chem_fem said:

Just makes me think why?!?!

The advert designers could have easily made this not about race, like having a 'tribe' of people of all races with the same imagery of unicorn skulls and teddy bear skins.

Like a lord of the flies for teens rather than white teen colonisers.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 12:44 PM

Lucie said:

You know what always amazes me? The way in which the 'advertising/PR community' seems either so utterly sinister or completely detached from reality. I've come across it on several advertising websites. And they don't seem to be able to spell.

Case in point, comment on the link you provided: "The art on this one is defenetly better than the girl one.. She looks pasted in and too bright and sharp compared to the rest of the picture. + the gun looks like a toy.

Idear is pretty cool."

Yeeeaaah.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 12:45 PM

Zenobia said:

They seem to be making some kind of 'subtle' point about the sinister stuff underlying children's toys and literature. Or something like that. It's not the worst example of this I've ever seen, it at least seems slightly aware of what it's doing, but it's still pretty questionable.

Although I don't think it's fair to blame this on the possible dyslexia of its afficionados.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 1:16 PM

Shea said:

erm horrendous? Only outdone by the Italian Vogue shoot that seemed to promote rape in the military. I agree with Lucie above, advertisers are from another planet, entirely detached from reality.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 2:06 PM

Kath said:

Lucie - completely agree with you about the nature of the comments on the ad site. I can't believe that no-one points out the racism (well, I guess it's too obvious to need pointing out) or that they were made in the first place. Just wrong.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 2:17 PM

eleanargh said:

Zenobia - I think they're implying that the teenagers have lost their innocence and murdered all their childhood toys, hence the Minnie Mouse & Hello Kitty etc skulls - but whatever, there's no need to reeeally reaaally weirdly bring in some colonial parallel.

And after the picture from the Next Top Model shoot posted earlier... advertising execs and fashion shoot designers are clearly in need of some compulsory race/colonial history awareness training.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 3:15 PM

Leigh said:

Okay here are the people to complain to http://www.cbgrey.fr/ enguerra@idenium.com
lara@cbgrey.fr
I just don't have the words. My brain has broken at these images.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 3:19 PM

Alicia said:

I do like the Hello Kitty skull though.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 4:27 PM

Renee said:

This right after the disgusting image of Britain's Top Model...when is enough going to be enough with these terrible tribal images?

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 5:29 PM

Zenobia said:

Zenobia - I think they're implying that the teenagers have lost their innocence and murdered all their childhood toys, hence the Minnie Mouse & Hello Kitty etc skulls - but whatever, there's no need to reeeally reaaally weirdly bring in some colonial parallel.

I assumed it might be referring to some of the stuff in the story books they read as kids. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

And after the picture from the Next Top Model shoot posted earlier... advertising execs and fashion shoot designers are clearly in need of some compulsory race/colonial history awareness training.

Well, except that kind of training is meant to protect them from the people who would accuse them of being racist, it's not provided out of the goodness of their companies' hearts after all.

Besides, I think we can assume that they're well aware of the colonial history. Plenty of people, particularly advertising company executives, think this kind of thing is fine.

And I mean obviously it's pretty offensive, then again I've yet to see a fashion photo shoot by a large company involving a non-white model that wasn't offensive in some way. There's obviously a far bigger problem that needs to be addressed here. So yeah, fetching the smelling salts and writing angry letters could be step 1, if you want, but I just hope we don't all forget steps 2-165, or just concentrate on this whole image, because one thing that scares me whenever these things come up is that it's like they each occur in a void: "oh my god, this is terrible, how did we allow this to happen?!". That's one part of the correct reaction, but there is further analysis needed too.

And I don't mean the kind of analysis that goes 'Hoodunnit? The Butler? No, Patriarchy!'

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 5:46 PM

Jennifer-Ruth said:

I just...can't understand how this could get to the client pitching stage, never mind being published. That is horrendous!

Just so you all know, we're not all completely detached from reality in advertising. I swear I would NEVER let anything like this pass without comment at my agency.

