Just shot pretty ladies in slow-mo for a one-shot model agency commercial =)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

first of all american ads don't ever show nipple....and neither does vogue...

Pamela Anderson says you're full of shit. Sure, that's Vogue Brazil, but the spread is all over the net now since it's about 3 weeks old and it has Vogue's name all over it. Word has it that it's coming here soon anyway. Why split hairs like that anyway? The video that started off this thread isn't representing an American agency anyway, or at least I'm under the impression it's Russian? And let's not forget the recurring vogue.com nipple. Saying Vogue never shows a nipple is like saying McDonald's doesn't sell the McRib. Sure, they don't always have a McRib, but it's pretty much in your face when they do have it. In 2000, Vogue's print campaign for Vogue.com featured a woman's chest wearing nothing but a see-thru net top centering one of the nipples as the dot in .com. That very same image was used on the vogue.com home page a few years later and a different variation of it again just a few years ago in '09.

Guess? Lest we forget about the Drew Barrymore spread? Two separate photos with glorious nipple shots, one fully visible from the side, the other straight on through a see-thru lace bra. I liked the latter one, especially the 40-foot tall version. The 10-foot tall version as you walked into Bloomingdales just oozed with class, let me tell you. Not only the peek-a-boo nipple, but the trashy died and fried emo hair and almost-goth make-up. I'm sure they cropped the crack vial out of the pic. Too bad because it would've completed it.

(which is why so many ads have models draped with half naked male models who NEVER look in the camera)

Why is this dude looking at me? I want to punch him.

Sorry Paul, I'm not trying to pick on you, but not every fashion ad out there follows these rules or ideals. In fact, I can think of several others over the past several years, but not sure where to pull them up.

 

[paul schefz]

ok...99% of the guys in these ads don't get to look into the camera....
And American vogue is very different from any international vogue....lots of nipple in France, Germany,....
but the point is the same....that guess ad you showed is not for guys ( not straight ones)....
and there is no way any ad in the us could ever show nipple....a magazine with a pregnant belly gets covered at the supermarket....Bloomingdales, Macy's,....would never do anything....
abercrombie&fitch have the most overtly sexual ads....but it's all guys with their pants waaaaaay too low, no shirt of course....because it is ok to sell sex to teenage girls......as long as we don't see a nipple....

 

[Jarred Land]

....first of all american ads don't ever show nipple...

http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/adarchive/index.html

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Obviously these aren't your clients then...

How do you know he isn't shooting for say http://suicidegirls.com/ or http://www.godsgirls.com/ or http://burningangel.com/ or just a punk based model agency. Your making a lot of assumptions, obviously this isn't a glamour piece. I'm not saying it makes women look good or that it's right, I'm just saying the content may serve the purpose, we don't know.

No need in tearing down his work. The girls looked good in a punk rocker sense. If that was his attention, then he nailed it...

I guess you and I have different moral values when it comes to these things. It's not about being puritanical. But I have a real problem with women being presented as subservient, vaguely dehumanized love dolls.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/adarchive/index.html

Ironically American Apparel is a Montreal-based company. I know Dove (the owner, who does his own photography) personally, which is not to say I respect him. I also know a lot of models who ran out of his auditions crying, if you catch my drift. (He serves beer at his auditions, to give you an idea.) So this is a bad example.

But Americans are not nearly as prudish as they are reputed to be outside the Bible Belt Red Sates, and in that I agree with you.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I guess you and I have different moral values when it comes to these things. It's not about being puritanical. But I have a real problem with women being presented as subservient, vaguely dehumanized love dolls.

funny, I think about that when I see high fashion pieces as well. As soon as breasts come out or vaginas are exposed, that's how I feel. How is it any different? I feel like they are being used as sexual salespeople who are exploited for their appeal whether it's considered "beauty" or not. How is it okay in one but not in the other?

I have seen as much nudity in high fashion as there is in porno. Is it basically the environment that bothers you? I don't get it...

