Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Balenciaga Controversy

glossy.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#111

Post by p0pcult »

thepasswordis wrote: post #74
donkeyd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so unsettling about that? Sure, I understand they did this to cause a bit of a stir, but it's just people carrying around dolls in a dystopian setting. And even if there were actual babies in there, the most unsettling part is the danger of the person carrying the baby slipping in the mud and falling on top of the baby.

I don't think I can explain to you why this is unsettling in the same way I can't explain why abusing animals is bad, stealing is bad, or anything else is "bad". If we don't already have a shared system of morals which says "abuse of children is bad", then it seems unlikely I'm going to convince you that depictions of child abuse are bad. To me, this is "bad" because I subscribe to a belief system that thinks abusing…

But this is pointedly not child abuse. You're talking about inanimate objects.

Can one abuse a urinal? (Apologies to marcel duchamp!)

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#112

Post by p0pcult »

2devnull wrote: post #104

Art critics and other “intellectuals” (non artists) are to blame. They spread the false notion that art should be provocative not pretty. So the tasteless imitators who pose as artists have churned out a bunch of cringy beevis and butthead level “art” with pentagrams and blood and sexual perversion, etc… These are edgelords not artists. The public lap it up because they’re uneducated and have no aesthetic sensibiliti…

Please enlighten us...since you seem to have cornered the market on art criticism!

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#113

Post by naturedaily »

p0pcult wrote: post #106
naturedaily wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fancy myself a bit of a pedophile and a satanist. Most of my education on these topics stems from the 80s. In the 70s, naked children in photography was not even occulted. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. These photoshoots normalize and facilitate this attraction. If I was found with these photos in my possession, such evidence would get me in big trouble. Yes, these blatant photoshoots are capitalize…

Poe's Law.

More like: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

To you, these photos are not pedophilic. To me, an actual pedophile, these photos are. To each their own path. It is, afterall, a satanic truth that some things can have two opposing properties at the same time.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#114

Post by p0pcult »

imwillofficial wrote: post #55
navjack27 wrote: post #43

To everyone commenting on this using the phrases: Seems bizarre Is bizarre Disturbing Seems concerning Fishy If someone shows you who they are believe them Shame Disgusting Literal demons Very unsettling Congratulations! You took the bait! Now you are participating in something called moral outrage. All you are doing is exactly what they want you to do. They being Balenciaga. You are free marketing.

You know, some things are worth being morally outraged at. It’s called having standards.

Yes, things where actual harm is being perpetrated.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#115

Post by boboboboboboo »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #63
navjack27 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because you give a wide berth to artists and I assume high art in general... I'm sorry but your opinion is invalidated. It's invalidated in the same way if some rube off the street told you that they give a wide berth to applied research and then went on to give some sort of opinion about workplace solutions and then summed it all up by saying some one particular thing was a red flag to them.

Rubes are entitled to their opinions as am I. The wide berth is to give more latitude in restricting behavior than those who are not artists. It’s a privilege to allow them more freedom to create art. If they use that privilege to create BDSM teddy bears then I think social outrage is a predictable and appropriate response.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#116

Post by boboboboboboo »

thepasswordis wrote: post #41
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No offense but that’s just a fashion show in a setting involving some mud in the background. It looks a bit like another planet rather than hell. Also there are no children here. I’m still looking for the disturbing part.…

Watch the rest of the video. Eventually the actors are all walking around wearing child carriers containing dolls.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#117

Post by p0pcult »

mc32 wrote: post #91
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which I find incredibly poor taste. I wonder if that's the point. Fashion is all about pushing boundaries/generating buzz/publicity, right? I'm not saying I agree with it. I just don't think anybody would be talking about Balenciaga on HackerNews if they weren't being quite literally as edgy as possible/pushing the boundaries as hard as possible. If all of this ends up increasing sales/brand image in one twisted wa…

Do you think they'll go for the same but instead use stereotypical imagery of starving children or POWs? I bet they do not because yes, it'll create lots of "controversy" but also many advocacy organizations will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Of course you're right, but let's continue the thought experiment: if they had used some of the imagery you suggest, would anyone claim that the people taking the photos were starving said children, or imprisoning people?

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#118

Post by lordfrito »

navjack27 wrote: post #43

To everyone commenting on this using the phrases: Seems bizarre Is bizarre Disturbing Seems concerning Fishy If someone shows you who they are believe them Shame Disgusting Literal demons Very unsettling Congratulations! You took the bait! Now you are participating in something called moral outrage. All you are doing is exactly what they want you to do. They being Balenciaga. You are free marketing.

Looked for the photos, yikes. There's a reason people look at this stuff and get morally outraged. It is absolutely outrageous. I guess this is what they set out to do. Mission accomplished. Great. Fooled me again! They got free marketing and I've lost a little more faith in humanity.

If you've experienced this kind of abuse, this kind of stuff is beyond "triggering". "Feels" are supposed to matter, right? I guess who cares when you're pushing the boundaries of art and making money? At least the artist had the decency to set her profile to private.

Strangest thing is everyone defending this stuff as merely edgy/effective marketing. Suggesting COVID came from a lab gets you banned, but this stuff gets a collective shrug. And the left wonders what the right is angry about.

Where's cancel culture when you need it? /s

edit: To be clear, I have no problem with art, even edgy art. Context (and intent) is key. This was merely a cash grab with no artistic value. Unless the cynical cash grab is the artistic statement. Welcome to post-postmodern. Great tool, nothing matters. Next thing you know SBF will claim FTX was intended to be "performance art".

/rant

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#119

Post by naturedaily »

p0pcult wrote: post #117
mc32 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think they'll go for the same but instead use stereotypical imagery of starving children or POWs? I bet they do not because yes, it'll create lots of "controversy" but also many advocacy organizations will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Of course you're right, but let's continue the thought experiment: if they had used some of the imagery you suggest, would anyone claim that the people taking the photos were starving said children, or imprisoning people?

This is not what is claimed, at least, not by the reasonable people opposed to such marketing.

The photos would constitute gore. Just like the Balencia photos constitute pedophilia flirting with ritual abuse.

The photographer is just pushing aside blame. They knew damn well what they were depicting when they checked the light values on the dog bowls and discarded adult clothing placed on the floor of a child's room.

The photographer still says the pushback in general is way overblown, and that people repulsed by these images are overreacting. They know what they did, they just donnot see a problem with it. That is how normal such shoots are these days at the higher levels of the fashion and modeling industry.

What would you expect of someone who takes photos of starving children in a bright Beneton shirt?

Re: The Balenciaga Controversy

#120

Post by mc32 »

p0pcult wrote: post #117
mc32 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think they'll go for the same but instead use stereotypical imagery of starving children or POWs? I bet they do not because yes, it'll create lots of "controversy" but also many advocacy organizations will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Of course you're right, but let's continue the thought experiment: if they had used some of the imagery you suggest, would anyone claim that the people taking the photos were starving said children, or imprisoning people?

Not necessarily but they would talk about "normalizing" and advancing certain unwelcome attitudes and behavior. Let's say they "recreated" a Srebernica scene -it would certainly be controversial. No one would accuse them of massacring the actors --less so if they used CGI --but never the less is it would be considered beyond the pale and would be denounced by virtually everyone and for good reason. It's gross. It's repugnant. What they did was and is repugnant as well.
Post reply on HN