(one day I would like to run my own ethical advertising agency)

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 7:49 PM

Anne Onne said:

Chem_fem, exactly! I look at something like this, and think 'why go there?'. Seriously, what posesses these people to produce ads like these?

I get the 'killing childhood toys' context, the irony being that it need never have been put in a colonial natives-as-props context, because there's plenty of other less racist hunting history to have used for imagery, if they wanted to. But of course, they didn't want to, because they didn't care if they were being offensive, or wanted the attention.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 9:20 PM

Laurel Dearing said:

and there was me thinking that weird littlewoods ad with trinny and suzannah and their plane crash was bad enough!

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 9:24 PM

Anna said:

I think I've commented before that I'm pretty dense, but I didn't even notice the toys until they were pointed out to me - just the hideously racist overtones.

Posted on 06 August 2008 at 9:45 PM

Lynsey said:

They are just trying to shock aren't they, and it worked.
I confess, I do like the artwork (espeically the skulls), it's quite Ryden-eque.

Posted on 07 August 2008 at 11:17 AM

Flo said:

If I didn't know this was an advert I would think the colonial imagery had everything to do with the loss of innocence thing, i.e. the teenagers have lost their innocence because they killed their toys and because their toys and fashions are all products of a dark neo-colonialist global production line. So as artistic social commentary it makes sense. But as an advert meant to sell clothes ...I don't get it! As an advert I don't see how the intention could be to critique the dark side of capitalism and consumerism, which makes it seem they must be using the imagery because it makes the clothes seem cool by associating them with power and ruthlessness. Eeuuuch!

Posted on 07 August 2008 at 2:07 PM

Liz said:

I'm reminded of achebe talking about heart of darkness, and how offensive it is that people continually laud it as such an important work, and spend time critically analysing it when it blatantly comprimises his humanity.I can't remember what he said exactly, something along the lines of if it comprimises my humanity then it is worthless. Whatever statement it is trying to make, it still comprimises the humanity of vast numbers of people and therefore is not deserving of critical praise.

Posted on 07 August 2008 at 5:57 PM

Carol said:

I agree, Flo. The whole thing looks too stylised and posed to be a realistic critique. And it's all presented as if on a stage.

This makes it look like a comment on the young white man and woman's historic past. But it' all done so stylishly that it just makes the African people and artefacts look like fashion accessories.

Posted on 07 August 2008 at 9:13 PM

Lucie said:

Jennifer-Ruth: I really hope you succeed in setting up that agency! Often I find myself wondering how frequently concepts this bad must get suggested, but I can only speculate really. My view is skewed - I'm a political economist, haha.

Posted on 07 August 2008 at 11:33 PM

Zenobia said:

So as artistic social commentary it makes sense. But as an advert meant to sell clothes ...I don't get it! As an advert I don't see how the intention could be to critique the dark side of capitalism and consumerism, which makes it seem they must be using the imagery because it makes the clothes seem cool by associating them with power and ruthlessness. Eeuuuch!

Yeah, that's exactly what's disturbing about it. Kind of 'We're aware, and we'll keep doing it because that's the way things are, and we'll have a wee dash of radical chic to go with that thanks'. So what they're basically saying is that all the political ideas they've used for this photo shoot, and any other ideas, have no importance save as a means to sell their fashion, which is the real radical statement here. Not that Benetton haven't been doing that for decades, I mean, that's fashion for you, pretty despicable all in all.

Posted on 08 August 2008 at 11:17 AM

Citrusse said:

Hi everyone.

I was so shocked when I saw these ads yesterday.

Please if you think these ads are racist, write a complaint letter to the ad agency:

Callegari Berville Grey
92 avenue Ternes
75017 PARIS
FRANCE

Thank you.

PS: Do not forget that corporations estimate that for 1 letter of complaint, there has been 100 angry customers who did not write.

Posted on 08 August 2008 at 12:39 PM