maxiaffissione now all speak of with the click of Terry Richardson made for Silvian Heach. In the same year, another entity depicts two girls with an icicle (a kind of calippo of obvious phallic shape) winking provocatively. The eye falls right there on those billboards XXL, no doubt. In Genoa, the city has managed to be fooled by slightly moving the eye with a laugh, not realizing that the famous model with her ass in the wind had been placed right next to the invitation with which it is recommended to make shopping . Came the apology, but now the gaffe had been made.
usual question: what effect does a person like that? Personally, for most in this period, no effect. For me, the idea that I do in these cases is that the brand does not have sex appeal and then to exploit a piece of meat on display. Let me be clear, the brand name I have had to search for the umpteenth time because I have not yet come to mind. Ignorance, you say. And then immediately countered: it is not advertised having to lay down your head to buy that dress, the bag, the shoes? If so, in my opinion, has failed in full. Of course, I still hear talk a lot and, like it or not, that remember the brand.
However, I have sharpened even more the view. I came across Vanity Fair, the number of 2 March. Among the letters were delivered to the director, here's one that struck me. " From cover to cover, your newspaper is full of beautiful women in sexy poses, with provocative clothing. Since this, I suppose, a magazine mainly for women, do you think the women feel represented by these models? Or perhaps, also seen times like these, it would take a bit less 'tits and ass' and more news and views? . A write was a man, it is clear, in any case not carry the name. Here's the answer, I report here an excerpt: " I think it is very difficult - when it comes to the female body in the media - to draw a clear demarcation between white and black, between respect el'offensivo: nuances matter, and has subjectivity. The body freely shown that, in itself, nothing vulgar .
see then that there is good advertising for Chanel trimmed a few pages from the cover of Vanity Fair.
It speaks for itself, I think. But the answer to the readers, so that it deserves to be commented. The interpretation has indeed! But those who want to fool? And the show much, much, if it is vulgar clearly alluding to pornography. What do I remember, otherwise, certain shots? The pictures first communion? Then that many women enjoy being seen and that the models have an uninhibited relationship with your body, are two separate speeches. But I think most readers of Vanity Fair are looking for models, stars who say, "I also have a defect, I too am like you and do not take kindly to find on other page and not a 'winking expression, two coscettine undernourished strictly positioned at an angle plate and clothes that do not cover at all, although - in theory - the protagonists of the picture.
The conclusion, however, is bitter. The real problem is that we have become accustomed to this. We women, however, we know that our men - all, mind you - are left to escape the gaze on the goods offered on television, in newspapers, on billboards of our cities and on the road, when someone wants to be noticed and then maybe let her thong in plain sight. The value we give our people the goods is far less than what they give us (if not, here is a good reason to get rid of them). So we do not care. Why should we? Simply, we still think different people, not pieces of meat into a category that allows us to get our rolls of fat, curly hair, thongs and eat nails. Yet like them, we are convinced. The looks provocative? Of course you know show off, but we know when we make the freaks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment