Faux luxury and promises of exclusiveness.
Thread: What puts you off about a house?
by the time you can afford good speakers, you can't hear the difference
Faux luxury and promises of exclusiveness.
Discover my Guest Reviewer Of The Day here
Just so you know, I'm fine with porn if its for and about adults, but it has its place, and a perfume shops is not one of those.
It amazes me that people complain about censorship if the mods here delete stuff - yet people are quite happy to ask a perfumer to delete an image from another website.
I wonder what the response would be if one wrote to the powers-that-be about the Axe adverts - not that I would personally bother because I don't have to look at them (they don't actually upset me - I just can't resist having a dig about these things when opportune moments arise).
Amazed and confused.
Tom Ford, Dolce & Gabana, Marc Jacobs, Jill Sanders, Gucci are all using explicit, often violent, images of sex to sell their products -- and some of which are depicting graphic insinuations of rape. The Slumberhouse site features an antique silhouette of some vintage, illustrated bawdiness (they're not even people). I only hope that emails akin to the one that was sent to Josh (and yes, I read that email) are being sent to all these other companies.
This thread reads like Phyllis Schafly and Tipper Gore are behind it now. And there are comparisons to be made here in the Tipper Gore built her whole PMRC campaign going after independents artists because she knew she could harm them, letting the big companies get away with murder.
Screen Shot 2013-12-15 at 10.32.59 AM.jpg
OTOH, we have voices for a reason. Objecting to depictions of violence in ads is, IMO, a proper use of freedom.
Last edited by ScentFan; 15th December 2013 at 05:52 PM.
Luckily, art won out in that scenario, but not before she managed to ruin several people's lives.
Anyhow, this is getting way off track and I'm largely to blame, so I apologize and I hope the thread can return to its original purpose.
There is the exception to freedom of speech which crosses the line of appropriateness and acceptability; as in yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Any behavior that causes harm or instigates victimization should be shunned and expunged. The only way we can effectively protest these violations of propriety is by withholding our money from the offending companies.
don't click on the link.
I should probably clarify that I work in the arts and so very little of what's being discussed is even remotely offensive to me (I'm offended by the kind stuff that Sephora sells as "fragrance" though) The Tom Ford, D&G images are striking in their compositions, but degraded in their company's motives.
Last edited by deadidol; 15th December 2013 at 06:28 PM.
I am not sure if this is an official ad. It is so not in line with the Jil Sander style that is mainly about purity and formal perfection.
It was a part of an official campaign.
Seriously though, concerns raised about the image are legit and this all emerged from a fairly innocent concern that should be respected. It's been blown out of perspective is all in that there are far worse instances of such things that people choose to ignore in lieu of stuff like this.
The reason the perfumer got involved was because of the email that raised concerns in the way it was phrased. He's fine and understands what's going on now, so it's probably a good moment to just move on. But for anyone truly offended by a cartoon/antique/artwork, I'd invite you to pay closer attention to the world you live in and question why certain things are acceptable and others aren't. Morals and convictions are vital to being a fully formed human, but it's revealing to know where those morals originate.
What put me off about the Slumberhouse page is not the image per se.
What bothers me is the "gotcha"-- if I view a fragrance website I do not wish to be surprised by images of sex acts. I don't want to be presented with such images in contexts where I would not expect to see them. That makes it feel involuntary, and IMO that violates good taste.
^ totally valid, but again, I'd say be careful dealing with art in general then as, by nature, it's designed to provoke, shock, and raise emotions. Slumberhouse is about art as much as it is perfume, which is why the line is divisive in all aspects. It bears little connection to traditional perfumery and is the opposite of safe or "nice."
I don't know anything about Slumberhouse, but looking at the website, I would not have come to the conclusion that it had anything to do with art, beyond any perfume being art in some form.
If that makes me Philistine, so be it.
^ That's exactly it -- the fragrances themselves are highly evocative, expressionistic, passionate splashes of scents made from bizarre materials. The art is all in the scent.
And that's actually what was more shocking to me about those images. The scents were designed to have no narrative intrusion so the wearer can imprint their own reading. This is why they're essentially unnamed through neologisms. The images do create a narrative element, but when you smell Zahd, it makes sense as to why they're there.
Don't expect "perfume" from the line--it's much more than that.
Also, no idea what the PMRC card is, so I can't play it.
This advert was apparently banned from television over here for referencing illegal drugs.
I agree with your assessment that someone with my particular set of personal convictions has to be careful in the art world. I love art, photography in particular, but all sorts of media and I find it frustrating that it seems so difficult to see great art without it being sexualized, or juxtaposed against sexualized pieces. However, I seem to be part of the minority.