Code of Conduct
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 181 to 217 of 217
  1. #181

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    But as a moderator of this site, albeit one who is apparently "easily swayed," I'd suggest we do keep religion to a minimum if possible as those discussions have the capacity to go down in flames.

  2. #182
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,406
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    I feel I'm misunderstood here. I guess everyone just draws the line of decency somewhere. Mine may be sex acts that COULD be perceived as humiliating performed in public. This is a far cry from Michaelangelo's 'David'; a sculpture which glorifies the male body while nearly leaving off the genitalia. I was pretty horrified when Lindsy Lohan and Britney Spears and whomever else has followed suit, showing their most private bits to the world. It was just so un dignified and the wrong sort of attention. A bad example to set.

  3. #183
    Basenotes Junkie kswer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    873

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by deadidol View Post
    ^ the email the perfumer received suggested censorship. Not only that, it also said that "others on Basenotes agree" which is what caused the perfumer to contact me in the first place.
    By nobody here I meant the people on this thread. And a request to change something, that carries no weight (if that was what it was) is hardly censorship.

  4. #184
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,406
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    In case anyone is curious, I did not send the mystery e-mail. That's not my style. Nor did I bring up religion. Someone else did that.

  5. #185

    Default What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by kswer View Post
    By nobody here I meant the people on this thread. And a request to change something, that carries no weight (if that was what it was) is hardly censorship.
    The email was sent from somebody involved in this thread. It asked him to take down the image.

    But this is neither here nor there as he made his stance very clear in his attempted response to the emailer.

    Just to reiterate: it's an illustration on a canvas in a room that was shot by a known artist and placed onto a website of a perfumer who neither illustrated the image, or took the photograph. Are publishers complicit when they choose to print texts that feature Mapplethorpe images, even if they find them beautiful? Or is it worse to use humans to reenact violent rape scenes to sell fragrance to mass audience? I reiterate, if you insist on being outraged by this illustration by an artist, don't forget to be outraged by 50% of fragrance companies, 90% of TV and movies, and 100% of the Internet for associating with similar images.

    I'm surprised this conversation is still going, and I don't think there's anything more I could contribute. So unless it turns into some religious dust-up or anything libelous gets launched, I'll exit the stage. I've already said too much.
    Last edited by deadidol; 16th December 2013 at 03:48 AM.

  6. #186
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by cwill View Post
    There is a response posted from Josh about this. The honest truth is that he doesn't care if someone doesn't like it, and that's exactly why I appreciate everything he's doing. Now personally I don't really think the image needs to be there, but we need more perfumers like him, who are running things THEIR way. I LOVE the fact that no one can tell him he can't have that on his site.
    The industry needs rebels. But I have to put in one good word for the mainstream industry. They understand the need for the rebels, and leave them alone. While there has been a conspicuous tendency to ignore Slumberhouse and its ilk, there has also been a conspicuous avoidance of criticism, which I think is rather admirable. I feel this supports my contention that the industry understands that there are artists at its core, and that those people need to operate in a bubble of pure and uncontrolled artistic freedom, no matter how much exploitation and manipulation happen in the outer layers. Slumberhouse is remarkable in having almost no outer layering.

    Quote Originally Posted by deadidol View Post
    To say the least! But if the art on the site (there's no pornography on the site) offends you, I'd stay far far away from the fragrances themselves (and TV, film, art galleries, literature etc.)

    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.

    ...
    Don't get me started about Tipper Gore!

    I get what you're saying about the thread, in relation to small artists who can cave, right or wrong, and big companies that are completely immune to public criticism. And I agree completely. That is why I'm jumping to the defense of the Slumberhouse graphic that I'm not terribly fond of. Knowing Josh's work BEFORE the image happened, I can say with 100% certainty that he is not using sex to sell, or even to simply generate controversy. Dishonesty would be Josh using typical industry images.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScentFan View Post
    Totally agree. I am so not into censorship. Yesterday we went to see the movie, The Book Thief. It's good to be reminded there was a time when the Slumberhouse image would have gotten that guy killed -- and not just in Germany. I hope we keep far from that slippery slope. Freedom is so precious, I'd rather allow the worst muck than risk missing one genius. Besides, it's so easy to just close the browser, flip the switch, tune to another channel.

    OTOH, we have voices for a reason. Objecting to depictions of violence in ads is, IMO, a proper use of freedom.
    Sounds like a great movie - I need to look out for it!

    Quote Originally Posted by deadidol View Post
    Or you could always play the PMRC card and go after the little guy who's innovates within a soulless industry and ignore the far more problematic companies. Check out the Biafra trial to see the harm Gore caused that man for including a piece of artwork by HR Giger in one of his albums. An artist, included the work of another artist in his work, and out came the pitchforks. Sound familiar?

    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.
    Honestly, this probably IS the original purpose. We have found something that REALLY puts a fair number of people off about a house. We need some more things, but this one seems to be the one that people care the most about.

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by deadidol View Post
    To me it's not offensive at all, but if people are getting butthurt over Victorian cartoons, then 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.
    But you know - after following Slumberhouse closely, I now see how easy it is to assume we know corporate motives, when we really don't. It gives me pause to accuse the biggies, just because they're big. In the end, it was probably some art major in Marketing and Creative Development who made the decision. I am learning - slowly - not to attribute base motives to her, without evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by deadidol View Post
    That doesn't really matter.
    Completely agreed. Half of the thread could have cosigned to the purpose of the letter, though probably not the (presumed) wording.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buysblind View Post
    Okay, okay....I thought maybe I could slip one past the goalie.
    LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by deadidol View Post
    ^ 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."
    Honestly, Slumberhouse is authentic, free-spirit edginess, where others do it with a wink and a "j/k lol".

    Quote Originally Posted by ScentFan View Post
    You've misread me. I have no problem with the Slumberhouse image. I was talking about the Dolce & Gabanna ad which is a clear suggestion of rape -- a nonconsentual and violent sex act. I have zero problem with consentual sex of any kind between adults, or with its depiction. Crimes are another thing.

    Also, no idea what the PMRC card is, so I can't play it.
    In all fairness, the idea of what he said (PMRC reference) should be applied more fairly to us all, as a collective, than any individual. Basically, the idea that it's easier to censor an individual than a big player. He's right. To a tiny act like Slumberhouse, a thread IS a mob. Maybe not a congressional investigation, but still.

    Quote Originally Posted by danieq View Post
    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.
    I would say that you're/we're more likely part of a silent majority, and the non-sexual art as well, but I hesitate to even claim that word ("majority"), for fear of its easily abused power. Seriously, we are surrounded by non-sexual art, but the minority of sexual stuff claims mind-share so easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by danieq View Post
    Oh, and this isn't on topic in the least, but offering another perspective, I don't agree that art is always, or exclusively designed to provoke, shock or raise emotions. Certainly it is at times, and seemingly, that tendency increases as time passes. However, I enjoy art when it offers a new way to see, a new perspective, not necessarily provocative, but fresh and interesting and opening the eye of the viewer to beauty that was perhaps previously undiscovered. This is the way that I try to present art photography and it's the sort I listen to.
    I agree. There is so much good art that passes unnoticed because it's not provocative enough, but I have a quiet hope that it quietly affects a lot of people. Some of the best stuff out there is just wallpaper and screensaver material by unknown artists who decided to share stuff that will affect people they will never meet, and who will never know their names. Yet I'm sure it makes the world a better place.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/372...cy-Collectiion!


    Edit - Oops - ought to clarify that this piccy hasn't upset me
    ...and I intend sampling the new releases.
    I'm really happy that I'm completely baffled about that pic. Please, people - no spoilers, ever. Don't care to know what type of hockey he's playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by kswer View Post
    I appreciate the education of this thread
    Me too!

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    For what it's worth (not that my opinion matters) I am an artist, I have an MFA in photography. As I previously stated, I'm not prudish, I don't dislike sex or sexual imagery in art. I do think there's a big difference between expressing oneself as an artist and using aggressively raw, insensitive imagery in order to sell a product. I also think that this 'Slumberhouse' image of a very graphic sex act is going too far in polite society. Unfortunately it seems to have served its purpose well as most folks are evidently very enthusiastic about this stuff. Not a good sign. I predict we are in for a long spate of twerking and Khardashian-esque dry-humping in the future. Truly, something you can't 'unsee'.
    Agree about the "un-unseeable" nature of the graphic, but I can assure you that it did nothing but harm the potential business of Slumberhouse, by driving away marginal customers (like you and me) who probably would not enjoy the line. It was never intended to sell product. It was designed to simply proclaim the house schtick. The graphic is every bit as "traditionally off-putting" as their fragrances.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    It's kind of interesting to me that the larger commercial brands, not only D&G, are free to use any kind of imagery without a word being spoken.
    I think people just assume that big brands like that are pushing right up against the limits, and that what we see the big brands doing, must, in fact, be the limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    I also object to the D&G implied rape scene. That's one I had not previously seen. Also desperate and deplorable, IMO.
    Yeah. Makes me wonder if this ad snuck in during Europe's annual vacation month, when all the people who knew better were off at resorts!

    And one more thing. While the following observation may just send this thread into an entirely different tizzy, I have to say that the D&G image, overall, smacks much closer to an [arguably female] rape fantasy than to a rape. Which is not to imply that either one is suitable for a fashion ad. Such an intended meaning would probably be more likely to pass muster with the internal censors of a fashion house, too, and that leads me to believe it is what they were thinking.

