Comments on: F D&G http://www.theoldschoollunch.com/2007/03/14/f-dg/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:38:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Mallow http://www.theoldschoollunch.com/2007/03/14/f-dg/#comment-111 Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:48:13 +0000 http://www.theoldschoollunch.com/2007/03/14/f-dg/#comment-111 <strong>Mallow...</strong> Let me disagree.... Mallow…

Let me disagree….

]]> by: Paul Herzberg http://www.theoldschoollunch.com/2007/03/14/f-dg/#comment-23 Wed, 09 May 2007 13:40:34 +0000 http://www.theoldschoollunch.com/2007/03/14/f-dg/#comment-23 Ah, the perils of ego-surfing... OK, so I guess my comment tells you the #1 and the #3 thing. I'm not sure you can stretch it to #2. That said, my comment was tongue in cheek to some extent and not necessarily my nuanced position on D&G ads, gang rape or gay men in particular. The fact the comment fails to be in anyway funny probably does mark it down as pure shit. It's an ad that could be construed as depicting something offensive -- in a man's mag of all places. It could also be a depiction of dogging which is fairly newsworthy at the moment. I wouldn't have looked at it twice if there wasn't a kerfuffle about it -- and Trevor Beattie would tell you ads are all about getting noticed, so this one's done its job -- it's glossy pseudo porn that nods towards taboo breaking. It's probably bad taste, but offensive? Does it really offend you or is something you dislike? It wasn't particularly meant for your consumption and probably feeds in to an Esquire readers domination fantasies in a specific way. I'm not entirely sure you can project intentions on to the puppets in that ad other than looking as pretty as possible for the photographer. As for his, I'm guessing, intentions, I just don't know for sure. Ah, the perils of ego-surfing…

OK, so I guess my comment tells you the #1 and the #3 thing. I’m not sure you can stretch it to #2.

That said, my comment was tongue in cheek to some extent and not necessarily my nuanced position on D&G ads, gang rape or gay men in particular.

The fact the comment fails to be in anyway funny probably does mark it down as pure shit.

It’s an ad that could be construed as depicting something offensive — in a man’s mag of all places. It could also be a depiction of dogging which is fairly newsworthy at the moment. I wouldn’t have looked at it twice if there wasn’t a kerfuffle about it — and Trevor Beattie would tell you ads are all about getting noticed, so this one’s done its job — it’s glossy pseudo porn that nods towards taboo breaking. It’s probably bad taste, but offensive? Does it really offend you or is something you dislike? It wasn’t particularly meant for your consumption and probably feeds in to an Esquire readers domination fantasies in a specific way.

I’m not entirely sure you can project intentions on to the puppets in that ad other than looking as pretty as possible for the photographer. As for his, I’m guessing, intentions, I just don’t know for sure.

]]>