blonde on blonde


i’ll be back later. now i need to get over some seasonal virus… :s btw, it’s confirmed that the campaign is by inez & vinoodh.

sorry many girls and few guys, yesterday i was resting in bed most of time to get over some flu. so today it’s finally time for some proper comment.
i can’t say this campaign is bad. it’s that you may easily understand that it’s not the kind of work i’d like to see. you know, it’s rather frustrating to recognise such a great expressive potential in daria and to compare it to actual works. most of 2008 works have been rather dull. unfortunately she’s mostly worked with mario testino, who exactly represents the opposit of darialogism, and with inez & vinoodh, who, in my opinion, have become a sort of vogue-photographic-machines with rather repetitive and routine-like shootings. if you compare last year to 2007, when daria also happened to work with paolo roversi, peter lindbergh and a proper terry richardson, you fully realise how inferior 2008 was. but that’s a preview of my post about 2008. let’s be back to cavalli and keep the previous lines as an introduction to the core of my review: my problem with this campaign is not roberto cavalli and his aesthetic, i actually like it when daria plays characters. my problem is the superficiality of realisation. and that’s my problem with inez & vinoodh at this moment, at least when they work with daria: it’s like they don’t go beyond the surface of the image, there’s no depth in their photography. their research of shapes and volumes and dynamics has become too repetitive, too obvious. they look like a sort of indie made respectable. how to say it? they kind of blink at alternative photography and they make it very mainstream. if i think of their first shootings with daria, i see an involution from those times. but i think it depends more on them than in daria as a model. actually sometimes it looks to me like it’s her to bring some life to pics, i think of in love or 2008 summer editorials… agh, i can’t help going back to 2008.
so, i don’t see a great difference between the 2009 january issue of vogue nippon and the first cavalli shot of daria as a glamazon. actually i can’t see a great difference with 2008 april vogue nippon cover too. and if this second shot is a quotation of ’50s pin-ups, why is she laughing? is that a parody? i can’t see a parody in the first glamazon pic. ok, there’s no need to have a strong consistence between all the pics, but i’d like to understand if the key of the campaign is parody or what… it seems to me that they had to save money, so no setting this time, just a studio shooting. and i have a sense of lack of creativity. like order was ‘play with characters’, then realisation was rather casual. let’s see if we’ll get more pics to make a more complete judgment. and let’s wait for forum: minor campaign, but major darialogism.


7 Responses

  1. the problem is not the realisation. its the different wordview of the photographer.
    on the other hand its clever: if you aim to get the superficial rich public
    why not? Mirrors are the best captor. It just shows how lame people become
    when they have money… that something that can “make all of your dreams come true”
    and you cant look at those pictures like you loved Daria for the first time theres always
    some other pics that appeal more to you.
    Those magazines, those campaigns dont follow a story.
    There is nothign or nearly no one they want to impress
    but the buyers of the products. So you see the result of what
    someone thought would appeal to a society that well…
    obviously should like what they see.
    Those picture that are really good are often very artistic and
    well lets say free. Free of being judged, free of the need
    to say something. Its just because somewhere somebody likes it.
    And even this doesnt matter.
    Remember “in love”, the picture when the man holds Daria like a bird?
    This is what I am talking about.
    Those Roberto Cavalli picture is so plastic, beautiful but not really beautiful, you really get to feel the pressure in the picture. A litte voice that whispers:” buy me. buy me. get happy. just take that shit ”
    best wishes A.

  2. thanks for your comment, anon, but i’m not sure i got everything you meant. i’m not sure i understand what you think of this campaign.

    the thing is that sometimes i wonder what the actual audience of fashion advertisements is. do rich ppl really need to see a pic of daria or any model to buy expensive clothes? do they really need to buy vogue to decide their purchases? are vogue readers the actual target of high fashion brands? sometimes campaigns look to me like a sort of appendix to brand strategies.

  3. great ad!

  4. I think its the principe of capitalism.
    It involves advertisment. Automatically.

    Yes, you do sound like :” do they need all this stuff to know what they want? ”
    but I also think that its wrong to see vogue or any campaign just as an artistic vomit.
    It is of course more than that because otherway the influential-rich people in the world wouldnt be entertained and this an essential point of vogue; it has to be funny it has to be wicked a bit bitter so that it reminds them of their own life.. or how it -should- be according to those magazines.

