Fashion Non-Smartie's

This week I seem to have been surrounded by fashion world blunders. First my friend posted an interesting article to my Facebook wall from the guardian about when the fashion world takes a step to far in its advertising campaigns; then saw all the controversy on Dakota Fanning’s Lola Campaign for Marc Jacobs with people complaining that the images were too sexualised; and just the other day was the outrage from the Vatican over Benetton's  (never one to lie low) new ‘Unhate’ campaign.

The designers who have been vilified for their irresponsible advertising are industry respected yet they seem to make errors of magnitude despite their investments of millions of dollars to  marketing and PR. But where do they cross the line from being controversial to outright irresponsible?

Let’s start with the ridiculous and shameful.                             

Last year I was disgusted when pictures of ten year old Brazillian model Thylane Blondeau were featured in a Tom Ford shoot for French Vogue, sprawlled across leopard print, wearing low cut, body con clothing with a full face of make up and a sultry demeanour. There is no doubt this little beauty will be a future super model with her beautifully sculptured bone structure, natural pout and her big baby blue eyes but why sexualize this child for a modeling campaign when there is an abundance of beauty’s who could have filled the position responsibly. But who is to blame; her mother, the fashion industry for exploiting her, Tom Ford?

It’s not the first time Mr Ford has been slammed for his controversial ways, several of his adverts are held as some of the most complained about campaigns of all time.

Sex sells?

Little Miss Blondeau is not the first example where the fashion world has been criticized for its irresponsibility with children in advertising campaigns. You think Marc Jacobs would have learnt his lesson from the outrage in 2007 when he hired Dakota Fanning, then 13, for his advertising campaign, but his recent Lola PR stunt has caused an outcry once again.

Miss Fanning, now 17, was recently pictured holding oversized bottles of his Lola perfume in provocative places. They were hounded as suggestive and inappropriate due to their juxtaposition of innocence and seduction with the placement of the bottle. 

Marc Jacobs Lola Campaign 2011

With the rising fame of TomKat's daughter, Suri Cruise, there has been a lot of media backlash surrounding the way this little girl dresses, including lipstick and high heels. Indeed many stores have been increasingly targeted in supporting this growing trend to dress children like adults, with popular high street retailers, including Monsoon and Next, being slammed for selling items such as high heels and padded bra's for young girls.

Is TomKat's little beauty
setting a bad example?

There’s then the other end of disgusting – fashion using politically sensitive issues as ‘inspiration’ for their campaigns.

I remember seeing Keria Knightleys ‘Out of Africa’ shoot in the June 2008 issue of American Vogue and I couldn’t quite comprehend who was being more naïve, me or them. Was I becoming overly sensitive to what was merely supposed to be an African inspired fashion shoot… then I saw it, the picture of Keira standing poised above a group of African Tribesmen billowing in an over-sized ensemble which emanated power and strength – could the editors not see the political significance of our English rose being portrayed in such a way considering much of Africa was previously colonized by the British? It is bitterly disappointing to see some of our biggest fashion idols lacking such little fashion intelligence.

Bespoke designer gowns in a country plagued with poverty?

Louis vuitton covers for elephants - need I say more?

2008 seemed to be a real winner for Vogue as its India editor Priya Tanna, created a monstrosity for the August edition. She thought it inspirational to pair images of clear poverty and traditional indian culture with designer accessories... I'll let the pictures do the talking. 

A man modeled a Burberry umbrella in Vogue that costs about $200.
Some 456 million Indians live on less than $1.25 a day.

Toothless women holds a baby wearing a Fendi bib
worth around $100

Undoubtedly there will be a million more examples out there, but with Vogue being one of the most respected names in the business and a magazine I truly respect, for it's ability to retain its leading fashion stamina, it would do better to contemplate when it's fashion mantra goes too far. 


Then this week week there has been the outcry over Benetton's new 'Unhate' campaign. The brand does seem to have a knack of grabbing the media and perhaps it is all a very clever advertising campaign - no doubt the attention this receives is of global magnitude (especially when the pope's your enemy) but is this too far or is it merely just controversial? The campaign made a point and now everyone's talking about it after all; and maybe it is slightly politically insensitive but controversy is often the best way to get people talking and make a statement - their definitely fashion smarties and know exactly what their doing, but have they gone too far?

The fashion world must understand that whilst trying to impress and make its mark using unusual models, famous names, extreme settings or adobe photoshop they must be sure to develop a social consciousness. When fashion goes too far it simply undermines its power and reverts it back to a superficial corporation rather than an art.