    I'm not stating that to end the debate - just to complicate it more accurately. I know that it's dangerous ground, with the idea having been used as an excuse by rapists from time immemorial, but I feel that the denial of the commonality of such fantasies is not justified by the need to stem their abuse as alibis or self-justifications by criminals. To get to the truth, we have to dig deeper, and never kowtow to any political correctness which seeks to end discussion on its own terms. So the real question is - to me - the legitimacy of using fantasy rape in a fashion ad. Personally, I think it is less overtly irresponsible, but more insidious, and thus just as poor of a choice, or perhaps even a poorer one. In fact, ironically, the excuse ("but in the picture, she wants it") may be more true on a technicality, but I see it as a teflon bullet of a bad idea, in that it actually props up the rapist's most time-worn alibi.

    Then again, do we send the thought police in to stop it? UGH. I've got a suggestion. Let's just lose the 4 guys from the picture and shoot it again. Let the reader decide what she's thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    Sorry, kumquat - our posts crossed so I hadn't seen yours before replying.

    Those of us who are enthusiastic about Slumberhouse products were largely so before this recent website update & imagery and it's a website - not an 'in your face' magazine or television advert so it's visited by choice, not by accidental exposure.

    The fragrance industry has traditionally used sex & nudity in marketing so there's nothing new here - and personally, a graphic of consenting adults frolicking doesn't shock me, but I choose to visit the website for the purpose of purchasing goods so may well view it in a different light.
    Exactly - Slumberhouse got all its buzz back when it was quirky for having essentially no web or media presence whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    Can 'snuff' imagery be far behind?
    Quote Originally Posted by deadidol View Post
    ^ jaw officially on the floor.
    I'm not sure if my answer should be "don' think so" or "already been done". Death and sex and petit mort and - well - as you can see, it's all been done. But please - no graphics. PLEASE.

    Quote Originally Posted by danieq View Post
    I am not an ad watcher and have seen very few ads. In the case of SH, their website is the only place to purchase so viewing the representative art is unavoidable. As far as other, large houses, yes, much of their advertising is equally offensive. The only reason I specifically mentioned SH was that it happened to be what I had most recently viewed and found off putting. However, in no way do I believe that only small companies should be accountable. That said, I do feel that the particular graphic in question depicts a more graphic version of a sex act which I prefer not to view, but which will forever more be burned into my minds eye. Somehow, such images are quite unforgettable. This is what I personally prefer to avoid. It feels like my mind has been irrevocably changed. Since I don't want those images in my mind, I would like better for perfume houses to sell perfume rather than ideals as I am not in the market for that set of ideals. Since no disclaimer exists when I first visit the site, how am I to avoid it. However, I don't read or view things generally which promote things I'm not interested in.
    Unforgettability is a biggie with me. I've grown forgiving about it. So much of it comes in the news, and the people surely had no idea that their reporting would haunt me. So I've learned to fight fire with fire, and use a variety of thought processes to make those images unimportant to me. Sometimes that means thinking about them just a bit more - unpleasantly - until I can let better thoughts overcome them. I'm sure this is the same thing that art critics like deadidol do, except with a different spin. I try to see past the disturbing imagery, to something better. Whether that justifies the thing that disturbed me, or not, doesn't matter in the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by remik View Post
    kumquat - with all due respect, let's not get into "what if" or "what's next" type arguments - these tend to be pretty weak and are a way for those overly prudish to try to stop anything besides missionary position between a man and a woman, once a year on His (Jesus') birthday*, calling it abnormal, immoral, and "you will burn in hell" type reasons. There is far "worse" imagery in regular mainstream media (search Robin Thicke "Blurred Lines" or Miley Cyrus "Wrecking Ball" videos on youtube, for starters) without having to go into actual hardcode porn. Naked, provocative, edgy - sure. In the same way Leonardo da Vinci's "David" sculpture or hundreds of Renaissance paintings portray, with a more modern twist (real people instead of paintings). Even thousands and thousands of *religious* paintings depict nudity, without labeling it "porn." And now you want to insinuate the next logical step *must be* "snuff"? Not by a long shot, and not trying to be, either. People who appreciate alternate form of artistic expression are not automatically pedophiles, deviants, serial murderers, etc, regardless of what religious crazies want you to believe. Nor are gay people automatically interested in your 12 year old son in a sexual way - that's another crazy argument pushed by the religious extremists as a reason why anyone gay should be automatically perceived as a pedophile. I hate to break this to you, but most child abusers/pedophiles are 100% straight, strict, religious, married men.

