brand’s image among new consumers and I doubt their current clientele could care less.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I don't think this manufactured outrage (nor this campaign in all honesty) will affect Tiffany's bottom line that much and I think we'll forget about it by next week. Tiffany's image is staid, and I doubt it's existing customers care much about Beyoncé and Jay Z and a Basquiat painting and "blood diamond". Also, with all this "blood diamond" talk, I see people who have probably never thought about Tiffany & Co. in their lives are suddenly well versed in the history of the company.

Also, no one batted an eye when Lady Gaga wore the diamond to the Oscars, but when Beyoncé wears it, suddenly it's a "blood diamond". Also, is it really a blood diamond? Yes, it was discovered in SA in 1878 under British rule but much of the world was still under British rule at the time and the history of the diamond has been extensively documented since. That's not to defend colonial rule, but we're talking about a diamond mined nearly 150 years ago...the world has changed a lot since then. Are people proposing the diamond should be thrown away or returned to the South African government? Why? The mining of precious minerals has always been a commercial endeavor and those with the capital to fund such operations get to reap the rewards. I suspect the people that are 'outraged' are trying to make a broader critique of colonialism and the exploitation of the African continent for its mineral resources, a critique that is valid but which I don't think should be directed at Beyoncé and Jay Z for appearing in a Tiffany & Co. campaign. If she refused to wear the diamond, I'm sure she would have gotten brownie points from Twitter but really, would it have accomplished anything tangible? "Awareness", I guess. People love being aware and showing everyone how aware they are. Faux social media outrage is so one-sided and lacking in any context or nuance and will be forgotten about in a couple of days.

Also, Tina's response to the whole thing is hilariously cringe-worthy, it's the type of response that wouldn't feel out of place on a parody account.
 
Last edited:
Secondly, the fact that the Basquiat painting is used as a backdrop is so pretentious and gauche. The fact that LVMH is trying to imply that it was an "homage" is an insult to Basquiat's legacy. I am shocked at what they will stoop to with their marketing to generate clout.



Bravo to whoever wrote this on Twitter!

Source: independent.co.uk/life-style/jay-z-beyonce-basquiat-tiffany-b1907516/

Diet Prada had the best response

Was Tiffany’s usage a Basquiat piece in the background of an ad a bastardization of his work? The Internet seems divided on the new Beyoncè and Jay-Z campaign, but one thing is for certain… Basquiat’s estate has already sold him out plenty of times for everything from t-shirts to an Alice and Olivia collection, Urban Decay cosmetics… and a Barbie? So why are people suddenly upset now?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,771
Messages
15,198,589
Members
86,770
Latest member
jordankopstein
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->