The Balenciaga Controversy
glossy.co
glossy.co
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.
But I did look up the instagram profile you're talking about and saw one of the images in google's cache. I'll save other people the trouble of doing the same: it's a little kid taped into a chair with packing tape, including over their mouth, and they're wearing headphones connected to a laptop showing some sort of tv show.
It's not CSAM but it certainly is intended to ape it stylistically, 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 way or another, will they call it a net win and go back to being a sleeping giant until they fabricate/drum up the next "scandal"?
It strikes me as tasteless, or maybe even plain vulgar, to use imagery like this to try to sell clothing. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last, but I'm glad they're getting dragged for it all the same.
Art can continue to push boundaries without kids.
It’s sick this even needs to be said.
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?
[sic]
Baalencia.
With Baal they were referring to Lord Moloch, a pagan God who demanded child sacrifice by casting these in the fires of a horned bull statue.
So the fashion and modeling industry. They depict the demon. Youth and Beauty sacrificed at the altar of Lord Moloch. Maybe the photos are meant as a warning or a way to offset karmic debt.
> I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49303/howl
> who says this?
Someone who actually believes in free speech, not faux-free speech or faux-satanism. It is improbable, yes, even for those who talk a lot about free speech and satanism.
> So you're saying
I said what I said. These shoots, and the movie Cuties, invoked a pedophilic attraction in me. I do not think that was purely imagination, nor do I appreciate being questioned about the veracity of my feelings by someome who was not born for this path.
> tell us more about the viewers, based on their reactions, than about the photography itself?
I do not get this attraction to a photo of a milk carton. The photography itself certainly plays a role. The more you can identify with the photographer, in regards to boundaries and tastes and attractions, the more a photo will resonate with you.
It's also very suspect that you picked "Cuties" which was the prior round of moral outrage; it is almost as though, rather than being a "real pedophile" (TM) you are just sifting through Tucker Carlson's satanic panics to make provocative points that suit whatever weird agenda you have.
Lastly (and I do mean lastly, as after this, I'm done engaging you in discourse) it's interesting that you're sweating me, specifically. Every single comment on your fake identity "real pedophile" (TM) 4 hour old account is in response to me.
>Just like the Balencia [sic] photos constitute pedophilia flirting with ritual abuse.
Furthermore, that, these moral panics are dangerous and (specifically in this case), constitute attempts at stochastic terrorism and political destabilization.
Yes, polarization is used to pit right against left. We could all join hands on this: It is repugnant to use vulnerable children for marketing that reeks of pedophilia. Do not focus on those screaming global cabal of satanist abusers, and certainly do not make it representative of the position of your political opposition.
How far are you willing to go to concede on this topic? Or should we let such politicized events destabilize us without a fight (through debate).
The "theme" (insofar as anything high fashion really has a theme) seems like a mixture of grindhouse and apocalypse. "Child carrying a doll" is a borderline trope in that context: compare, for example, the first episode of The Walking Dead.
I don't know anything about the thing you haven't linked, because you haven't linked it. But the panic over this video doesn't pass the sniff test.
Yes. It is annoying to have my attention brought to this. What would be disturbing would be being forced to watch the entire video, as in "A Clockwork Orange":
https://www.slantmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/fil...).
. Luckily freedom of speech reigns so I can turn off such shite.
On the plus side, they didn't pay much for the set, a mud/coal pit of some sort.
Overall the result is comedy.
Artists use provocative or disturbing images all the time, its how some art works. Images of children have always been used in various contexts.
If anything, I will be very disturbed if using imagery of children becomes a new taboo. I hear that in the USA you can't interact casually with other peoples children because they assume that you are some kind of pervert, are we extending this taboo to imagery of kids just because the the elite pedophile cabal runs the government conspiracy theory has become mainstream?
I find all this ridiculous. If there's an abuse or something, jail them already but this has turned into a witch hunt. The western society is just inches away from becoming like Taliban and hunting down people for objectionable art.
There's also a chance this is happening simply because Balenciaga dropped Kanye West but I hope it's Balenciaga's marketing people stirring a controversy.
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.
> 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).
