What do y'all think about the Balenciaga SS23 & Adidas collab "teddy" controversy?

[Swanky]

Bears repeating!

We'd like to leave this thread open, but political conspiracy theories, among other comments need to stop. Discuss the topic only please, let's keep the discussion open and all responses to others need to remain respectful.

Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.

 

[Kevinaxx]

I’m trying to understand what type of child pornography wouldn’t be harmful to the child. I’m guessing it would be stuff that isn’t actual pornography (since that would inherently be harmful).

Honestly ANY exploitation of children is disgusting imho with sexual/porn at the very top. I’ve also seen people use children on the streets begging for $. I can only imagine the type of physiological damage that does to a child, nevermind the very top disgusting acts.

 

[880]

I’m trying to understand what type of child pornography wouldn’t be harmful to the child. I’m guessing it would be stuff that isn’t actual pornography (since that would inherently be harmful).

I edited bc somewhere I read virtual pornography computer generated or animated, not of a real child

@HAZE MAT , now that I’ve read US v. Williams, I’m beginning to understand Balenciaga may have intended this ad campaign more as social commentary calling out as ridiculous the Scalia carve out and sparking healthy debate. I agree with you that this may not be possible in the US at this time. I appreciate your SECOND POSTSCRIPT, post #539.

@Kevinaxx , I think your alarm is in line with the Souter dissent in US v. Williams.

I’m out

 

[7th House]

I adore my moto bags. I mean, truly. But this is so mind boggling. How they could think any of this was even remotely appropriate. It’s bonkers.

I just don’t think I can carry them in good conscience right now.

Also, where are the parents?

I question this too. Where are the parents and why did they let this happen?

 

[dangerouscurves]

I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.

I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.

Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.

They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).

Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of United States v. Williams being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."

If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.

EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.



I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"

SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html

Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad. In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.

Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."

Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)

Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.

Ich komme aus Deutschland and live in Bonn and these ads still doesn't sit with me. In fact the law here are really tough on child pornography and child abuse. Though Europeans are more open minded when it comes to sex, they don't think what a Balenciaga did is OK.
As stated over and over by us, it's not only these campaigns now that they're out in the open. Other people have unvovered more sinister stuff with Demna and his crew.

 

[LVLoveaffair]

I know that the moto bag is from the Ghesquiere era.

The brand is literally trying to distance their involvement with this and suing anyone to get people off their backs. “We’re sorry for any offense”? The whole apology was so insincere and patronizing. They have done nothing at all and been silent. I’m not surprised they left twitter given their ties! The brand is tainted. If they fire the creative director it’s be an empty gesture since they still maintain the rest of the staff that green lit this campaign.

I didn’t know not supporting a brand even through their old designs because they implicitly advocated for pedophilia is ludicrous. Interesting!

Sorry not sorry. But at the end of the day, wearing anything recognizably Balenciaga is tacit apathy towards their inhuman behavior. It’s saying I’m fine with not giving them my money from now on, but absolutely fine keeping them relevant. Wearing their designs will allow them to maintain their popularity. It doesn’t matter what era of the brand it is from.

I agree! I wouldn’t carry any Balenciaga - even the older bags since it’s still “supporting” the brand and perversion right now. The masses don’t know or care about which bag came out in which year….they just see the brand.

 

[LVLoveaffair]

German press is writing about it, too.

Here's the link

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/stil/mo.../f25a46e8-6ccd-11ed-a257-52d1e0-18488545.html

And here's a screenshot:

View attachment 5660571

the headlines translates as following:

Balenciaga in a crisis.Children with Bondage Teddybears

I let deppl translate the text:

Balenciaga apologizes for an ad campaign depicting children with fetish bags. Was this a deliberately staged scandal by the Parisian luxury brand?
Demna was lucky again. When a ****storm threatened to descend on fashion brand Balenciaga and its chief designer this week - not much happened, except for a bit of excitement on Twitter. For too much news came in between in public: the debate about the World Cup, for example, and for fashion fans then also the surprising departure of Alessandro Michele from Gucci.
Discussions about Demna, who in his role as designer does without his last name Gvasalia, are certainly scandalous. A Balenciaga Christmas campaign features young children in homey settings, with teddy bears wearing a fetish leather harness of the kind used in sadomasochistic bondage practices. Children in such a context? "I understand that a big part of Balenciaga's marketing is the shock factor," wrote one Twitter user, "but this is just disgusting."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

and I found this intel.
View attachment 5660572


I will never ever buy from them again. NEVER.

The bondage teddys are not placed on a bed by mistake!

 

[Shelby33]

I found a clearer picture. Maybe it’s just a bear with a big tail?

View attachment 5664317

View attachment 5664318

I agree, I think it is a stuffed animal.

 

[Aliceinred]

Does anyone know what this purple object is on the right side of the advertisement picture? I can’t find a clearer picture. Someone said it could be a sexual object.

View attachment 5664200

Could it be a Barney the dinosaur stuffed animal?

 

[Shelby33]

Could it be a Barney the dinosaur stuffed animal?

And... years ago I was so happy I would never have to see Barney again

 

[Shelby33]

I have decided that this is my last post on this thread and I need not comment much further.

I am a contemporary artist and fashion designer and I do like the driving concept behind Balenciaga's brilliant dissection of American culture (at least a fringe element) through the ad. It is pretty postmodern and works well as an anti-ad ad.

Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor; but in case, at this point, I feel that I am going to be speaking to deaf ears and I will remain to support Demna as much as I can.

They have nothing to apologize at this point. In any case, Balenciaga should think hard and just makes ads specifically for Americans and then ads for the rest of the world. That will solve the problem. (Look at the news coverage for this flap up; we aren't getting much out of American news coverage).

Their most brilliant idea: "Supporting Balenciaga’s Spring/Summer 2023 collection, the ‘Garde-Robe’ campaign, which featured the likes of Bella Hadid and Nicole Kidman, saw Balenciaga opt for an “office” theme that displayed a host of legal documents across the set, with a page from a Supreme Court ruling of United States v. Williams being spotted. The document included several references to child pornography, with the case ultimately deeming the promotion of child pornography illegal and not protected under freedom of speech."

If there is any other fashion news which has such intellectual depth like Balenciaga, please tell me. Anyways I'm finally out of this room.

EDIT: In order to understand what the ad is really about, you must look at Bliss Foster's video about the ad regarding clones. It's a very cynical look at our world today where celebrity is all about cloning. Like Kim is a clone of Kanye, etc.



I will end this on a quote by Jean BAUDRILLARD about cloning and sexuality: "What, if not a death drive, would push sexed beings to regress to a form of reproduction prior to sexuation (besides, isn't it this form of scissiparity, this reproduction and proliferation through pure contiguity that is for us, in the depths of our imaginary, death and the death drive - what denies sexuality and wants to annihilate it, sexuality being the carrier of life, that is to say of a critical and mortal form of reproduction?) and that, at the same time, would push them metaphysically to deny all alterity, all alteration of the Same in order to aim solely for the perpetuation of an identity, a transparency of the genetic inscription no longer even subject to the vicissitudes of procreation?"

SECOND POSTSCRIPT: Regarding the ruling, we have https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2008/06/what-were-they.html

Balenciaga ads tend to be very hypertextual and refer one to another. Basically the child ad is a commentary on that ruling shown in another ad. In any case, from the article we quote "The Court's ratification of a flat ban on child pornography had a relatively minimal impact on the First Amendment. Admittedly, the ruling did cause serious problems for some photographers, ranging from parents taking innocuous photos of their children to fine art photographers whose works included nude photos of children (among the more well-known examples are David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann). But on the whole, it was relatively easy to draw a bright line between legal and illegal images, and law enforcement made substantial progress in fighting child pornography.

Most of those gains, however, have been wiped out by computers, the Internet, and digital cameras, all of which have made the production and distribution of child pornography vastly easier and far more difficult to combat. These new technologies have also blurred the previously bright line between legal and illegal images: many websites feature very young-looking but still adult models; some individuals use software to blend two or more legal images into composite child pornography; and others use animation software to create completely artificial (but increasingly realistic) child pornography images."

Demna is just brilliant. He understands the pulse of our digital age where children are being exploited. He is a refugee and knows that the current situation in the Ukraine is where we are seeing violence against children happen again and again. (https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-have-been-raped-tortured-by-russian-forces/)

Once again, we tend to be complaining about an ad and Demna is pointing out that we are all armchair hypocrites for raising arms about child exploitation while ignoring where the real violence against children is happening.

If what I bolded above s true, why did Balenciaga say they had "no idea" those court papers were there, and subsequently try to sue the production company?

Your statement "Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor" -

Demna was supposed to receive an award this week from Business of Fashion- Voices, which they have rescinded. Business of Fashion's HQ is in London.