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Pamela Anderson says you're full of shit. Sure, that's Vogue Brazil, but the spread is all over the net now since it's about 3 weeks old and it has Vogue's name all over it. Word has it that it's coming here soon anyway. Why split hairs like that anyway? The video that started off this thread isn't representing an American agency anyway, or at least I'm under the impression it's Russian? And let's not forget the recurring vogue.com nipple. Saying Vogue never shows a nipple is like saying McDonald's doesn't sell the McRib. Sure, they don't always have a McRib, but it's pretty much in your face when they do have it. In 2000, Vogue's print campaign for Vogue.com featured a woman's chest wearing nothing but a see-thru net top centering one of the nipples as the dot in .com. That very same image was used on the vogue.com home page a few years later and a different variation of it again just a few years ago in '09.

Guess? Lest we forget about the Drew Barrymore spread? Two separate photos with glorious nipple shots, one fully visible from the side, the other straight on through a see-thru lace bra. I liked the latter one, especially the 40-foot tall version. The 10-foot tall version as you walked into Bloomingdales just oozed with class, let me tell you. Not only the peek-a-boo nipple, but the trashy died and fried emo hair and almost-goth make-up. I'm sure they cropped the crack vial out of the pic. Too bad because it would've completed it.



Why is this dude looking at me? I want to punch him.

Sorry Paul, I'm not trying to pick on you, but not every fashion ad out there follows these rules or ideals. In fact, I can think of several others over the past several years, but not sure where to pull them up.

The image you show is very different from the video. The girl looks empowered, not like a worker in a brothel. She is making a choice, not waiting to take orders from a sleazy customer. The styling, makeup and hair are beautiful and the sexuality while there is not crude and in your face.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

funny, I think about that when I see high fashion pieces as well. As soon as breasts come out or vaginas are exposed, that's how I feel. How is it any different? I feel like they are being used as sexual salespeople who are exploited for their appeal whether it's considered "beauty" or not. How is it okay in one but not in the other?

I have seen as much nudity in high fashion as there is in porno. Is it basically the environment that bothers you? I don't get it...

It's the narrative context.

 

[Phil Holland]

I guess you and I have different moral values when it comes to these things. It's not about being puritanical. But I have a real problem with women being presented as subservient, vaguely dehumanized love dolls.

Beauty isn't exactly one note these days. With the rise in popularity of subculture and more abstract concepts of what attractive, beautiful, graceful, etc. is it's just a different landscape. Fashion alone is a war zone of variety.

Years ago, there was no Ben & Jerry's and everybody was eating the same ice cream. Now there's many flavors of ice cream out there. It's all ice cream, and all good. Just depends on the flavor you're into. Sounds like you're more into vanilla. Can't go wrong there, but it's okay to broaden your scope and dig into some Peanut Brittle or something just to understand what all the hubbub is about.

Women are beautiful and unique. The trick is bringing that out.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I bet if any of the above came out with the same style piece (which I have actually seen, just don't have proof to back it up) no one would comment negatively.

It seems that adding a high brow name tag on a piece absolves it from crucifixion

That's not true. Benetton did some horrible ads that felt like kiddie porn, even though it was subtle. They were bashed by all. We even had a talk about it in my high school, and it's part of fashion marketing history, as one of the biggest mistakes ever. Gucci would never have such awful makeup and hair. Making the girls look truly beautiful, in a deep way, changes everything.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Beauty isn't exactly one note these days. With the rise in popularity of subculture and more abstract concepts of what attractive, beautiful, graceful, etc. is it's just a different landscape. Fashion alone is a war zone of variety.

Years ago, there was no Ben & Jerry's and everybody was eating the same ice cream. Now there's many flavors of ice cream out there. It's all ice cream, and all good. Just depends on the flavor you're into. Sounds like you're more into vanilla. Can't go wrong there, but it's okay to broaden your scope and dig into some Peanut Brittle or something just to understand what all the hubbub is about.

Women are beautiful and unique. The trick is bringing that out.

Women dressed up as nurses making pouty porno lips at the camera - there is nothing authentic about that, this is an idea of beauty based on denigration. This is not looking into women and their unique beauty, which I agree comes in many forms, this is staring right through them as though they weren't there, this is obscuring their reality with a cheezy frat-boy fantasy.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

For sure this is not the fashion industry of Gucci..Klein..Ralph Lauren...or Michael Kors.
But there is another sort of Alternative..Suicide Girls..Biker Babes..Playboy Pin-Up...fashion market and that
is what that video is. Now how big and how money that market is another story but it certainly exists.



Girls..Girls..Girls....infamous video basically designed to be banned for publicity.
But MTV aired it...after which MTV announced some "new" standards.
Actually these girls move with assurance and confidence of professional performers so it's
totally different feel than the fashion video where they are all just mostly standing and posing.
Bad sound and image quality from the VHS copy....but guess it fits this was like 1987 afterall.

Suicide girls is a porn site, as is Biker Babes. That's not a fashion movement. fashion comes under many flavors, but what it all has in common is it is about empowering women. That's really what is being sold. For the most part, porn is the exact opposite. Fashion (for women) is a story told from a feminine perspective - this is told from a male perspective.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I'm curious, is it expensive to feed your High Horse? Or can it survive on Humble Pie?

I'm not saying all my work is brilliant. Even if it all sucks that doesn't mean I can't have moral values or care about women and how they are made to feel.

 

[Noel R.]

I notice Robert mentions a lot about fashion in this thread. The ad was about models, not fashion. Models come in different flavors. They come in for either fashion, or sometimes they sell beer. Either way it's a facade. The woman are neither living in mansions running in gardens or care about beer, nor are they going to do porn. Who is really getting played here?

 

[David Kuhn]

I guess you and I have different moral values when it comes to these things. It's not about being puritanical. But I have a real problem with women being presented as subservient, vaguely dehumanized love dolls.

I always find it interesting where people put their moral outrage, we've all got different hot buttons which is a good thing (the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same). Personally when it comes to exploitation I worry more about the self damaging body norms in high fashion, girls killing themselves to fit the standards. As with most things feminine... women are MUCH harder on other women than men could ever be. We ask them for fantasy, they ask themselves for perfection.

The ladies in this video looked fit (in both the American and the British sense), and I don't think they were running to the bathroom to purge before the shoot... so no foul in my book.

I'm really impressed by how (relatively) civil this debate is... usually this sort of disagreement gets out of hand quickly on the net.

 

[Max Moller]

Bloody lucky mate!! I'm only shot grumpy Tasmanian devils!! Lol.



Cheers

Max Moller
Natural History Cinematographer
www.blackdevil.tv
Tasmania -Australia

 

[Nathaniel Kramer]

I have to concur with Mr Ruffo. Cheesy. Total biker girls market.. I would hesitate to remotely call this fashion. But I do like the smooth camera motion

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I always find it interesting where people put their moral outrage, we've all got different hot buttons which is a good thing (the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same). Personally when it comes to exploitation I worry more about the self damaging body norms in high fashion, girls killing themselves to fit the standards. As with most things feminine... women are MUCH harder on other women than men could ever be. We ask them for fantasy, they ask themselves for perfection.

The ladies in this video looked fit (in both the American and the British sense), and I don't think they were running to the bathroom to purge before the shoot... so no foul in my book.

I'm really impressed by how (relatively) civil this debate is... usually this sort of disagreement gets out of hand quickly on the net.

I don't like the razor-thin thing either, and in fact we fight to show women who are actually of ideal healthy weight in our productions, not stick figures. Often we don;t have to fight all that much.
But, thin or not, women in just about all legitimate fashion are presented as strong and making choices of their own, as in control. Fashion is not a world for frat boys nor their mentality, which i find this video is. And to those who say "there are different kinds of models" no, there aren't that many. There are only 3 kinds: fashion (regular size and plus size) commercial (more average looking but still clean and pretty - these appear in bank pamphlets and so on) and porn. There are some oddball jobs some people call the "tattoo market" - biker clothing and so on - but this is such a tiny segment you could never make a living at it, and you could never sustain an entire agency only with those kinds of models as there is rarely work for them, even in a major center like NYC. So really, here, we are left with porn.

I have a real problem with porn. Porn is filled with broken people taking lots of drugs to try and heal childhood wounds and lack of self-esteem, and sinister types exploiting their damage. Even porn has less offensive fictional contexts, where the fantasy is not mindless subservience and human love dolls. If you know a bit about psychology, then you know why this is dangerous. It has nothing to do with Puratanism. No one who grew up in downtown Montreal (as I did) is really puritanical, you would go crazy, but we also have seen first hand what the sex industry really is - a sad pit of desperation where dreams and self-love go to die.