    (*) I have a friend whose sister went off the deep end and became über religious, to the point where she does indeed have sex ONCE a year with her husband, and all 7 kids share the exact same birthday (literally all within 1 calendar day of each other, just different years). All kids are under 12, all 7 of them home schooled, all 7 of them hunt bears and deer with various rifles, including fully automatic (!!!). If you want to see 7 deviants in the making who will go on shooting rampage in a high-school or hospital or a mall some day - here they are, raised by crazy religious fanatics, doing all this "in the name of God."
    While I don't know your friend's relatives, I would offer (with some sympathy) that I have a better understanding of their world. Honestly, they are very unlikely to engage in violence, if simply left alone. Growing up in a world where most kids had guns and hunted, but also lived in a highly structured order of older rights and wrongs, I see most violence emerging not from that old world per se, nor from the new one of sexual and social freedom, but at the boundary between these worlds, where the freedoms and rules of the two cultures sometimes intersect badly, and at worst reactively. Understanding that has been a very liberating thing for me, because it removes the fear from centering on people themselves, and puts it all on misunderstandings, which are inherently fixable.

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    I'll give an example- way back when, on the Johnny Carson show, my mother, divorced from an abusive man heard a song. The lyrics were; "Sorry I hit you, Honey, but you shouldn't have made me mad." Now, she couldn't 'unhear' that, and the song was broadcast to the Nation. Needless to say she was disturbed by this. She wrote a scathing letter to the show. I was also dismayed by Britney Spears' big song; "Hit me, Baby". I just dislike this sort of thing. I know I'm unrealistic, but there you have it. I suspect it leads to the hard stuff- more violence, usually against the weaker among us.
    I find it fascinating that such abuse can be depicted in movies, to great effect in overcoming it, yet allowing influential figures to casually approve it or "let it off the hook" does just the opposite. This is why I'm so adamant that zero tolerance of anything is just trouble in its mindlessness. No bureaucratic rule can inhibit wrong as powerfully as a heartfelt depiction in art.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    Umm, the graphic in question was hardly on that scale - amusingly consenting soft focus artist's impression of adults & all...

    Honestly, I avoid television because the reality of what we do to each other is pretty bothersome but this is just a random graphic on a website, perspectives..

    Attachment 23468
    Yes - that was powerful stuff. Sometimes even the unseen is worse for me. When early crimes are reported from places of conflict and "ethnic cleansing", I am always more horrified than by the more detailed reporting and pictures that come later.

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    Remik, you don't have to be concerned about my religious tendencies. I still think privacy is a right we all deserve. As long as it doesn't frighten the horses, it's fine by me. And I am not jumping to conclusions as you seem to be. It's only that I fear this tendency for shock value may soon spiral out of control. I don't know how many of you have seen shows like "Tosh.0" or "Craziest Partiers", but they take videos off You Tube. I have seen people doing terrible violence to themselves and others. Most of them have to be high, for sure. I fear for the judgement of young people when I see this kind of thing.
    I would really hate to see the Miley Cyrus shock debacle come to fragrance town. Please, fragrance industry honchos - please don't do a Miley fragrance until she's into her serious/credible/recovery phase. OK?
    * * * *

  7. #187

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    I didn't find sexually explicit images on SLUMBERHOUSE's website besides the one on their home page, which suggests sex.

    The D&G gang rape ad is completely tasteless and offensive. I hope they didn't create this ad this year, when the gang rape and brutal murder of an Indian medical student shocked the whole world. The ad is neither original nor creative, it is simply stupid.

    I don't recall seeing anything that tasteless from TF or MJ. I am pretty open with artist's expressions. But violence against women? That's too much.

    I bought Light Blue and D&G Creme foundation not long ago. I don't think I'll buy anything from D&G again. Actually, most women haven't seen this ad. I bet if it is posted in Makeupalley or purseblog, they'll lose more customers.
    Last edited by sunflower77; 16th December 2013 at 03:55 AM.

  8. #188
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    529

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by danieq View Post
    Just thought I should add that I do, indeed like sex............and God! And I'm quite sure that God likes it too, in a specific context, yes, but sex is good. In fact, read the bible and you'll get proof of His opinion on the subject, specifically, Song of Solomon. Not all those who do things 'In the name of God' give an accurate representation, in fact, all to often the representation is quite the opposite of how God presents himself in the Scripture. But perhaps that is too much religion for this forum, just thought a brief qualifier was appropriate given the direction that the discussion has taken.
    Since you were wondering out loud, yes, WAY too much religions for this forum. Many other places to go with that.

  9. #189

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    ^ Sunflower, I think you might have missed the offending image. It's an object tucked away in the background of one of the scenes.

