Harry Styles - Gucci photos

[hoopsie]

Harry Styles Guuci advert has been in the news! Can't really articulate why but i feel it's "off" and inappropriate - poor judgement and mixed up. I don't have a lot of Gucci but did enjoy the sophistication of the designs. I normally love using the few few silks and scarves I own at this time of year.

Anyone?

 

[Yhte123]

It is 100% inappropriate, especially with this coming on the heels of the Balenciaga campaign.

BTW Balenciaga and Gucci have the same parent company.

Why the **** is Gucci featuring an ADULT man with a TODDLER bed with clothing that have designs you would always see in children’s clothing? It is ABSOLUTELY disgusting.

I already said in the other thread Kering brands all follow the same line of thinking and well you look at that. More proof of pedophilia undertones.

This won’t get as much traction unfortunately. Gucci’s PR machine is powerful and they’re already doing a good job burying it.

 

[papertiger]

What I loved about old Gucci campaigns is models were used and not celebs. Celebrities don't make me want Gucci.

I've liked Styles in some things, on the red carpet etc, It's nice to see men dressed-up.

I am not even sure what the HA HA HA is about. I'm not going to repost the pics, but the campaign is about Harry's 'playfulness' (arrested development) and nothing more sinister. I cannot read anything more into the images except men should play more with clothes as a comment on how unadventurous most men are/made to feel. I am not going to sully my mind with others making everything into stuff and nonsense. I don't think men should be told/taught how to dress by a luxury company nor celebs, each to their own.

He was obviously a favourite of Michele, got paid as the face of Gucci's tailoring since 2018. Now AM's gone, hopefully Harry will be gone too. I cannot wait.

 

[Yhte123]

Oh god. I did some digging and oh my god I feel sick. I haven’t really paid attention to Gucci runway shows, but seeing photos of one of them makes this situation worse.

One of men’s shows had ADULTS wearing children’s-styled clothing. Men’s in dresses I do not care for but not a big deal, but these dresses. These have designs that are like the ones for little girls. Soft, very cropped clothing worn tightly? Like an adult trying to wear a child’s clothing.

Something sinister is going on and I won’t be surprised the creative director was ousted like Lee was from Bottega.

People are ignoring it unlike Balenciaga because the Balenciaga one was more glaring and obvious. But Gucci is a second attempt which uses more covert imagery to fly under the radar of the average person. Which I believe was what Balenciaga was trying to do, but failed.

They are absolutely shameless showing the type of people they are. I can’t believe it.

 

[papertiger]

Please stick to the topic of the thread:

Harry Styles - Gucci photos​

 

[Jen Meyers]

Honestly I have to agree with Yhte123 about this. It’s deplorable.

I made the dumb and selfish mistake of defending Balenciaga with their child p**n campaign by accepting their (in retrospect, poor) apology because I owned a lot of balenciaga and I felt it was an honest mistake at first. But reading a lot of commentary revealed how deep and thorough these companies are with their marketing and campaigns. Balenciaga making barely any effort to hold accountability with their inconsistency, I truly regret my earlier opinions.

Anyway, Gucci’s I would say is even worse. The fact Gucci made the pedophilic undertones so covert is actually more despicable because it goes over the average person’s head, but signals to the right crowd. The fact they would exploit Harry Styles to be part of this effort is even worse when you consider how his fan base is primarily underage girls. The connections are there and I feel really bad for not seeing it.

I don’t know who’s behind this, but they need to be held accountable NOW. What a shame people aren’t aware of what Gucci is doing, but I’m glad one of the members of the Gucci family brought the issue up or I would’ve not noticed it at all.

 

[hoopsie]

Sorry to get serious but i had to post. why the mattress - why the stark, basic mattress? why mix something that is SOOO for an infant and mix it with an adult male image - he is iconic. why infant symbolism?

It totally puts me off my small Gucci collection.

Balenciaga was horrific, why did Gucci creep towards this?

 

[Annawakes]

Both campaigns are distasteful. The B photos were appalling. This G campaign is stupid and insidious. The people in charge are definitely trying to desensitize people.

I had another thought about G’s campaign though.

Perhaps they are also trying to eviscerate the idea of masculinity. When I see men in these childlike clothes it is like going to an extreme to desensitize people that masculinity doesn’t exist anymore.

