In 2008, Duncan Quinn, a high-end fashion designer, released an advertisement that stirred up much controversy. As seen to the left, it showed an unconscious woman not fully dressed laying on a car with her head bleeding, while a man stood smiling behind her with a necktie around her neck. Apparently this was published several times in popular fashion magazines such as Vogue. This was supposedly supposed to advertise the suit, although there is no reasonable vindication as to why the suit had to be advertised in such an obscene manner.
This advertisement was somewhat widely discussed in 2008/ beginning of 2009 when it was first released, and surprisingly some people defended Duncan Quinn's advertising campaign. Those that have no problem with this advertisement claim that it is merely "artistic expression" and should not be seen as an advocation of domestic abuse, but some form of art. However, others see this as an obvious symbol of abuse and are greatly offended by it. Some were victims of domestic abuse themselves, and were trying to recover, but happened to stumble upon this advertisement and claimed that it brought nightmares, bad memories, etc. These arguments address the language, emotion, and sense perception Ways of Knowing.
Another argument those that find no wrong in the photograph is that many people interpret the message of the photograph differently than what it was intended to really mean. They say that the man could in fact be a "private investigator" showing up at the scene of the crime. Is he smiling because he has found the scene of the crime and is one step further to solving the case? Or is he smirking because he enjoys beating women? To some, the image itself suggests such an appropriate and crude situation that it seems to almost "glamorize" abuse. I don't understand how this sort of photograph would make consumers want to go out and buy a Duncan Quinn suit. Is it because he looks like a "hero"? If so, Duncan Quinn could have portrayed the man in a different situation: saving a woman who's actually conscious, instead of finding a half-naked woman who's either dead or unconscious. Even if a man was not in the photograph, images of half-naked women that look unconscious or dead should not even be released to the public by professionals. Suggestive but vague advertisements like these should not be released to the public because it is obviously going to be subject to a lot of misinterpretation from a majority of the consumers. Misinterpretation (assuming that the photograph was not intended to promote or portray domestic abuse) also led to emotional distress from some consumers that had previously been victims of domestic abuse and was trying to recover, until they saw this advertisement.
This form of advertising is called shock advertising. It is a technique some companies use to catch the consumer's attention by using an image or words that would usually offend, shock, disgust, etc. the average person. Assuming that you (the reader) did not know what Duncan Quinn was and saw the photograph in the beginning of this post (because I'm sure it caught your attention), what would you think? If I personally was not given the explanation of the photograph before seeing it, I would have never assumed it would be an advertisement for such a high-esteemed fashion designer. At least the shock advertising worked, but I believe Duncan Quinn went too far.
There have been many more different instances with shock advertising that induced much discussion. The most recent one also in the fashion/modeling industry was brought about by the "Bruised Barbie" pictures in September 2011. A photographer named Tyler Shields took 100 "limited edition prints" of Glee's Heather Morris, in which she was wearing in a 1950s housewife dress and had a realistic purple bruise on her eye. Also in 2008, there was an ad campaign (also a controversy about whether or not it was real) for Running Free, an athletic apparel brand. There were 3 photographs of 3 different women, one with two bruised eyes, another with a broken nose, and the third with a puffy, bleeding upper lip. The tagline stated, "Support bras, now available". Perhaps in both situations, the photographer was trying to put beaten women in a lighter light. But there is always a limit and a line that any advertisement or piece of art should never cross.
This advertisement was somewhat widely discussed in 2008/ beginning of 2009 when it was first released, and surprisingly some people defended Duncan Quinn's advertising campaign. Those that have no problem with this advertisement claim that it is merely "artistic expression" and should not be seen as an advocation of domestic abuse, but some form of art. However, others see this as an obvious symbol of abuse and are greatly offended by it. Some were victims of domestic abuse themselves, and were trying to recover, but happened to stumble upon this advertisement and claimed that it brought nightmares, bad memories, etc. These arguments address the language, emotion, and sense perception Ways of Knowing.