    Re: the D&G ad: I teach a course where students semiotically analyze that ad (and others) to try and recuperate an iota of agency for the woman. They struggle with it, but it grants a clear perspective on the way advertising that's just as offensive sneaks under our radars all the time.

  10. #190
    Dependent danieq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Southeastern Arizona
    Posts
    2,223

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by naylor View Post
    Mind you, I'm not trying to start a religious argument in the midst of all the other disagreements going on here. Just trying to get people to see things from a different perspective. I wouldn't email a moderator of this forum to complain about the religious discussion, any more than I would expect somebody to email a perfumer to complain about an image on his website.
    You're right about it being very much a matter of perspective. I apologize if something I said was offensive. I intended only to respond to some previous comments with another perspective. In no way would I assume others hold with my opinion, only that not all things done in the name of my God are in keeping with what I understand Scripture to say about him. I hope it isn't offensive to clarify in that manner. If it is offensive, I would sincerely appreciate your helping me to understand how.

    And thank you to everyone for your obviously well-thought-out responses.
    Last edited by danieq; 16th December 2013 at 04:20 AM.

  11. #191
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,406
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    There are some places that are just too spiky to tread in a forum like this. Politics and Religion are chief among those. It's plenty touchy just talking about sex, as it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #192

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Are we talking religion now? Shucks, that's simple to resolve. Everyone repeat after me: "My God's better than your God." See? All settled. Easy. The only remaining question is what perfume each of our Gods wears. Mine wears AdP Colonia Intensa Oud Concentree and, when bored with that (assuming it's possible), Slumberhouse Jeke. I know this for sure because my better half told me he's God and I believe him.

  13. #193
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
    There are some places that are just too spiky to tread in a forum like this. Politics and Religion are chief among those. It's plenty touchy just talking about sex, as it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    True enough, though I think y'all did an excellent job.

    I'm going to invite everybody to give this thread a bit of a rest - maybe keep any posts low-key - so that deadidol can have a breather. He's been chaperoning the damn thing from a phone, believe it or not. He could sure use a break!
    * * * *

  14. #194

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Yes, there probably won't be any resolution but discussions are a positive thing, I think. Thanks to everyone who has participated, including Josh, I found his post/reply to be very well-mannered & peaceful. That's to be respected for sure.

    However, I agree with Kumquat on a certain level, where does the line stop? Child porn? What if that was on a perfume site, a larger, corporate one or smaller, would it still be 'art'? Is that next on what society should accept as art and if not, will people be seen as closed minded & prudish? Where does the shock value stop? Ads these days are featuring younger and younger people..sexualizing them. Abercrombie & Fitch bathing suit ads of young girls were absolutely deplorable, most agreed..the ads got axed after a bit. But perhaps A&F saw those pics as art- I can't see why on earth-but what if they did? It's disturbing to me.. they got axed now...but what about later? Will people be expected to see it as art later on? And if people don't..again, will they be deemed as prudish and closed minded? Perhaps a leap in thinking but perhaps not. I was just about to enjoy a donut I bought at a donut shop until the A&F ad was shown on the news. Buzzkill to say the least and who cares about my doughnut but it was hot and fluffy darn it!. I was kinda surprised they showed the ad on the news.

    I also would like to say that I don't like the assumption that those who disagree with site or advert images could be somehow overly religious(I personally don't like the word 'religious' and don't associate that word to my personal beliefs but I quickly digress to quickly get off the topic of religion here). What if one just doesn't want to see a certain image? What if one finds an image degrading to women? What if not all of us are ok with three-ways(not to be too graphic there, sorry) and prefer a disclaimer before going on a webpage? Josh doesn't have to take his graphic down nor other businesses for that matter..but a disclaimer would be nice.

    Like I said, what's next? More A&F ads? Victoria's Secret models are getting younger and younger too. Some things are disturbing to some of us and I think that's ok to feel disturbed by it all.

    Free will is a great gift, perhaps the one of the greatest gifts of being a human.Though, some of us think free will may cross certain lines at certain points and for some of us, again, upon visiting a site a disclaimer would be nice...just to be on the side of politeness. None of us have to shop at SH, D&G, A&F..and we all have the free will to continue to shop there too. Again, free will is a great gift.

    While I don't see David by Michelangelo offensive, though I tend to look up more than down, LOL(TMI haha)...there are artists I do find offensive or not to my taste I suppose. In one of my college courses..an art teacher showed us some pictures from-I think- his name is Joel Peter Witkin, something like that. Joel takes pictures of corpses..posing them, clothing them..and taking black & whites. Would I have liked a disclaimer or warning from the teacher before the slide show? You betcha!. He showed the pics then said, 'oh by the way'..ugh..lol.

