So Charlize Theron was the face of a clean and clear ad that was banned in the UK because in the after images (Before and after of course) Charlize was wearing powder. Clean and clear claim that it was to tone down the shiny glare on her face. Seriously though, of all the ads to censor, you find this one offensive? The UK have a point, but if we were to be this nit picky, we'd put Photoshop out of business. Charlize says "Women are under so much pressure! I'm not surprised we all become part of this beauty race." Charlize, how would you know? For you, there is no beauty race. You've won.
PETA just posted these billboards without permission from Barrack or Michelle. When personally requested to remove these ads, PETA refused because they claimed that the images of the president and first lady were positive ones, depicting them as leaders in style. Whether or not this is true, PETA was asked by the president to remove his and his wife's personal photos. You've had balls before PETA, but this is a new level. Is PETA making huge historical steps in activism or are they just being incredibly defiant?
Why would Italian Vogue choose to print this and put it on it's cover? Poor Karly Kloss. I don't understand the motivation though, and why such a petty image would be on the cover of Vogue. It does look fabricated in Karly's expressions...
Carl Lagerfeld, who apparently has made many fat-ist remarks has put out a photo shoot with a large woman. I'm game for it but it seems contradictory to his standpoint and I think there must be some kind of driving factor in the whole concept. Redeem his previous standpoint for publicity? It somehow is mysteriously relevant that she is half naked. Would we even say the same thing or think the same thoughts if she was a size 2? Whatever it is, and whatever the look, it's a statement of diversity and I dig it.
No comments:
Post a Comment