Her shirt says “love” not “hate.”
Apparently, this seemingly benign ad for GapKids elicited a shit storm on social media, critics from hither and yon claiming it racist on account of a white girl leaning on a black child’s head.
That scores of people expressed their displeasure over the image shouldn’t surprise any of us. The world is very, very sensitive right now. Putin. Trump. Obama. Black Lives Matter. The Occupy Movement. The Big Short. Domestic Abuse. Radical Islam. Terrorism. Right Wing. Left Wing. Police brutality. Syria. Refugees. I could free associate reasons on why we’ve become so mercurial and still be just scratching the surface.
But this uproar? Come on, people. That ad is about as racist as your average 11-year-old girl, which is to say, not at all. The kids were posing for a photograph. You put my daughters on a stage with a big time photographer they’ll do the same thing.
And to overblow the matter even more, Gap issued an apology. So unwarranted. If ever a client was respectful to multiculturalism, it’s this one. Gap and Gap Kids have long been vanguards when it comes to diversity in their casting. At least that’s been my observation.
Why isn’t the interpretation that the white child is leaning on a friend? As opposed to something foul like demeaning a black girl? Methinks latent racism exists in the eyes of the beholder. They see evil because they want to see evil.
Why stop at racism? The two other girl’s poses are –gasp- sexual. Are they not? Legs spread wide like that – for shame! And what about the exploitation of children in general? Shouldn’t these kids be in school? And where were those inappropriately tight-fitting clothes made – a sweat shop in China?
Enough is enough.Does racism exist in the world. Absolutely. In this ad? Absolutely not. Moralizing the crap out of a silly photograph like this goes too far.
Update: On top of everything else the two children in question are adopted sisters! http://www.fastcocreate.com/3058611/gap-apologizes-for-kids-ad-controversy-swaps-image
“Dahling, you just don’t get it.”
In honor of the recent passing of Fashion Week and, with it, designer Alexander McQueen, who recently committed suicide in his London flat, I thought a story about fashion advertising would be appropriate.
By definition fashion is advertising. But not the kind you and I specialize in. Uncut and undiluted by narratives, fashion advertising projects the creativity of the fashion designer or the “House” from which it originates: Gucci, Prada, Channel, Dior. For the most part these iconic brands eschew advertising campaigns in the ad agency sense of the word, preferring projection to conception. It is the line that matters and by that I don’t mean theme line. Fashion advertising seldom resorts to anything as parochial as tag lines. Or copy. That would be so uncool.
I’m not being condescending –not completely- when I say fashion campaigns are nothing short of pornography. And like good porn, it is usually quite frank. No need to fast forward through storylines to get to the good parts. The entertainment is the product, be it bags, glasses, or eveningwear. “Shut up and show us your… handbags!”
To be honest, this has always frustrated me. As a copywriter I loathed fashion’s indifference to my craft. Where was the story? What’s the big idea? I disdained these glossy ads for their obsession with obsession. At the same time, I envied their big budget bravado.
Still, it is not lost on me that fashion advertising is almost single-handedly keeping many of my favorite magazines afloat. Where would Vanity Fair, GQ and Esquire be without all that lavish advertising? And for every man’s magazine relying upon fashion advertisements there are dozens of female-oriented publications that are literally devoted to such “window dressing.” Can you say Vogue?
Ironic then, of the hundred or so print campaigns I judged at the Magazine Publishers of America/ Kelly Awards I’d guess less than five belonged to fashion. The closest candidate was the joyous holiday work from the Gap. Yes, the Gap. It seems only mainstream “houses” attended the print mediums most prestigious festival. Here we also found the latest iconic red and white campaign from Target. (Not at the Kellys, other examples of mainstream brands playing in ad land’s sandbox: Dockers “Wear the Pants,” Levis “Go Forth,” and CP&B’s irreverent use of mannequins for Old Navy.)
“Blimey, I’m in a %#@X! fashion ad!”
But where was Gucci, Prada and Ralph Lauren? And what about that striking campaign from Louis Vuitton? Arguably more of a showcase for celebrated photographer Annie Leibovitz, is it not still a commanding use of print? Of course it is. But in the fashion sense. And I’m afraid fashion sets its own criteria for what works and what doesn’t. Our notions of good print advertising falls into the latter category.
The Happy Soul Industry
The Last Generation
Gods of Advertising 