    I come from a different generation..where 'porn' was a word that wasn't used so commonly and if one wanted to watch it..they had to do the 'walk of shame' to the back of the VHS store..magazine shop..blah blah blah. As a kid/teen I remember, we'd be like.. 'eeeww he just went behind the certain, the curtain, you know what that means'. And perhaps certain sites don't want a certain anymore..but some of us do prefer one and would like to be warned before entering a site/webpage.

    I agree with RP, please no graphics/pics in here, thanks! I'll take your word for it!

    And no, we aren't talking religion now, in fact are trying to steer away/stay from it...to comply with the rules. And I think everyone has done an awesome job on that so far, for the most part.

    Edit! Sorry deadidol and to all the mods!...thanks for moderating and not closing the thread yet.
    Last edited by kalli; 16th December 2013 at 07:08 AM.
    $25 or less clearance sale:
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/390...othing-over-25!!

    "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Rom. 8:18

  15. #195
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScentFan View Post
    Are we talking religion now? Shucks, that's simple to resolve. Everyone repeat after me: "My God's better than your God." See? All settled. Easy. The only remaining question is what perfume each of our Gods wears. Mine wears AdP Colonia Intensa Oud Concentree and, when bored with that (assuming it's possible), Slumberhouse Jeke. I know this for sure because my better half told me he's God and I believe him.
    LOL. My prophetess forbids Kouros, so I sin terribly when she's up on the mountain. It's like Home Alone with civetone!

    * * * *

  16. #196
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by kalli View Post
    Yes, there probably won't be any resolution but discussions are a positive thing, I think. Thanks to everyone who has participated, including Josh, I found his post/reply to be very well-mannered & peaceful. That's to be respected for sure.

    ...

    Edit! Sorry deadidol and to all the mods!...thanks for moderating and not closing the thread yet.
    No problem! I think, honestly, that the thread is a microcosmic representation of the entirety of the problem - one that is never really resolved - and that just keeping it open, like keeping open the greater discussion of art, is the answer we seek. Freedom is what gives the universe continuity, so let's use it constructively! Indeed, that is also the historical answer, if you look back over (using the word carefully) religious history. Over the long haul, it looks more like a process being the answer, than the putative answer that the process seeks to continuously calculate. I think I got that viewpoint from an archaeologist / theologian who really influenced my thinking a while back, in his summation of early Jewish history, and the ebbs and flows of certain lines of thought in the culture. We don't so much discuss the problems to reach permanent solutions, but rather continuous ones, which are constantly being solved by the culture, and so it's imperative to keep the discussion going.
    * * * *

  17. #197

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    When I preordered Josh's new Zahd fragrance I didn't notice anything of an offensive nature on his site, so all the ado here got me curious. I'm not one to be easily shocked these days. Each new gray hair seems to bring an extra dose of tolerance & acceptance for the many different views and lifestyles of today's world. As long as no harm is being done, you'll have no beef from me.

    On to the image in question... Well, it's not exactly something I would hang on my living room wall, but also no worse than some of the graphic imagery in my college Archaeology textbook. I can see how some would be offended, but I also defend Josh's right to use it on his own site if that is his wish. I have to wonder how many people sought out the SH web site after hearing of the "overly sexual" and "lewd images" posted there.If you went looking for it & were offended by it, is that Josh's bad?

  18. #198

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Agree with you on some points, GJ, though I am becoming more open minded to tuberose... LOL...

    D&G ads..I didn't look at the image..had no idea about it though.
    $25 or less clearance sale:
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/390...othing-over-25!!

    "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Rom. 8:18

  19. #199
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genie Jeanie View Post
    When I preordered Josh's new Zahd fragrance I didn't notice anything of an offensive nature on his site, so all the ado here got me curious. I'm not one to be easily shocked these days. Each new gray hair seems to bring an extra dose of tolerance & acceptance for the many different views and lifestyles of today's world. As long as no harm is being done, you'll have no beef from me.

    On to the image in question... Well, it's not exactly something I would hang on my living room wall, but also no worse than some of the graphic imagery in my college Archaeology textbook. I can see how some would be offended, but I also defend Josh's right to use it on his own site if that is his wish. I have to wonder how many people sought out the SH web site after hearing of the "overly sexual" and "lewd images" posted there.If you went looking for it & were offended by it, is that Josh's bad?
    Your post reminds me of some of the mosaics I saw in Pompeii, with my wife. I wasn't paying any particular attention, as I was listening to the guide, but suddenly there was an urgent tug on my arm, and with utmost shock and wonder, as if she were talking about Godzilla, the Japanese word for.....

    Well - I almost died laughing under my breath.
    * * * *

  20. #200
    Basenotes Plus
    remik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,001

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by kswer View Post
    Remix
    It's Remik, not Remix.

