Harry Styles - Gucci photos

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#31
Jaxholt15 said:
Honestly I am not sure who has the warped minds here. I do not look at the pics and think child abuse.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I actually think they may be referencing some of the sculpter Rachel Whiteread’s work. She did a series of resin castings of mattresses reflecting memory, intimacy and vulnerability, and some of those casts were on children’s mattresses. One of them was famously slumped like one it the standing shot.

I may just be spitballing a bit, but I just don’t see it.
 
  • Insightful
  • Like
Reactions: Christofle, redwings, jellyv and 2 others
#36
I think it is disgusting and perverted and even though I have some vintage Balenciaga and Gucci - I will never buy from those brands again or any brand under the Kering label - they make me sick
 
  • Like
Reactions: JK22
#37
papertiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
women who would wear this type of stuff are sick - just like the ones that shave all the hair down below to look like children to please their perverted men - makes me want to throw up
 
#38
allanrvj said:
I think people are reading too much into it. You guys need to lighten up.
Click to expand...
Agreed. He’s an adult and is allowed to wear what he wants. Bears are not for children only. I also habe a Moschino Bear T-Shirt and I’m very much a normal adult. I think some people always find something sexual in anything, that’s the real problem. I would have never thought of that looking at the pictures. They probably used that size of a matratze so he’s able to carry it comfortably. I feel like people always want to find something to be outraged by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: papertiger, allanrvj and snibor
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top