Ah. Silences. I wonder, Elena, if you have had a chance to smell the newly reformulated version? I think I read somewhere that they are going to call it Silences Sublime - that would seem to be rather a misnomer perhaps? Would love to know how you think the new version compares with the last!
It is interesting how naked or nearly-naked female images are used to sell things to women, whereas advertising for (usually straight) men that used naked men wouldn't work as well...
Are we victims of the patriarchal eye, or do women put themselves into the glam shot/picture more often, or do naked women just look better?
Quite beautiful! Miss Heliotrope - I suppose women are more comfortable being naked, or being imagined naked. It is a consequence of the patriarchal eye, but at these times I found it liberating instead of victimizing. Still I wonder why nobody uses cross gender advertising - men for female fragrances and vice versa.
I read that on Fragrantica as well, though I haven't tried the new version. I would love to be able to compare though. Hopefully a sample might land on my lap one of these days. Should be interesting! Love the old one, so fang-like sharp and bitterish.
or ~to reverse the equilibrium~ it's just that (straight) men are afraid to ogle naked men in case they're mistaken for homosexuals!
You know what they say: you can sell anything using babies and naked women. Deep down I think it has to do with something more primal, connecting the two: the regenerative common stem of these two things: propagation of the species, the power to renew and reproduce. (a long way from pagan though when the power of the phallus was all mighty and celebrated in all its glory in everything ~those were mighty patriarchal societies too!). Advertising isn't really selling the product but the idea of the product, after all, isn't it?
{ok, I might be pushing it just a wee bit too much}
I tend to find it liberating rather than victimizing most of the time as well. It certainly looks perfectly innocent in the Schiaparelli ad for instance (evoking a classic ideal of the Three Graces after all). Though it can easily lean into sleazy and then we're into victimizing ground. It's a delicate balance...
The point about cross gender advertising is a good one. I guess they don't use it as much for some reason that has to do with either focus groups not responding too well or with not finding the perfect "common denominator" specimen (women are more individualistic in their preferences to men? men respond "better"/more gutturally to an overt stimulus such as a naked breast or suggestion of female butt irresponsive of who owns said piece of meat? beats me...)
I suppose so. For "not your idea for the right person to do it" please see my response to Idomeneus ("women more individualistic in their preferences" etc)
Type your comment in the box, choose the Profile option you prefer from the drop down menu, below text box (Anonymous is fine too!) and hit Publish. And you're set!
.jpg)
Ah. Silences. I wonder, Elena, if you have had a chance to smell the newly reformulated version? I think I read somewhere that they are going to call it Silences Sublime - that would seem to be rather a misnomer perhaps? Would love to know how you think the new version compares with the last!
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how naked or nearly-naked female images are used to sell things to women, whereas advertising for (usually straight) men that used naked men wouldn't work as well...
ReplyDeleteAre we victims of the patriarchal eye, or do women put themselves into the glam shot/picture more often, or do naked women just look better?
Quite beautiful!
ReplyDeleteMiss Heliotrope - I suppose women are more comfortable being naked, or being imagined naked. It is a consequence of the patriarchal eye, but at these times I found it liberating instead of victimizing.
Still I wonder why nobody uses cross gender advertising - men for female fragrances and vice versa.
Is that what the new Chanel 5 ad with Brad Pitt meant to do I wonder? Mind you, I still don't think he's my idea of the right sort of person for it...
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteI read that on Fragrantica as well, though I haven't tried the new version. I would love to be able to compare though. Hopefully a sample might land on my lap one of these days. Should be interesting! Love the old one, so fang-like sharp and bitterish.
C,
ReplyDeleteor ~to reverse the equilibrium~ it's just that (straight) men are afraid to ogle naked men in case they're mistaken for homosexuals!
You know what they say: you can sell anything using babies and naked women. Deep down I think it has to do with something more primal, connecting the two: the regenerative common stem of these two things: propagation of the species, the power to renew and reproduce. (a long way from pagan though when the power of the phallus was all mighty and celebrated in all its glory in everything ~those were mighty patriarchal societies too!).
Advertising isn't really selling the product but the idea of the product, after all, isn't it?
{ok, I might be pushing it just a wee bit too much}
Idomeneus,
ReplyDeleteI tend to find it liberating rather than victimizing most of the time as well. It certainly looks perfectly innocent in the Schiaparelli ad for instance (evoking a classic ideal of the Three Graces after all). Though it can easily lean into sleazy and then we're into victimizing ground.
It's a delicate balance...
The point about cross gender advertising is a good one. I guess they don't use it as much for some reason that has to do with either focus groups not responding too well or with not finding the perfect "common denominator" specimen (women are more individualistic in their preferences to men? men respond "better"/more gutturally to an overt stimulus such as a naked breast or suggestion of female butt irresponsive of who owns said piece of meat? beats me...)
C,
ReplyDeleteI suppose so. For "not your idea for the right person to do it" please see my response to Idomeneus ("women more individualistic in their preferences" etc)