    Quote Originally Posted by kswer View Post
    Also, pedophiles are not 100% straight, strict, religious, married men.
    I didn't say 100%, I said "most."

    Quote Originally Posted by kswer View Post
    The truth is that most are adult married men. The strict, religious part doesn't figure in.
    Page 1 on yahoo.com *right now* - five more priests suspended in Philadelphia over sexual abuse. http://news.yahoo.com/five-philadelp...004058580.html This happens almost every single day. I read newspapers and follow online media, 7 days a week. I see these stories not once or twice a year, but almost _every_ _single_ _day_. So pardon my opinion, or observation really, but I will stand by the "religious" comments.

  21. #201
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by remik View Post
    It's Remik, not Remix.



    I didn't say 100%, I said "most."



    Page 1 on yahoo.com *right now* - five more priests suspended in Philadelphia over sexual abuse. http://news.yahoo.com/five-philadelp...004058580.html This happens almost every single day. I read newspapers and follow online media, 7 days a week. I see these stories not once or twice a year, but almost _every_ _single_ _day_. So pardon my opinion, or observation really, but I will stand by the "religious" comments.
    I'm going to ask that those who want to continue this facet of the discussion, that you take it to PMs, please. That has fully jumped into a new controversy. We need to stay on fragrance and designers/houses, and maybe art and sex as generalities in relation to fragrance houses and designers.

    (Interesting discussion, but we just have to keep this on topic, and that's opening a new can of worms.
    * * * *

  22. #202
    Basenotes Junkie kswer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    873

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by remik View Post
    It's Remik, not Remix.



    I didn't say 100%, I said "most."



    Page 1 on yahoo.com *right now* - five more priests suspended in Philadelphia over sexual abuse. http://news.yahoo.com/five-philadelp...004058580.html This happens almost every single day. I read newspapers and follow online media, 7 days a week. I see these stories not once or twice a year, but almost _every_ _single_ _day_. So pardon my opinion, or observation really, but I will stand by the "religious" comments.
    My bad, Remik, auto correct got that one.

    When I read your post it didn't seem quite right so I check online and read the DOJ profile of pedophiles and it didn't mention anything about religion or strictness in upbringing being a factor. With all due respect, as the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

    I think I have said my peace and wish everyone the best. It has been informative.

  23. #203
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Thank you. I agree that you have said your peace. My best to both you and remik.

    Now - let's get back to fragrance houses and what motivates our feelings toward them.

    We'll try to keep it open-minded, but if the post cannot reasonably be related to fragrance, it will get deleted. Citations for trolling optional.
    * * * *

  24. #204

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Any ads with Brad Pitt? LOL. Those were so bad they were good.

    When I go to the dept store, I have to really look to find a scent that's not made for a teenager. I hate that. It's like the mainstream perfumers are like..'we made this for a younger audience'..they are talking about a flanker when the previous juice was also 'made for a younger audience'. Ok. So moms can buy 50 different perfumes for their kids..and what am I left with here?
    Last edited by kalli; 16th December 2013 at 09:10 AM.
    $25 or less clearance sale:
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/390...othing-over-25!!

    "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Rom. 8:18

  25. #205

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    As for the sexually provocative ads, it's all just human nature? Am I saying it's good? No. But it's honest. And shying away from it I doubt would meaningfully fix the problem. I don't like the sexual association particularly with fragrance, but everything sexualized sells.

    I think it helps just to be honest. We pay attention to products with attractive people endorsing them. We like sex.

  26. #206
    teardrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The south of England
    Posts
    5,993
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Just dropping in here to say; what an interesting & thought-provoking discussion this is. l see many persuasive arguments here from all the different perspectives. l am undecided on where l stand with regard to the "sexualisation" of advertising, but this thread has certainly made me think about it. Thanks to everyone here for contributing!
    "What is this secret connection between the soul, and sea, clouds and perfumes? The soul itself appears to be sea, cloud and perfume..." - from Zorba the Greek by Nikos Kazantzakis.

  27. #207

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Personally I can't believe how civil this has been. Well done everyone!

  28. #208
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,406
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by kalli View Post
    Any ads with Brad Pitt? LOL. Those were so bad they were good.

    When I go to the dept store, I have to really look to find a scent that's not made for a teenager. I hate that. It's like the mainstream perfumers are like..'we made this for a younger audience'..they are talking about a flanker when the previous juice was also 'made for a younger audience'. Ok. So moms can buy 50 different perfumes for their kids..and what am I left with here?
    I agree with this. I don't buy in dept stores much anymore for this reason. There are only maybe 6 scents I like and I've repeated them before so I won't now.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  29. #209
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,406
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    P.S. Nothing but tonka, incense & Aoud.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #210
    Dependent danieq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Southeastern Arizona
    Posts
    2,223

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    I agree, thanks for the civility to all. Discussion is good and I really appreciate hearing the varying perspectives whether or not they agree with mine.