What is considered as "art"? Can the nature of the advertisement be justified in that it could be interpreted in a different way the photographer intended it to be? Should it have been approved to be published by fashion magazines back in 2008 because it caused emotional and mental harm in victims of domestic violence?According to dictionary.com, art is "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing or of more than ordinary significance". It would be easy to say that there is nothing beautiful about domestic violence, but there are some who find sexual pleasure and perhaps, beauty in being in the woman's position. Possibly they would find nothing disgusting about this advertisement. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it seems like the photograph is suggesting the woman was beaten without her consent or desire. If you look closely, it looks as if there is blood on the car from her head, as if the man killed her or at least caused a great amount of damage to her body. Even if this was considered "beauty" to some, it is not legally acceptable for a man - or a woman - to commit such violence towards another human being. If this photograph was accepted as art, it still should not have been published in internationally recognized fashion magazines because it suggested such an illegal activity. I believe that the limit to what art can be is where it meets law. Would a vulgar photograph of a child being forced in sexual activity be allowed to be published in magazines merely because it was considered "beautiful" and therefore as "art" to some?
Another argument those that find no wrong in the photograph is that many people interpret the message of the photograph differently than what it was intended to really mean. They say that the man could in fact be a "private investigator" showing up at the scene of the crime. Is he smiling because he has found the scene of the crime and is one step further to solving the case? Or is he smirking because he enjoys beating women? To some, the image itself suggests such an appropriate and crude situation that it seems to almost "glamorize" abuse. I don't understand how this sort of photograph would make consumers want to go out and buy a Duncan Quinn suit. Is it because he looks like a "hero"? If so, Duncan Quinn could have portrayed the man in a different situation: saving a woman who's actually conscious, instead of finding a half-naked woman who's either dead or unconscious. Even if a man was not in the photograph, images of half-naked women that look unconscious or dead should not even be released to the public by professionals. Suggestive but vague advertisements like these should not be released to the public because it is obviously going to be subject to a lot of misinterpretation from a majority of the consumers. Misinterpretation (assuming that the photograph was not intended to promote or portray domestic abuse) also led to emotional distress from some consumers that had previously been victims of domestic abuse and was trying to recover, until they saw this advertisement.
This form of advertising is called shock advertising. It is a technique some companies use to catch the consumer's attention by using an image or words that would usually offend, shock, disgust, etc. the average person. Assuming that you (the reader) did not know what Duncan Quinn was and saw the photograph in the beginning of this post (because I'm sure it caught your attention), what would you think? If I personally was not given the explanation of the photograph before seeing it, I would have never assumed it would be an advertisement for such a high-esteemed fashion designer. At least the shock advertising worked, but I believe Duncan Quinn went too far.
There have been many more different instances with shock advertising that induced much discussion. The most recent one also in the fashion/modeling industry was brought about by the "Bruised Barbie" pictures in September 2011. A photographer named Tyler Shields took 100 "limited edition prints" of Glee's Heather Morris, in which she was wearing in a 1950s housewife dress and had a realistic purple bruise on her eye. Also in 2008, there was an ad campaign (also a controversy about whether or not it was real) for Running Free, an athletic apparel brand. There were 3 photographs of 3 different women, one with two bruised eyes, another with a broken nose, and the third with a puffy, bleeding upper lip. The tagline stated, "Support bras, now available". Perhaps in both situations, the photographer was trying to put beaten women in a lighter light. But there is always a limit and a line that any advertisement or piece of art should never cross. 
There are two areas of knowing in this situation, the arts and ethics. The advertisement released by Duncan Quinn did catch my attention and was one reason why I chose to read the blog. Disregarding the words “Duncan Quinn” on the picture, I would have thought it was a picture of a murder case, or some sort of criminal scene. So I agree that this advertisement has succeeded in “shock advertising” its consumers, but can such an abusive picture be considered as art? The woman in the advertisement is unconscious and injured, while the man behind her is smiling and holding a necktie around the woman’s neck. This type of behavior is unethical but some may portray this as art, and see it as a way of expressing the power of men. However, others such as me see it as a promotion of abuse on women. I think there must be certain restrictions to art. Advertisements like this can be misleading or promote unethical issues, such as domestic abuse; therefore it is no longer considered as art, but obscene. And so this situation leads to questions on ethics as well as the lines and limits of art. Is the type of message promoted by Duncan Quinn’s advertisement ethical? And what is the fine line between art and obscenity?
ReplyDeleteYou say that that "the limit to what art can be is where it meets [the] law", but this advertising, no matter how much "shock-ad" it utilizes, does meet the protection that the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees. Of course the advertisement suggests many different things. Because of that, the possibilities of (mis)interpretations are endless, so how do we know which one is legitimate (i.e. what the advertisement intends to convey)? And how do we know advertisements like these intend to convey just one thing, when they (possibly) don't intend to convey anything in particular? Emotional distress isn't really a strong reason to deny a magazine's right to publicize, because nowhere does Vogue state that people who have suffered from domestic abuse are obliged to look at their advertisements. Furthermore, how do we conclusively 'know' if a person is emotionally distressed, if such a sentiment is exclusively felt by the person?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, if things could be banned just because a lot of people are offended by them (argumentum ad populum), then many songs, books, and works of art in the past should've been banned. If that's the case, then millions of PETA activists can sue Lady Gaga for wearing the infamous meat-dress, and millions of Freedom of speech and expression isn't intended to protect people who give/make uncontroversial speech and art. We may not like what we see, and that's why we have the right to protest but we can't use that right to den other people that very same right.
Though, I suppose an argument could be made that this advertisement provokes an infringement of basic human rights the same way racially controversial advertisements do...
Yes, people should be entitled to freedom of speech but, like you stated in your post, there should be limits. I acknowledge Azfar's counter arguments about not being able to ban everything that 'offends' people; however, certain groups of people should not be 'attacked'. Advertisements should not, like the ones used in your example, beautify domestic abuse. Although most people understand how unethical abuse is, a select few may not. They might view these advertisements in a different light, and believe that the message the advertisements is trying to convey is that domestic violence is okay. Sometimes, people see that big fashion icons, or people of a similar stature, are posing as models of abuse. If that person is their 'idol' they might want to follow their example. Even though the chances of that actually occurring are not very high, it is still a possibility. People who actually have been through situations like the ones portrayed do not view those 'artistic expressions' as beautiful, but rather as destructive and a bit 'foolhardy'. So I agree with your general argument.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless Azfar also mentions that there is no clear line between levels of emotional distress; nevertheless, people should not be put in a situation that will lead them to feel like subjects of ridicule. If only these advertisements were used to convey the ugliness of domestic abuse...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis ultimately boils down to the issue of ethics and the arts, as mentioned above (Deborah). What is the fine line between ethics and art? Is a man displaying his masculinity while abusing his female counterpart an art because it was deemed 'fashionable'"? Well, i believe that there is a fine line between arts and ethics. This is also the case in 2008, where a Costa Rican artist Guillermo Vargas has been accused of tying up a stray dog and left it to starve. Photos of the exhibit show its title, You Are What You Read, spelled in dog food on a wall, beyond the animal's reach.
ReplyDelete(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89830782) This is an example of art crossing the lines of ethics, which raised questions such as- is a starving dog the price to pay to create art? Is an art form still an art when it is promoting unethical actions such as tying a starving stray dog or even in this case, promoting domestic abuse? What exactly is too far?
Although I think that this "shock advertising" is unethical and promotes unethical ideals such as domestic abuse, however, it does create a strong impression in the person's head, thus achieving it's purpose as an advertisement.Like Azfar stated above, shock advertisement "does meet the protection that the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees". This also boils down to the issue of government and censorship. Should the government have the right to control what we see? Since in this case, these advertisement displays negative female images and promotes domestic abuse, thus shouldn't the government have the right to stop these advertisements from corrupting our minds? To what extent do they have the power? Is it the government's responsibility to stop us from seeing such images that corrupt minds of the innocent children? I think these are the issues that are also worth debating.