    In most of the cases the product “beauty” has become a means to an end. It leads an own life because it captured the people`s minds, in the end.
    Even though they understand that this whole circus is needless.

    You have to stay ahead of the game to stay in the game. This is why you are wondering, and everybody would wonder if theyd ask the question of: why this whole circus then?

    In the end there is one point: that continutes to glow over an over again: money CAN buy happiness.
    Otherway how would this imaginary world of editorials be possible?

    I cant say whether I like the cavllii picture or not. Daria is overwhelming and absolutely gorgeous.

    Capitalism was originally the need of people to do work, do their best at the thing they love and really get a success they can live on. Today it has become a doom loop that mostly leads to an overall social depression because people cant live anymore while helping others to stay on a certain level. Indias childworkers- american managers.

    But this is only one aspect of human nature.

  5. well in other words, they wouldn need any vogue to tell them something, but society gives so much importance to that;
    So they are unconsciuosly pressured to that.

    Is it normal that woman are happy when they buy a new pair of shoes? Or at least they THINK they would become happy…
    Another phenomena..^^

  6. “Yes, you do sound like :” do they need all this stuff to know what they want? ”
    but I also think that its wrong to see vogue or any campaign just as an artistic vomit”
    i think nobody sees an ad as a mere artistic fact, call it vomit or masterpiece. and for 2 reasons at least: 1st is obviously that marketing has more economic than aesthetic purposes, whatever you associate to aesthetics. 2nd is that actually art – contemporary art – is everything but separated from money. it’s a matter of fact that the (economical) success of an artist depends on how good s/he is to market himself/herself.
    i think sometimes we tend to still see art as a matter of purity and beauty and stuff. on the contrary, art has always been deeply connected with money.
    this is to say that my unsatisfaction doesn’t come from disappointed artistic expectations. my unsatisfaction comes from the apparently too clumsy realisation. if i think of daria in prada, in gucci or even in her fist cavalli 3 years ago i see campaigns that are able to link business and aesthetics. there’s a meaning, a depth, a beauty in those pics. with no need to still believe in artistic purity.

    “Capitalism was originally the need of people to do work, do their best at the thing they love and really get a success they can live on.”
    i don’t think capitalism was that originally. that looks like a frank capra’s version of capitalism! a very romantic american conception of self-made men.
    but capitalism was workers’ alienation, ppl working for 12 and more hours a day in factories, with no rights, just for the sake of a few ppl who got the money and maybe, yes, loved what they could afford to do thanks to the exploitation of workers. it was thanks to syndacates and unions that workers got their rights recognised. and still not everywhere.
    personally i think money makes quality life and can buy luxury and power, but happiness is something different to me.

  7. it’s wonderful to see a discussion here! reminds me of the good old days of the original darialogist… 🙂

    when i look at the b-on-b pic, abstracting myself from the fact i have somewhat followed the career of the model, i just see a well-groomed, beautiful woman who is looking down upon me and laughing, at me?

    in real life this pic would be close to a shop that sells those designer pieces. so this pic showing a carefree beautiful woman invites women who aspire to be young, beautiful and carefree to buy the clothes and join the party. By association, if she is happy, we will be too just by wearing the clothes. Same old story, Edward Bernays used it a long long time ago in the first cigarette ads.

    Another effect is that it raises brand awareness amongst those who cannot afford the pieces, so those who can, feel naturally even more superior when people notice the clothing. So this is more points for the brand, who does not like to feel superior?!?! After all wealthy women are not immune to insecurities and moreover having money and being intellectually aspirational is not quite the same.

    I think the ‘money CAN buy happiness’ point is very valid when it comes to ads. Not that it holds true in reality, I mean, of course money makes practical things easier, but
    happiness is something else. But ads like this suck more and more people into the idea that it is true… no?

    Now how did shoe therapy come around?

    and btw most people look at the ads and not into them, they don’t know who daria is, for most the last familiar name would be kate moss. so consistency should not be an issue here, they have to cater to the customers otherwise they lose clients too. i remember some great stuff i&v used to do maybe 3-4 year back or something, but i guess they found out where the cash was, so… less room for experimentation now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: