Friday, February 22, 2013

media moment : American Apparel, is there a line they haven't crossed?

As familiar as we all are by now with American Apparel's  ongoing sexual and raunchy ad campaigns, this one in particular really stood out. The image is of a naked woman, but just the lower half of her, suggesting that this may be the most important part of a woman. It certainly doesn't help that the word "FREE" is in bright red, in order to draw ones attention to that word before reading anything else. 
Basically.. the first thing I get from this ad is "free pussy".
Is this an intentional message?
of all the objectifying they already do.. is this crossing a line?

If you do read the small print, and I emphasize the "if" because I personally don't know how many people actually do, there is a little blurb about the artist, that reassures readers that this is just a painting of a woman, not a real photo. (Its realistic enough).  
Does the fact that it isn't a real photo justify it?

1 comment:

  1. No, it doesn't. Whether its a real photo or not, the message being presented would still be the same. The context doesn't change. They're using sex to sell their brand and this ad really pushes it.

    I feel the same way about the "free pussy" thing. It definitely has to be intentional because I bet there's no one who was apart of creating this ad that look at it i think the same thing.