These Versace ads for F/W 2009 (featuring Gisele Bundchen) creep me out. I collect ads and pictures from magazines and keep a book of them, for use with clients. It’s a projective thing; I’ll ask them to tell me a story about the person in the picture, or see which photos produce reactions in them, and then we can discuss that. Fashion magazines are great for this, as many spreads or ads depict violence or death, or the women are expressionless, which provides a blank canvas of sorts for clients to project themselves onto.
When I came across these Versace ads in some fashion mags, I *knew* they were going to be great for what I needed them for. However, they made me really, really uncomfortable at the same time. And when I say that they provoke some really intense reactions in my clients, that’s an understatement.
The ads feature Gisele, full lit, while a male shadow observes her from somewhere in the distance. The woman is clearly objectified, and it almost reminds me of those scenes in movies where the kidnapping victim is shoved, naked and shaking, into the bright lights while her captor stands in the background observing her.
She almost seems to be on display for her male observer here, or maybe she’s performing for him. Either way, she doesn’t look happy; she almost looks scared or uncomfortable. The male shadow is leaning in, intently watching her. And she’s up against a wall, as she is in all of the shots.
Another one where she seems to be on display for the man, or being watched. She’s in the spotlight, he’s in the shadow. The anonymous male objectifying and “sitting back and watching” his woman, almost like he’s at a show. His fist looks clenched.
But this one. Oh, this one. This photo of it is from a slightly different angle then the version that I found in the magazine. In the magazine, it’s cropped tighter, and the camera almost comes from behind her. The male shadow appears to be around a corner from her. It looks like this woman is sneaking into the house, quietly, scared, while this male figure looms around the corner, waiting for her. Almost like she has a reason to be scared of him, she’s obviously sneaking in for a reason, and he is waiting, ready to pounce and attack, when she arrives. Trust me when I say that the cropping of the ad in the magazine really and truly gave that impression. Very strongly.
Regardless of whether a woman is coming home later than expected, she shouldn’t have to fear coming home, or fear the reaction of her partner. I don’t want to hear comments such as, “What if she’s out late and she’s not supposed to be? That’s why she’s sneaking in!” A woman should *never* have to live in fear of what her partner will do to her. No one should, for that matter.
This last ad is the one that has garnered the strongest reaction in my clients. One woman began shaking at the sight of it. These ads make me horribly uncomfortable, and I feel like not only do they objectify the woman in them, they portray this intimidating, mysterious male figure that should be feared. The woman looks frightened, or at least unhappy and uncomfortable, in all of these shots.
What do you guys think?
I'm Britni, a snarky bitch and generally awesome person. I write about sex, love, and bullshit. If sex-positivity, discussions about BDSM and kink, queer issues, and topics that are completely inappropriate by society's standards make you uncomfortable, then this blog is not for you.
Good Vibes 
11 Comments
In the first picture, I think she looks like she's trying to be seductive, giving him a show.
The second, her expression shows boredom, in my opinion. His hand doesn't necessarily look clenched to me, rather in a relaxed position that I can't explain with words, as I'd have to show you.
In the third picture, I didn't get the feeling like she was sneaking in. Rather, the show she was performing for him is about to get to the good part. (sex) Her face doesn't look like she's scared, in my opinion. Her expression looks intense and sensual. (and I like this outfit the best, look at those shoes!)
The ad is a piece of art that is to be interpreted by the viewer. Art is interpreted based on each viewers own biases, consciously or subconsciously. I interpret this to be a woman giving a sexy show for her man before they get ready to make sexy time.
I do the same with images from magazines & use them for collage work too, so useful.
I can completely see your perspective Brit and you're no feminazi! Mass media is directly responsible for much of the dysfunction experienced by women in relation to their bodily self image, ideals of beauty and 'perfection' that are damaging etc.
I can see Aprils' too to a degree, in that any image whether for the purposes of art or advertising or both can be open to interpretation by the viewer.
However, the key for me here in these particular images is that Giselle, well, to be blunt, just isn't portraying or communicating 'sexy' and alluring and seductive to me, I'm not seeing it.
