Thursday, December 13, 2007

T'aint another American Apparel ad, is it?

(click image for closer look, perv)
'Tis. It's for the "Baby Rib Thong," found in a Danish biannual "art" magazine called "S." No, I don't know what the "S" stands for. Last AA thong ad, we at least got to see a little more of the model and product. Maybe next thong ad, they'll crop right in on her vulva? And forget the thong? Shit, for all we know, that could be AA founder Dov Charney's waxed nether-region. It's 8:30, and I have nothing else to say about this sublime piece of advertising art. related: here's two more ads that feature models wearing thongs—for Perrier and for a German technological career forum (the most gratuitous use of ass in an ad ever, I believe.).
(image snapped and emailed by Sean Louis McQueen)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

looks disturbing. i wouldnt buy the thong if the ad is like this...

9:30 AM  
Blogger spectacular views said...

i thought it was amputee legs at first

9:47 AM  
Blogger Middle Name: Stanley said...

Photographer: "Oh, that's great! Yeah! Give me angry! Excellent! Ok, now bend over and grab your ankles. Good, good. Now sit on my camera."

10:23 AM  
Blogger RFB said...

Looks like a copy of Cream Magazine, behind the ad.

Not to be confused with Creem Magazine,

10:30 AM  
Blogger ricpic said...

Nietzsche missed out on all this thong action.

10:35 AM  
Blogger MARIA H said...

so when is the product going to be out of the ad?

10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

get over it already, you're such a whiny bitch

1:30 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

is there a tiny ass hair poking out of the brown starfish and over the thong? Think that's intentional?

2:32 PM  
Blogger hillary b said...

at first glance it looked like a zoomed in shot of two fingers holding something white.

9:43 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I thought, "How did anyone end up with such pointy fingers?"

11:40 AM  
Blogger SchizoFishNChimps said...

At first glance I thought it was two bald men sharing a towel.

3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

awesome wax job

11:45 AM  
Blogger Jill @ Trend de la Creme said...

what wax job? i don't the the girl is even old enough to grow pubes.

this is nasty. dov charney needs to spend a weekend in prison with a few "real" men. maybe that'll get him over this perv fest of his.

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

S is an art magazine which showcases nude fine-art photography; in which context this ad is likely not considered profane in any way.
similar to vice, these are magazines in which racier images are par for the course. this is called directed advertising. you had to be sent this image to fume about precisely because you aren't culturally literate enough to discover it in context. this magazine's readership can appreciate an artfully provocative advertisement, and i doubt any of the readership is offended.
should pornography be illegal also?
grow some culture, church lady.

5:59 PM  
Blogger copyranter said...

"an artfully provocative advertisement..."

Why don't reexamine your definitions of culture and art, you fucking idiot.

6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

who's being obscene now, mr. blue word?
i'll allow that these images are extremely erotic, punctive, etc. but they're being carefully directed at adults (pay attention to where the more erotic ones show up).
As for their artfulness, the proof is in the pudding that you feel so compelled to discuss them- that's no accident; the aesthetic they employ is extremely sophisticated and engaging (surely you won't maintain that there's no artistic talent or vision behind something this uniquely provocative).

i don't understand what the problem is. they're not promoting unhealthy conceptions of beauty, telling our children they need to be white and big-breasted and tiny waisted and all that. the models are all everyday people showcasing their sexuality. AA is just smartly and profitably toeing the line.
unless you think these ads are too sexual for YOU to view, i assume your ire comes out of some paternal responsibility towards protecting others. I guess I wouldn't want my child to see this ad, (though what harm it would do is unclear) but then i wouldn't want my child to read S or Vice magazines either (which magazines are at the forefront of contemporary culture, btw), where these ads appear.
our generation of consumers is more comfortable with the human body, human sexuality, etc. than previous ones (sound familiar?) and AA has very smartly adapted to that.

2:01 PM  
Blogger copyranter said...

No, I just think a close-up shot of a woman's pantied taint is patently stupid.

And, just for you because you're about the only reader who can't seem to figure it out:

copyranter is a CHARACTER.

2:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home