I see it happening but I don’t really understand why.

I’m not eloquent so forgive my clumsy thoughts. Hopefully y’all understand my point.

 

[maryg1]

Sorry, I’m probably not seeing the same pics that other are seeing.
The ones I saw are not of a man in child’s clothes, but more of a man playing with women clothes from the 70s, and that’s typical of both HS and AM.
Some of the suits are actually amazing, not for everyone, but they sure make a statement when worn.
As @papertiger wrote, I don’t think the Ah Ah Ah collection was really needed or anything new, it seems just a tribute (or marketing help) to one of Gucci’s muse in the last years.
I gave a look at the lookbook from the collection, and it was like opening my family’s album photos, when it was just my parents and my brother and sister (I’m the youngest and from another decade).
My mum used to wear a lot of collared dresses when she was younger.

 

[Jen Meyers]

Sorry to get serious but i had to post. why the mattress - why the stark, basic mattress? why mix something that is SOOO for an infant and mix it with an adult male image - he is iconic. why infant symbolism?

It totally puts me off my small Gucci collection.

Balenciaga was horrific, why did Gucci creep towards this?

I hate to say it but I have to agree with Yhte’s theory that this was a second attempt to normalize child abuse imagery. They’re obviously trying to experiment with how far they can do this without offending the public eye and it looks like it’s working. Most people can’t see it, but once you connect the dots with what has been happening with Gucci design-wise and Harry, you can see what this campaign was really all about.

I just can’t believe they think people won’t notice.

 

[papertiger]

Sorry, I’m probably not seeing the same pics that other are seeing.
The ones I saw are not of a man in child’s clothes, but more of a man playing with women clothes from the 70s, and that’s typical of both HS and AM.
Some of the suits are actually amazing, not for everyone, but they sure make a statement when worn.
As @papertiger wrote, I don’t think the Ah Ah Ah collection was really needed or anything new, it seems just a tribute (or marketing help) to one of Gucci’s muse in the last years.
I gave a look at the lookbook from the collection, and it was like opening my family’s album photos, when it was just my parents and my brother and sister (I’m the youngest and from another decade).
My mum used to wear a lot of collared dresses when she was younger.

People are referring to a set of photos and a video campaign that shows Harry playing dress-up, and one of those 'vignettes' has him carrying a small mattress.

I'm just wondering when we're going to hear about the off-ness of an over-16 wearing a Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck tee? Frilled hems, puffed-sleeves, bright colours, patterned PJs, cartoons and high-waisted dresses are not (and never have been) child-specific in terms of dress. They were all adult fashions originally. The juxtaposition of an adult in a child(ish) clothes has semiotic codes in non-conformism and mental illness. "I want to act like a child" very rarely has translated into anything sinister (unless you are a well known music star by the initials MJ). The oversized clothes are not only about being small in 'grown-ups' wear but also about wanting to lose one's sexuality, reasonable for an unwitting sex-symbol screamed at by young women (and some men) where ever he goes.

The campaign goes along with the Fashioning Masculinities exhibition at the V&A this year and Alessandro Michele's excellent talk on fashion just before it opened https://www.gucci.com/uk/en_gb/st/capsule/va-fashioning-masculinities 26.06.22

Harry performs by using hyper-realism and performative imagery about his life as an music artist and a man. A series of costume changes and a nomadic existence is both real and signified. He's having fun with himself. The mattress is a symbol of a touring artist that sleeps wherever, whenever. There is no sign of any child anywhere. Harry is obviously the child. What this says about masculinity in 2022 is something else. I don't see why men have to dress in hyper-feminine or as cartoons (clowns) in order to bicentric challenge the hyper-masculine status quo. It does demonstrate what many consider to be gender constructs and age-appropriate conventions.

Givenchy X Chito, Coach X Disney, Loewe X Spirited Away and tens of other luxury and contemporary use cute/infantile (depending on one's POV) prints. I don't buy them, but many go crazy for well known cartoon and/or child-like illustrations.

Bal was completely different. In one of the Balenciaga's, children were pictured in an adult campaign, with adult-style 'accoutrements' on an adult bed, carrying highly strange and tasteless teddies. Harry is alone, infantilises himself, plays by himself, perhaps getting in touch with his inner-child and getting back to 'play' and the campaign is aimed at an adult consumer audience. The inspiration and retro feel is very counter-culture, totally the same vibe as hundreds of music artists of the late-'60s that played 'dress-up', putting flowers in their hair and painting the faces etc.