Now, this could be because she's just not got it or the photographer didn't capture it or the director didn't want it, how would I know! But as a regular purveyor of erotica, I like to think I know my sexy visuals and that's not what I'm getting here. She looks flat, ranging from bored to unaffected to as you say Brit even a little scared to me.
My tuppence worth.
x
I think it's odd that so often, the women in these luxury fashion mags appear so bored and uncomfortable. I mean, if you're going to spend thousands of dollars on their clothes, wouldn't you be oh, I dunno, HAPPY about it?
When I saw these ads, I didn't automatically make the same conclusions about abuse, but I did find them to be uncomfortable and unoriginal
Isn't this just post-modern snark?
–Patrick
Is this chair REALLY a chair, Patrick?
Maybe Gisele likes it, though. Maybe this man is HER Master and she´s subbing the shit out of him right now.
The ads. The distancing of emotion coupled with the co-optation of 3rd wave feminist (cliched) binaries spells high brow artists' smugness towards buying into anything other than high brow fashion.
It's all fun and games and typical of 21st century art: it's too uncomfortable with traditional left and right arguments, so it co-opts it without taking a side, making fun of everyone instead. It's cynicism.
Jillinois: I had the same thought after I had written my initial comment. Maybe SHE'S the one in control. Being like, "SIT THERE AND WATCH ME MODEL ALL OF THE EXPENSIVE CLOTHES VERSACE GAVE ME. AND OH MY HOW YOU'RE GOING TO LICK THESE SEXY SHOES, BITCH!"
I don't feel uncomfortable when I see these ads, not even a tad. And none of her expressions look like she's scared, in my opinion.
Wow. This post really illustrates to me how wildly divergent interpretations of the same thing/event can be. To me, all three pictures portray the woman as being in control, the one holding the power.
The first two pictures definitely have sexual undertones, but I have the impression she's told the man to sit in the chair as she poses for him, out of his reach. Her expression is aloof, she offers no hint of what is to come. She may disrobe, or she may simply leave. He is eagerly sitting forward in the first picture, enthusiastic about his voyeuristic role. In the second he is taking a relaxed attitude trying to be 'cool', but he gives himself away with the clenched fist.
The third one has an angry undertone, but to me it's the woman who is angry. She has just walked in the door, and caught him redhanded. Whatever she has seen shocks her. She instinctively braces herself, squares her shoulders, and boy is she pissed. Her eyes are like lasers. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes at that moment.
We are 180 degrees apart with regards to our perceptions. You see fear and threat, I see power and confidence. A poignant example of our individual capacity to colour our reality with our personal palette of past experiences, attitudes, and values.
I can't help but wonder what they were thinking by making these ads the way they did. Having the men sitting in shadow in the ways they did all give them a position of power and control especially when you couple it with the expression and position of the woman in the photo is not sexy or anything, IMO. If anything, it bothers the hell out of me. And, i don't even need to get into a discussion about the exact reasons why. Great post that has created some great discussions.
I looked at them and I was completely neutral. At first glance, I didn't even notice the shadow of the man–not until after I'd read what you wrote about them.
I wonder if that is because I have never had to be afraid of a man? I am lucky in that, and I wonder if that is why I didn't even notice the shadow man on my own?
It is interesting to read your take on it, Britni, and to hear that your clients often have similar or the same reactions.
Huh I wonder what they were thinking when making these ads; they're totally uncomfortable and uncanny. The light is like a mix of a spotlight and an interrogation light.
I don't read fashion magazines and I don't watch TV, unless it's documentaries or sometimes the news. Mainly because I'm not interested, but I've noticed that it makes me feel a lot better about myself and the way I look. And it also makes me more positive about society and people in general. Music videos and commercials can be so sexist, when I happen to see magazines and television now, it always shocks me to see how sexist and violent and rubbish it is. It also shocks me to think that when I was younger, these things seemed more normal to me. We definitely get used to things and think of it as more normal if we see a lot of it.
I hope you got my Twitter DM, if not, I'm posting the link here as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/oct/02/gender.familyandrelationships – I think you'd find the article interesting.