    As far as off putting, I am frustrated when it's next to impossible to acquire a sample, or even the fragrance itself. I don't know that I am always inclined to completely give up, but sometimes I certainly do. I feel like the exclusive card gets played a bit to often and at times feels a bit like a con.

  31. #211
    Basenotes Institution 30 Roses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    11,441
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Generally speaking, I dislike limited editions.
    Jo Malone is a huge culprit-- the limited editions are often available only for 6-8 weeks before selling out. It is rare for any to be brought back.
    Guerlain's Aqua Allegoria fragrances are routinely discontinued. And the new ones are usually not available in our area.

    I used to love Crabtree & Evelyn but am put off because of their reformulations: each new version of older fragrances seems to be worse than the previous one.

    I am put off houses that only sell huge bottles of some of their fragrances. Creed, I'm looking at you. Seriously, how many people want to buy a minimum of 250ml of one fragrance?


  32. #212

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by hednic View Post
    What puts me off about a house is when a decision is made to only release a fragrance to a limited geographic market.
    (1305)
    ^This. I can understand when a fragrance is limited based on the amount produced, but when a fragrance is limited by region it only means that others who may seek it out will likely have to pay exorbitant prices on eBay, which the house doesn't benefit from and may even detract from any perceived exclusivity the house may have intended.

  33. #213
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by kalli View Post
    Any ads with Brad Pitt? LOL. Those were so bad they were good.

    When I go to the dept store, I have to really look to find a scent that's not made for a teenager. I hate that. It's like the mainstream perfumers are like..'we made this for a younger audience'..they are talking about a flanker when the previous juice was also 'made for a younger audience'. Ok. So moms can buy 50 different perfumes for their kids..and what am I left with here?
    OMG - the Brad Pitt ads. I loved them, but only after running around in circles and screaming NOOOOOOOO! for about a minute.

    Quote Originally Posted by danieq View Post
    I agree, thanks for the civility to all. Discussion is good and I really appreciate hearing the varying perspectives whether or not they agree with mine.

    As far as off putting, I am frustrated when it's next to impossible to acquire a sample, or even the fragrance itself. I don't know that I am always inclined to completely give up, but sometimes I certainly do. I feel like the exclusive card gets played a bit to often and at times feels a bit like a con.
    Yes - the no samples thing can be REALLY annoying sometimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by 30 Roses View Post
    Generally speaking, I dislike limited editions.
    Jo Malone is a huge culprit-- the limited editions are often available only for 6-8 weeks before selling out. It is rare for any to be brought back.
    Guerlain's Aqua Allegoria fragrances are routinely discontinued. And the new ones are usually not available in our area.

    I used to love Crabtree & Evelyn but am put off because of their reformulations: each new version of older fragrances seems to be worse than the previous one.

    I am put off houses that only sell huge bottles of some of their fragrances. Creed, I'm looking at you. Seriously, how many people want to buy a minimum of 250ml of one fragrance?
    Yes - the big bottles are sometimes just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I can only buy a highly beloved scent in a flacon. Period. That's my line in the sand. Either that, or a known split.
    * * * *

  34. #214
    Basenotes Institution 30 Roses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    11,441
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Ha ha, I just had to go listen to "Brad Pitt Meets the Frog Chorus" again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s45_KXRvDvU


  35. #215
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,298
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    ^ LOL!!!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    * * * *

  36. #216

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    Quote Originally Posted by PEARL View Post
    ^This. I can understand when a fragrance is limited based on the amount produced, but when a fragrance is limited by region it only means that others who may seek it out will likely have to pay exorbitant prices on eBay, which the house doesn't benefit from and may even detract from any perceived exclusivity the house may have intended.

    Missed hednic's post for some reason, but it's a very valid (and seriously irritating) point.

  37. #217
    kumquat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    8,406
    Blog Entries
    98

    Default Re: What puts you off about a house?

    http://www.fragrantica.com/perfume/C...lfi-13389.html
    yes, I just tried this Creed in the "hand blown bottle" (like I care) it goes for $675!
    Luckily, I have a scent-twin in Diptyque- Jardin Clos
    Although, I did get a nice compliment from a stranger on the hotel elevator when I was on my trip, who said, Whatever I was wearing, it was working!

Similar Threads

  1. the scent which really puts a spell on people!
    By Francolino in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 24th September 2012, 10:33 AM
  2. Article: Bond No.9 Puts Andy Warhol Back In The Spotlight
    By Lila Das Gupta in forum Article Comments
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22nd November 2011, 04:14 PM
  3. Who puts the chewy in patchouli?
    By Jardanel in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18th September 2009, 04:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000