I think we are all highly sensitive atm. Instead of seeing witches faces in shadows and goblins inside the creases of curtains, I just hear the fear of others who are onto the next 'next'.

I hate celebs X brands. There has never been more of these awful ambassadorships than this year. I enjoy the work of (relatively) anonymous models, conventionally beautiful or not at all. Celebs bring to much fixedness and baggage to fashion. Fashion is about my self-expression, not being someone's fan.

 

[A1aGypsy]

The ha ha ha is a reference to the first names of Harry and the designer.

 

[Jen Meyers]

I'm just wondering when we're going to hear about the off-ness of an over-16 wearing a Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck tee? Frilled hems, puffed-sleeves, bright colours, patterned PJs, cartoons and high-waisted dresses are not (and never have been) child-specific in terms of dress. They were all adult fashions originally. The juxtaposition of an adult in a child(ish) clothes has semiotic codes in non-conformism and mental illness. "I want to act like a child" very rarely has translated into anything sinister (unless you are a well known music star by the initials MJ). The oversized clothes are not only about being small in 'grown-ups' wear but also about wanting to lose one's sexuality, reasonable for an unwitting sex-symbol screamed at by young women (and some men) where ever he goes.

This is an incredible misconstruing of what people are feeling.

The issue isn’t wearing clothing with designs that have been prevalent in children’s clothing. At all. Which is why there was never any backlash to previous Gucci designs, no backlash to Miu Miu or any other brand that’s using “”childish”” imagery.

Cartoons are an entirely different subject all together. Cartoons, while are primarily targeted to children, also written to engage with adults too. The intent with shows like Mickey/Disney is to create a *family* experience, where children and parents can watch together. But cartoons are completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread *ironic*

The issue is the designs that very overtly uses childrenswear inspired design (A freaking pink teddy bear!) combined with the use of the toddler bed, and coming in the heels of another Kering brand doing a campaign promoting child abuse. Not to mention some of the imagery in the collection allude to symbols in child abuse.

 

[papertiger]

This is an incredible misconstruing of what people are feeling.

The issue isn’t wearing clothing with designs that have been prevalent in children’s clothing. At all. Which is why there was never any backlash to previous Gucci designs, no backlash to Miu Miu or any other brand that’s using “”childish”” imagery.

Cartoons are an entirely different subject all together. Cartoons, while are primarily targeted to children, also written to engage with adults too. The intent with shows like Mickey/Disney is to create a *family* experience, where children and parents can watch together. But cartoons are completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread *ironic*

The issue is the designs that very overtly uses childrenswear inspired design (A freaking pink teddy bear!) combined with the use of the toddler bed, and coming in the heels of another Kering brand doing a campaign promoting child abuse. Not to mention some of the imagery in the collection allude to symbols in child abuse.

I'm not going to get drawn into the demarcations between one sort of cute and another. Cute cartoons that are deemed so embedded into US > global dominance they are are somehow above any scrutiny and others that are (faux) generically cute and therefore must be suspect because they don't look branded. Without even going into (Walt) Disney's rather dubious past, his company's family entertainment was based on some very dark tales indeed, many of them stories of having to avoid step-parental jealousy, abuse and attempted murder (Snow White) child labour and bullying (Cinderella). Let's not get into Alice in Wonderland.

People are looking extra hard at all campaigns, that's good IMO. In this case I think they are seeing 'things' where there are none. The media has picked-up on the story to keep the Bal story going, that's what the media does. As I said previously, I am not a Harry Styles fan or his collab with Alessandro Michele in this HA HA HA, but the campaign is not promoting anything other than buy Gucci RTW with the message that it's OK for guys to fun dressing, giving them permission to wear something that challenges stereotypes. Personally, I also think it's crass, the diametric opposite of masculinity is not child-like or hyper-feminine, they are all constructs. The opposite of any construct is deconstruction and he does that in the pile of clothes at his feet, not what he wears.

If anyone looks at adult women's loungewear it's equally as suspect. Hearts, ribbons, cartoons, cuteness and generic crap-ness abounds. These are regularly for sale for women in high-street stores but I don't see anyone campaigning against onesies, cartoon Halloween costumes, and teddybears on underwear. That's because as a society not only is it acceptable for girls and women to play cute but it's encouraged.

