The Balenciaga Controversy
glossy.co
The Balenciaga Controversy
1–10 of 166 posts
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#2It was definitely not staged
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#3Here’s Balenciaga’s 2023 video showing off their styles for the year. This is from their own YouTube channel.
Fair warning: the children shown appear to be dolls, not actual human children, but it is still disturbing:
These seem to be adults dressed as literal demons (one of them has horns on their head) many of whom are carrying (probably fake) children, and all marching through the mud. It’s very unsettling.
This next thing is considerably worse since it appears to involve pictures of actual children (I won’t link it here since it’s NSFL). One of Bakenciagas designers, Lotta Volkova, had what appear to be photos of children in various…bizarre? Situations. If you search her name and instagram, there are websites which have archived her page (which is now private).
Balenciaga is trying to claim they didn’t know anything about this. That seems absurd given the rest of what they are putting out and who is working with them.
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#4Here’s Balenciaga’s 2023 video showing off their styles for the year. This is from their own YouTube channel. Fair warning: the children shown appear to be dolls, not actual human children, but it is still disturbing: https://youtu.be/Yh_1K9s6UV0 These seem to be adults dressed as literal demons (one of them has horns on their head) many of whom are carrying (probably fake) children, and all marching through the mud.…
I am so glad this wasn't a rickroll video
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#5>One of them seems to show, albeit in an obscured way, text from a Supreme Court decision related to the PROTECT Act, a 2003 federal law that states child pornography is not protected by free speech.
This is not the whole truth; it's an excerpt from Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, which was a case in which it was decided that fictional depictions of minors that don't exist nude or engaged in sexual acts is protected speech under 1A. If anything, its placement seems even tongue-in-cheek; many other countries do not have as thorough free speech protections, and such material is outright illegal.
The "Twitter users" mentioned in the article likley refers to Sh0eonhead who has a history of stirring up controversy around child sexualization with very little evidence, only insinuation and conspiracy style thinking. She's figured out that the one thing that unites the political spectrum is the mere hint of child sexualization and it's being milked for all it is. We saw similar last year, with the 'Cuties' debacle, which was also based on mere insinuation and conspiracy.
Truly a nothingburger story, like most stories based off a few tweets.
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#6Here’s Balenciaga’s 2023 video showing off their styles for the year. This is from their own YouTube channel. Fair warning: the children shown appear to be dolls, not actual human children, but it is still disturbing: https://youtu.be/Yh_1K9s6UV0 These seem to be adults dressed as literal demons (one of them has horns on their head) many of whom are carrying (probably fake) children, and all marching through the mud.…
> Balenciaga is trying to claim they didn’t know anything about this. That seems absurd given the rest of what they are putting out and who is working with them.
There you go.
The sort of person to give final approval over this at Balenciaga thought they could test and get away with this incredibly disgusting shoot. Then everyone noticed and they started to back-peddle.
Unfortunately, I don't think it is the last time we will see Balenciaga and others do disturbing shoots like that. Quite a shame that they have just shown how disgusting they are.
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#7It was definitely not staged
Is staged the right term? I would call it planned or intentionally provocative.
I don't follow fashion at all; the last I heard of Balenciaga was their Simpsons short. But a handful of people are some level of outraged about this which causes articles like this to get written which is somehow newsworthy enough to reach HN.
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#8>One of them seems to show, albeit in an obscured way, text from a Supreme Court decision related to the PROTECT Act, a 2003 federal law that states child pornography is not protected by free speech. This is not the whole truth; it's an excerpt from Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, which was a case in which it was decided that fictional depictions of minors that don't exist nude or engaged in sexual acts is protect…
You're leaving out all the photos on Lotta Volkova's Instagram. These are not a "nothingburger" it is obviously the product of a sick mind that likes to imply the sexual suffering and physical injury of children.
https://nitter.net/jakeshieldsajj/status/1597051525830152192...
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#9"Gabriele Galimberti, who shot the teddy bear ad but had no involvement with the spring campaign, said in a statement on Instagram that he too was given no control over the creative content of his shoot, other than details like lighting and framing. The content — pairing child models with the teddy bear bag — had already been decided before he was hired, he said."
There is a valid lesson here for all professionals including us Software Engineers. The photographer has demonstrated something about his willingness to do something for money regardless of whether it's a 'good' idea.
Take a step back and decide do I want to be involved in this?
Re: The Balenciaga Controversy
#10"Gabriele Galimberti, who shot the teddy bear ad but had no involvement with the spring campaign, said in a statement on Instagram that he too was given no control over the creative content of his shoot, other than details like lighting and framing. The content — pairing child models with the teddy bear bag — had already been decided before he was hired, he said." There is a valid lesson here for all professionals in…
I honestly think this is going a little too far. The photographer also stated that they were not even involved with the photo with the court case documents... Everyone is quick to judge but everyone is culpable for something bad... This is like China's internet mob justice and "human flesh search" days all over again.
Mob justice on the random people hired to do this is irresponsible. Target the beneficial owners...
I don't know what BDSM looks like so it looks innocent enough to me and it seems those are real bags from the company that just look like that... with children holding them because it's a teddy bear? Seems like lots of pots calling the kettle black here?