Balenciaga in London was vandalized according to this article.

Balenciaga Stores Vandalized Following Ad Campaign Featuring BDSM And Children - Travel Noire

Fashion retailer Balenciaga continues to find itself in hot water following an inappropriate ad campaign and some stores have been vandalized

travelnoire.com

 

[millivanilli]

1.) Advertising has caused quite a bit of trouble even in oh-so-enlightened artistic Europe.
2.) to my knowledge the ad was explicitly placed in the US, so it was for the US American market - we can assume that a company the size of Balenciaga knows its customers and takes cultural differences into account .
3) Exploiting children is indeed something that we humans with sense and reason do not find cool, worldwide and over time.
4) Europe in particular - yes, I understand, the Eurocentric view of things, which does not at least stand up to scrutiny - has not necessarily distinguished itself with "artistic freedom" in recent years and decades. I like to remind here for the German area of Böhmermann, Charlie Hebdo etc.. We were oh so shocked, but children in an obvious BDSM context are "art"? Come on.
5.)I'll never understand how anyone could think that a broad-based advertising campaign that costs vast sums of money was just put together that way. Even an ordinary Nestle pizza photo is planned down to the smallest detail - no advertising is " just hold a camera on it and snap a photo, see what comes around". Thus, this overlap in the Balenciaga Tape is certainly also not an "accident".

The argument that the advertising would cause an uproar in the U.S., but operates in Europe under "art" is only one thing: racism and sheer arrogance towards the U.S. Americans. It shows that we Europeans - once again - can only do one thing: point the finger at others and raise ourselves above them at. any. price. And be it a photo that has clearly, worldwide, caused shock and disgust.

Sometimes I am ashamed to be a European, because this arrogance is foreign to me.

 

[Shelby33]

Is it true that these kids were children of Balenciaga employees?

 

[Chachalouve]

I leave in Switzerland so kind of European.. And like to think that I am an opened minded person.
However, I got shocked and offended by these adds. The whole thing with this court case documents is just disgusting.
And when I saw the « art » that this sick person called Lota something is promoting, it repulsed me so much that I did not sleep well for a few days. I cannot believe such people are allowed to share their sick mind freely. And I don’t care if she is not working with Balenciaga at this stage, this whole thing is totally awful and they worked with which seems to be a terrible person at some point.
Maybe those that are trying this form « art » don’t have children? Because I have two kids and I am still shocked by what I saw.
I loved my two small city bags but I am so upset I might sell them as I am not sure I will be able to carry them anymore.
And by the way, I would like to mention that I HATE the work of Demna for Balenciaga. I am really sorry for what he did to this brand and hoped he would get fired with his team but unfortunately, it seems like he will be able to keep doing his crap..
Voilà, I had to write this as I my two Bbags were my two favorites bags in my small bag collection but this guy destroyed everything about Balenciaga in my view..

 

[papertiger]

Is it true that these kids were children of Balenciaga employees?

Apparently (that's what I heard from a YT vid). I'm not linking that vid because I do not (want) to support the Chanel but I am supposing the content-creator got the info pretty easily from the Net.

However, from the DM (it doesn't say whether or not he works for BAL)

Father of child who posed in bondage-themed Balenciaga defends shoot

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, the father said he was present at the shoot, which was 'an enjoyable day out' - and insisted the bizarre pictures had been taken 'totally out of context'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

From the article "...the parents of the children had been 'active participants' in the day-long shoot in Paris earlier this month."

 

[dangerouscurves]

If what I bolded above s true, why did Balenciaga say they had "no idea" those court papers were there, and subsequently try to sue the production company?

Your statement "Unfortunately, the ad which is directed more at an European audience who understands irony and sociopolitical commentary failed terribly with an American audience. We just don't have any understanding of subtle satire/subversion/dark humor" -

Demna was supposed to receive an award this week from Business of Fashion- Voices, which they have rescinded. Business of Fashion's HQ is in London.

Balenciaga in London was vandalized according to this article.

Balenciaga Stores Vandalized Following Ad Campaign Featuring BDSM And Children - Travel Noire

Fashion retailer Balenciaga continues to find itself in hot water following an inappropriate ad campaign and some stores have been vandalized

travelnoire.com

Riiight?!?! If it was for the sake of art then Balenciaga and Kering would admit they knew it and would elaborate further that's it's art. RIIIGHT?!?!