Love Webzine, Hate The T-Shirt
Well, I have nothing against the shirt, per se – the color is great, the design is fine, it’s the t-shirt maker I have a problem with. This is the first time either – earlier this summer I attended another convo where the shirts were similarly defective.
I thought about buying a Webzine shirt – who doesn’t like new t-shirts? But when one of the event MCs touted the shirts as being from American Apparel, I crossed “buy Webzine t-shirt” off my to-do list. Now, y’all don’t know me very well, but let me preface this rant by saying I’m hardly the gal who raises and waves the N.O.W. flag or takes offense easily to much of anything. But American Apparel (they don’t need a link, they get all the press they need and you can google them if you wish) – it’s leaders and his work ethic – well, they bum me out.
It’s hard to know where to start: sure, American Apparel does, from all accounts, treat its seamstresses and factory workers very well. Their no-sweat-shop cred is trustworthy. They still aren’t union shops, but at least they aren’t sweat-shops. But there’s the matter of the founder’s interesting and “liberated” sexual practices. Basically, he sleeps with his employees – but that’s okay, because they like it and they want to and yadda yadda. Except for the ones suing him. But no mind – I’m a law student and I know that meritless law suits get filed all the time, so who knows.
But what I do know is that American Apparel’s advertising campaigns generally employ the heroin-chic, under-aged girl, beguiling 20-yr-old school of thought and, the way I see it, the kids don’t need help being exploited. Or being sexualized. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with free, cutting-edge expressions of sexuality. But gape-mouthed, amateur porn shots of Helga the immigrant seamstress, plucked by hand to be an evocative photo spread for the selling of tube socks? Eh, I don’t know – I’m smelling something less fresh-cotton and more blatant exploitation.
The worst – well, at least, the most laughable – part of this whole money-making concept is that the randy, media-savvy founder explains his freewheeling, sex-with-consenting-employees business model as key to his creative spirit or some such nonsense.
Dear American Apparel – you make tube socks and tank tops. Deciding to make really small tank tops doesn’t make you bleeding-edge fashionistas. What you sell and how you sell it just makes you a bit sad and possibly just really exploitive. It’s certainly not healthy for girls or most grown women.
What Dov Charney has said is that consensual relationships between any two parties should not be regulated to the extent that some corporations have done in order to protect their own ass. He has said that sexual-harassment law mostly restricts freedom
Yes, I’m accusing the company of exploitation.
Anyone is free to check out the “Gallery” of photos on the A.A. website and judge for her or himself the implications of the photo’s style and composition.
To me, they imitate all the ambiance of kiddie porn or unwelcome voyerism.
And – at the end of the day – it’s just a faux creative marketing scheme to pump up the sales of t-shirts and tube socks. Hardly a fashion accomplishment.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder – so is offensive advertising.
For me – that crap is the latter.
My hunch is that you instinctively judge sexual images of women as exploitive, but those sorts of knee-jerk reactions can be exceptionally faulty. Sexuality is simply a natural and normal part of the human experience. Why is it disturbing to embrace or depict it? Of course, we all know that sex sells, and that women have historically been (and in many cases continue to be) exploited, but here’s an angle you might want to consider. For a long, long time now, we’ve all been bombarded and inundated by sexy advertising that utilizes an aesthetic of perfection. We’ve grown accustomed (and arguably numb) to images of sexuality that, however edgy, are perfected with makeup, lighting, retouching, airbrushing–you name it. We encounter women (and men) whose bodies have been surgically enhanced, or who are genetic freaks of nature (or both). This is an aesthetic of sexuality that keeps us out. It tells us that in order to be sexy we must be thin and voluptuous, smooth and toned, glossy and shimmering. It is the untouchable and unreal sexuality of some elite minority. In contrast, American Apparel ads are sexually honest representations of real women (and men) in real settings and moments. Does this necessarily have to come attached to or be representative of exploitation? Owning and expressing one’s sexuality can be, conversely, empowering and liberating.
Your hunch is wrong.
But thanks for letting me know that sexuality is simply a natural and normal part of the human experience.
I had no idea . . . .
The ads don’t necessarily have to come attached to or be representative of exploitation. Nothing “necessarily” has to. But I am highly skeptical of the “real women (and men) in real settings and moments” argument.
You can keep buying the products, I’m not going to toss paint on your or anything.
I just dislike and distrust the Am.Ap. image and asserted “truth.”
I have read the article linked in the first comment, above.
It is pat, simplistic, and vastly underestimates the number of valid legal arguments supporting sexual harassment laws currently on the books. There are some good arguments, but they are so buried in hyperbolic reaction to a sensational case it’s hard to cite them as authoritative even as far as opinion pieces can be authoritative.
After a quick Google search of the piece’s author, I’d be highly skeptical of most of her musings. From what I can tell, she also not an attorney, though she seems quite comfortable dismissing the legal aspects of Title VII legislation and litigation with always rhetocially strong statements like “I won’t dignify X with a response/discussion/etc.” Google Celia Farber and judge for yourself.
For the sake of argument here, why don’t we abandon my critique of the company’s founder and his alleged good/bad/acceptable/otherwise behavior.
My criticism of the marketing campaign remains.
Of course, the company is welcome to continue using the campaign and I’m free to continue not buying their products. America and a free market are great like that.
See, one can spill a lot of ink explaining the complex series of philosophical discussions that lead to one view of sexuality and how it is most healthily expressed. But an advertisement is a snapshot of whatever might’ve gone on in an ad firm’s conference room. It is in – in one frame or one 8×10, 8×12, or 11×17 shot, or in one 30 second radio ad all we are given of a company’s entire ethos.
I happen to find this company’s ethos bothersome.
Eventually, perhaps their cutting edge ad campaign will change minds and lead a cultural revolution whereby America will finally loosen up its highly confused attitudes toward sexuality.
But there’s those Benetton ads from a few years back . . .
And those Kenneth Cole ads today. . . .
Faux activism wrapped in overpriced merchandise.
I’m not buying it. The product or the implied message of freedom.
You, however, are free to shop as you will.
And, frankly, let’s focus for a moment on the fact that the American Apparel is selling T-SHIRTS for the most part.
If I have to work this hard to understand the message and to rationalize their use of sexuality in marketing, I’d rather just buy someone else’s cotton wear.
Seriously – shirts and underwear, y’all. Not brain surgery. Not even brain surgery tools.
FASHION IS SEX MY FRIENDS.
T-SHIRTS, PANTIES, BRAS, BATHING SUITS.
Its all about being SEXY.
Always has been.
Always will be.
I love American Apparel ADS.
There REAL.
You guys need to get REAL.
Hehe! But have you seen This Ad?
Which guys need to get real, Chanaye?
I’m sorry, but i’m not sure why you find the ads so offensive. I mean, if you object to using sex to sell clothes (or cars, deodorant, telephones….) in general, then fine, but i don’t see how AA is any more provocative or sexy than any other major fashion advertiser, say calvin klien, ambercrombi, louis vuitton, prada, any of them.
I find the ads offensive for the reasons listed above. If they don’t offend you, that’s fine.
Sex sells. Yes, we all know that. But there are different kinds of sex and all sex is not equal. Ambercrombie has plenty of problems as well. But some advertisers choose to use adults as sexual objects. Some choose to use men or women who could easily pass as (or are) much younger and do so in a way that is evocative of pron or kiddie flicks or whatever.
I never said AA was alone in its sins. But they do bother me more than others.