.jpg)
The Guardian reports that Coty, who makes the fragrance, doesn't have the same problems with the ads, because most readers of the magazines featuring the ads are 25 or older and the picture is no more racer than the other images hosted in those magazines.
This latest incident comes after the banning of Belle d'Opium by YSL ads which roused 13 complaints from people who claimed the commercial championed drug use (wow, 13 complaints, huh!!) and the banning of the "Fallen Angels" campaign for Axe deodorant (which is continued to be broadcasted in my country almost every day)
What do you think about the Oh,Lola! ad: Trashy or Tasty?
ew.
ReplyDeleteIt looks silly, anyway, doesn't it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not normally one to get up in arms, but this ad creeped me out the very first time I saw it. Just wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably Marc's (or the creative director's anyway) vision of girls growing a penis or something. More "gender malfunction" than "sexual". Weird!
ReplyDeleteWeird yes, and also just vaguely silly. But nowhere near as bad as some of those Tom Ford ads, the ones with perfume bottles in some very suggestive places. They were horrid, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAMC,
ReplyDeletevaguely silly is my take as well. I don't know what possessed Dakota and she agreed on such a shot (and moreover declaring she was humbled to be asked). It's got a tousled, laid-back Sofia Coppola aesthetic, but without any content or meaning (unless girls are to take huge flowery things and put them between their legs in some alternative universe) .
The TF ones were despicably trashy IMHO. Not because of the bare parts, male or female. Not at all. Nudity is nothing to shy away from (again IMO)Because of the porn-chic outlook.
Since the age of consent is 15 where I live, a 17 year old girl being provocative or 'shocking' with a phallic looking object isn't the part of this that bothers me. The part that really squicks me out is the impression that I'm looking at a young girl being coaxed into posing for a camera. The slightly downward angle gives the impression that the girl is smaller than the photographer. The slightly awkward pose paired with the frou frou dress seems to illustrate her youth. The poorly lit, almost unprofessional look of the photo gives the feeling of an illicit motel room where a pedophile might take a kid to 'model' for them. Just icky. BUT, I'm sure they never intended any of that, right? I think there are plenty of ads and products that go way over the line when it comes to sexualizing children, though I dont think this is one of them. This ad is just seedy and icky looking. I think the advertisers are only guilty of poor taste.
ReplyDeleteGauche is the word here. Marc Jacobs ads used to have an ugly aesthetic that worked really well to make them stand out – think Victoria Beckham with that thing strapped on her head. This ad can’t decide on being ugly or being sexual and it comes across as trashy. Also, giant perfume bottles stuck on people’s crotches appears to be Marc Jacobs thing now, huh?
ReplyDeleteIt does look like an ad that would appeal mostly to pedophiles, I doubt the girls purchasing Oh, Lola would like to be photographed this way. I don’t agree that it should be censored, but I think it’s lame. Also, the fragrance itself isn’t smart enough for this to be construed as clever.
-- Nikki
I think Marc Jacobs ads are mostly just funny. Then again "Bang" was really sleazy. :D
ReplyDeleteLet's not leave anything to imagination. The 'clunk you over the head' advertising is a testament to the competitive world of catching audience attention. It works.
ReplyDeleteHowever,Dakota Fanning looks seriously anemic--that's why she's sitting--she can't manage to hold the heavy bottle! Or maybe the bottle is a reference to a flowery smelling...
In any case, I'm not the target audience!
Sorry, seems like I am the only one but I am with the Brits on this.
ReplyDeleteIt´s just plain wrong and made my goosebumpy for all the wrong reasons.
Mainly because Dakota Fanning might not be a little child anymore but she looks a lot younger than 17.
I agree that this ad is sexualizing children and there´s already enough of that going on.
Marc Jacob´s other ads don´t bother me even if they´re way more sleazy. At least they use adults for the freaky pictures.
Yeah, this is skeeved me out too. Not liking it at all.
ReplyDeleteKKinDK,
ReplyDeletethey wouldn't really make an eye flinch here either, but it is exactly what you so succinctly describe that would leave most people with a rather distasteful flavour in the mouth.
The whole setting reminds me of child pornography (which is unacceptable to even the most liberated mind)and recalls the infamous Clavin Klein Jeans ads in the mid-1990s.
Interesting article on the CK Jeans controversy
"For reference in the United States, five criteria are used in determining pornographic images: focusing on the genital area, showing unnatural poses, depicting children as sex objects, implying that the children are willing to engage in sex, and suggestive settings"
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right on down to your last word!
There needs to be some clever greater scheme behind something controversial/displeasing to register as "intelligent" or intellectual. This is clearly not Salo.
T,
ReplyDeletethanks for commenting! The Bang ad did produce the ick for me. I mean, all right, I can do nudity, but baby-oiled-up nudity? Pass the barfbag please and let me see real people, not hyperventillated egomaniac designers.
TFC,
ReplyDeleteyou know, you bring a good point there: "I'm not the target audience". But really, as someone above said, neither are girls purchasing Oh,Lola! Would they like this aesthetic? I doubt it.
And yes, Dakota looks frail. I get it, flowers are sexual organs but this concept could have been exploited so much more cleverly, suggestively, intelligently, you name it. This is just lame IMO.
This ad is calculated to create buzz and that is inherently repulsive to me.
E,
ReplyDeleteno, you're not the only one. I find it repulsive as well, just not because of the strategic location of the bottle, rather the children porn aesthetic on the whole (as KKinDK defined it ever so succinctly in her comment).
I think MJ has destroyed the LV brand and is busy destroying our collective aesthetic as well. I never realised why he's considered such a great designer anyway. (YSL he certainly is not!)
T,
ReplyDeleteit's just ugly and icky, isn't it?
We agree.
I have the distinct feeling that we're dealing with a reprise of the Steven Meisel aesthetic of the 1995 CK Jeans ads, which in themselves were inspired by a famous 1970s gay porn aesthetic popularised by a photographer whose name escapes me right now.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone remembers that name, drop me a line, I'm racking my mind to find it and can't.
Remember these ads?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVk21Pco-c
MJ is coming up second and sweaty. It's been done before.
I bought the Oh Lola gift set in a duty free store at the airport. When I transited London, the Heathrow Security destroyed the gift pack because it contained a tube of 150ml lotion. When I emailed Coty to complain about their product blunder - and my destroyed gift - they sent me a disparaging email implying that their blunder was somehow my airline's fault. Doesn't the whole world know that flying today involves a max of 100ml?! Don't buy the Coty pruduct - they will imply you are a loser.
ReplyDeleteExtremely sorry to hear that happened to you :-(
ReplyDelete