Un-fucking-believable. I think the one of the man standing on the woman's neck and beating her is by far the most disgusting. Jeezuz.

Yes, let's all wear expensive clothing...it'll look so nice plastered against the pavement as we're getting our asses kicked.

I can't believe it. I would LOVE to hear the justification for this.

??????

Ma che è sto blog? ahha!

What the fuck?!

What the --?!

I'll ask an Italian friend to translate the captions--I wonder if its a protest? I mean maybe...although, yeah, from just the images it does like militarization/abuse chic.

peace

That was horrible. There is no way to justify glamoriing violence.

I couldn't finish watching it. It made me sick. That is disgusting, not fashion.

unfortunately, this isn't the first and it won't be the last of the examples of glorified sexualized violence.

it did what it wanted to do- captured attention.

Unbelievable. Even the photos that aren't overtly violent (like the neck-stomping one) are highly sexualized in a violent and offensive way. How many of those photos look like a rape about to happen? And on a more subtle note, there's the always-submissive positioning of the women, and the camerawork that focuses first on the men, then on the woman's body, and THEN on her face...the prioritization makes it pretty clear what's really important here.
I've never bought Vogue (or Glamour or Cosmo) primarily because they always had more ads than actual content--I've accepted as a given that as I go through life people are going to try and sell me things--but I'm not stupid enough to pay them to. Seeing this makes me glad I never indirectly funded any of this crap.

Apparently it IS a protest against Guantanamo or something. However, their use of the woman to get the point across is wrong and the point is more lost than made.

It's reminiscent of Melanie Pullen's (http://melaniepullen.com/) book High Fashion Crime Scenes, in which she poses models in borrowed high-fashion clothing as murder victims. She's gotten a LOT of play for these pictures, though I've heard her speak about them and she has absolutely nothing to say about how she depicts women.

When I saw the pictures I assumed they were about the glamorizing of violence in the context of the war on terror. I thought it was well done. Our violence is sexualized and propogandized, just in the way that the images convey. The images are about unneccessary and ridiculous amounts of force in inapropriate contexts, and that's exactly what the war on terror is.

I think everyone was a little too quick to jump on an anti-bandwagon before thinking about the images and the possible messages they could be trying to convey.

While I don’t know any Italian beyond my favorite local restaurant, I can pull out a couple of words I understand from the captions: Slip dress, Yves Saint Laurent, Louis Vuitton and Prada.

I have yet to see a serious political commentary that included information on the designer clothes the subjects’ are wearing.

Why couldn't it be both? Does the presence of fashion models and labels necessarily negate the possibility of trying to send a political message?

I don't think that the images are that sexual or violent. I mean, sure, the "perps" are women, and the SWAT guys are men, but most SWAT people are men, and using drag models instead of real women would have turned it into a gender message, not a fashion one.

As for the shots, facial expressions, and action effects, they make it more absurd in that stereotypical glamour-biz way than they do violent.

Sure, the shoot is unconventional, and possibly even in poor taste, but not as nearly as insensitive as, say, some of the child labor ads run by purportedly ethical labels

Too many bad memories and bad expierences with the police, I couldn't make it past number 4.

Bourbs:

For a minute, I thought you were writing a parody, but on reflection, I think you might be serious, and that really disturbs me. You don't think that nonstop scenes of armed and armored men grinding underdressed women into the ground is either sexual or violent? You could retitle the entire thing "A celebration of rape by authorities" and it would fit just as well!

(I agree that the Wilson fellow you linked to is a nut, though I can't comment on his ads, since they aren't shown there and only described somewhat vaguely.)

For what it's worth, the Italian police do have a history of shooting protesters. A demonstrator at the G8 in Genoa in 2001 was shot in the head and killed. (TimesSelect link)

I don't know if the next thought should be, "thank god they didn't actually depict women getting shot by the police" or "thank god they didn't actually shoot people for this photo shoot."

I suppose it is possible to make a political statement using models in designer clothes. And if people want to interpret this collection of photos that way, fine. But for me, the "social commentary" goal of any work becomes irrelevant when the other goal of that work is to sell me clothes.

is this for real? the man stomping on the woman's neck looks pretty fake.......

I would assume that you would find this just as discusting... right??

http://www.serial-ballbusters.com/

TMOTS

I would assume that you would find this just as discusting... right??

http://www.serial-ballbusters.com/

TMOTS

I would assume that you would find this just as discusting... right??

http://www.serial-ballbusters.com/

TMOTS

Yes ManOnTheStreet,

Those are pretty disgusting as well. Your point?

TMOTS:
Yes, I find that link equally horrifying. There's a real problem with the popular depiction in TV and movies of men being hit/kicked in the groin as something to laugh at, a funny joke.
I've heard that a "joking" kick to the groin can seriously injure a man or render him infertile--which isn't funny at all.
Personally, I would only resort to kicking a man in the groin if I seriously believed he intended to hurt me just as badly, or worse.

A couple of thoughts:

First, I was bothered by the photo spread mostly because I think it trivializes the issue of police brutality, particularly the racial and class aspects of it. Seriously, how often do attractive young white women dressed in expensive designer clothes get roughed up by the police?

Second, the case of Carlo Giuliani (the protester killed by the Italian police during the Genoa G-8 Summit) is an ambiguous one. Giuliani was part of a group that had attacked a police vehicle with sticks and rocks. Also, at the time he was shot Giuliani was brandishing a large metal fire extinguisher, apparently intending to smash one of the windows of the police car (and possibly a policeman's head). They were not peaceful protesters who the police fired on for no reason.

Well. First, for whatever it's worth, the spread is definitely intended as a protest against / critique of the Bush administration and the so-called "War on Terror." A bit of Googling makes that clear.

Second: whether it works or not seems (to me) to depend on how ironic an attitude you're willing to take toward the whole fashion industry. Clearly, these are images of violence, directed (mostly) against (all) hypersexualized women. Well, at least as far as the hypersexualized part goes, welcome to the entire concept -- and entire industry -- of fashion.

But for those of us who know that, I think the whole thing does work. Because, what is the "war on terror" but a hyperviolent crusade against a stereotyped enemy with massively less actual power than the United States and the Bush administration?

Is it abuse chic? Yes. Welcome to the "War on Terror."

"Seriously, how often do attractive young white women dressed in expensive designer clothes get roughed up by the police?"

I think that may have been the point of the photos.

I like to think that I am as sick as the next guy, and at least as alert to the ironic use of imagery for political commentary . . . but this was just repulsive.