For sale at H&M and M&S right now:





Kering is a parent company, it doesn't control brands' micro, it doesn't do campaigns or promote cultural trends. It can only take responsibility as a parent company. In Balenciaga's case I think they have definitely failed to take control, and the company (Bal) will suffer, in Gucci's (HA HA HA's) case they should do nothing.

 

[Jen Meyers]

I'm not going to get drawn into the demarcations between one sort of cute and another. Cute cartoons that are deemed so embedded into US > global dominance they are are somehow above any scrutiny and others that are (faux) generically cute and therefore must be suspect because they don't look branded. Without even going into (Walt) Disney's rather dubious past, his company's family entertainment was based on some very dark tales indeed, many of them stories of having to avoid step-parental jealousy, abuse and attempted murder (Snow White) child labour and bullying (Cinderella). Let's not get into Alice in Wonderland.

People are looking extra hard at all campaigns, that's good IMO. In this case I think they are seeing 'things' where there are none. The media has picked-up on the story to keep the Bal story going, that's what the media does. As I said previously, I am not a Harry Styles fan or his collab with Alessandro Michele in this HA HA HA, but the campaign is not promoting anything other than buy Gucci RTW with the message that it's OK for guys to fun dressing, giving them permission to wear something that challenges stereotypes. Personally, I also think it's crass, the diametric opposite of masculinity is not child-like or hyper-feminine, they are all constructs. The opposite of any construct is deconstruction and he does that in the pile of clothes at his feet, not what he wears.

If anyone looks at adult women's loungewear it's equally as suspect. Hearts, ribbons, cartoons, cuteness and generic crap-ness abounds. These are regularly for sale for women in high-street stores but I don't see anyone campaigning against onesies, cartoon Halloween costumes, and teddybears on underwear. That's because as a society not only is it acceptable for girls and women to play cute but it's encouraged.

For sale at H&M and M&S right now:

View attachment 5675538View attachment 5675540



Kering is a parent company, it doesn't control brands' micro, it doesn't do campaigns or promote cultural trends. It can only take responsibility as a parent company. In Balenciaga's case I think they have definitely failed to take control, and the company (Bal) will suffer, in Gucci's (HA HA HA's) case they should do nothing.

You’re again misconstruing my words and even the situation. Not to mention the off-topic tangents you’re going on about Disney’s past (which have been devoid of its original context due to cultural shifts, reinterpretations, and marketing etc) But your own comment is far from relevant from the topic of this thread. in your own words:

Please stick to the topic of the thread:

Harry Styles - Gucci photos​

The issue isn’t the aspect of “cute” nor is it an adult in children’s style designs. Which I have made unequivocal in my original comments by how there was no issue with Gucci’s previous designs, nor any other brand using that design style. It is not children’s inspired designs worn by women which I have also made clear. Not to mention your whataboutism about women in onesies and other children inspired designs ignores the historical contexts and differences between men and women in child abuse. The subject of the Gucci campaign is headed by a MAN.

It doesn’t matter how you feel about whatever Gucci does or celeb collabs or whatever. I originally LOVED Balenciaga and I made the mistake of defending them. Now I am able to admit my wrong in my initial thoughts of the Balenciaga campaign. I can’t even look at my stuff from them.

My point I am making: that to combine imagery of childrenswear design worn by an adult male with toddler’s furniture and beds is extremely inappropriate and ties an association with the two. Which heavily alludes to the imagery of child abuse. Not to mention in some pieces, how children’s motifs in the designs are coupled Harry’s sexual lyrics like Watermelon Sugar.

It is not the single element of children’s wear-inspired clothing you are arguing against. It is the combination of MULTIPLE elements of this collection and campaign that is disgusting and alludes to child abuse. Hence why even the LA times, NY Post and among other large outlets are covering this.

To say the media is trying to keep things going or imply them fabricating drama by covering this Gucci campaign is extremely disrespectful to the work of journalists that are trying to illuminate the very important and insidious issue of child abuse.


I never said Kering had direct involvement with the campaign, but from what I read from people who have worked the industry said online, the parent company absolutely does have eyes on these campaigns. So for them to not stop it says A LOT.