The controversy is about pictures of kids carrying bags shaped as teddy bears in chains which can make one thinks of bdsm. I repeat: the teddy bears are in chains, not the kids. It’s in bad taste but very much SFL.
I have no clue about what’s actually happening at Balenciaga but I wish people kept to facts.
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.
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.
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.
To me, this is "bad" because I subscribe to a belief system that thinks abusing children is bad. Balenciaga, in their marketing, has used images which imply the abuse of children. Therefore: this is bad.
Please at least try to argue in good faith. It’s the first time I think I should flag a comment looking polite at face value.
This is not fair. The original post was about the inappropriate use of children in a marketing campaign. Balenciaga claims they didn't know the nature of the photoshoot.
The video I linked provides context demonstrating that balenciaga continued the same theme in their fashion show. "Why is this fashion show bad" "because it is part of a larged set of behaviors which include and encourage child abuse".
You can disagree with me, but don't misstate what I am saying.
>These seem to be adults dressed as literal demons This would imply you believe in demons, which are things that do not exist in the real world. You might believe they exist due to your moral upbringing but just because you were brainwashed (abused) as a child, doesnt mean every one is a child abuser.
Lotta Volkova artwork is definitely sordid but so is a lot of art. You dont have to like it or even look.
If anyone abuses a child, partner or elder, they should be held accountable.
Let me know when there's a wiki list full child abuse incidents involving Drag shows while most godfearing people ignore institutional abuse and rape in the Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...
Exactly. I feel like art and its purpose have been lost in recent years. Art is supposed to make people think or feel. Paintings of beheadings in museums don't make people think about beheading people, nor do they make people happy. They make people think about the atrociousness of history and hopefully about not wanting to repeat it.
My (non religious) dad recently argued that music that implies rape or child abuse shouldn't be broadcast on the radio, because it's wrong. I asked whether any movie showing violence, abuse and rape should also not be played on TV or in cinema. I also explained that both are art forms and aren't depictions of things the singers or actors want to do in real life, per se (we all know there are exceptions). He argued this, however, because he heard the argument from some radio DJs.
It'll be a sad day when we ban everything we don't like to see or hear, because that's when we forget those things exist and stop doing anything against it.
Can one abuse a urinal? (Apologies to marcel duchamp!)
I'm actually not sure what caused such a repulse from that comment, it's the usual edgy haute couture show, the way it was described in that comment made me expect a lot more than what I watched. I thought there would be some deeply unsettling stuff and was wondering how it was even allowed on a fashion show. It's just mud, some models walking around with the pieces of the season and... That's it?
The chained BDSM teddy bears with the kids pictures are actually in bad taste and more unsettling than the show but in a "how the fuck did the artistic directors think this would be viewed as?" way than anything else. Because it's truly in bad taste to try to refer to any kind of child abuse.
To me the shock portrayed by the parent comment of yours is actually a bit shocking, might be that my life's experiences made me a bit unfazed to this forced edgy bit though.
...the dolls???
Also I don't see the difference between the work by Lotta Volkova and some drawings by Goya.
There is absolutely zero chance that any choice associated with a professional photo shoot was made flippantly, especially for fashion of any kind. Every hair, every spec of dirt, and every single thing in every single shot is intentional.
Gosh, it's almost like you're describing the entirety of high fashion.
In a society with a court of public opinion, the exact opposite is true.
...middle school?
To model ourselves after middle schoolers would be aspirational to a delusional degree.
E.g. certain Russian oligarchs winning lawsuits in West because of some legalese. It feels like „rule of law“ nowadays is used to silence the weak and doesn't apply to the powerful ones.
The main question is what's the tangent. And TBH it looks quite sad in the past decade.
Maybe it needs tear down and rebuilding from scratch?
Progress is an illusion!
There is only black and white!
Please stop engineering doubt. It's absurd to pretend that there isn't a consistent theme of child abuse here.
Not a claim on OP, but in general for this conversation: I find it intriguing that the level of grace and benefit that is given to the people involved in this controversy seems to be at an all time high. I wonder if the same people extending this grace and benefit of the doubt would do so with those opposed to them politically.
Wake up, you have been conditioned to accept a corrupt, misanthropic oligarchy.
There are literally thousands of years of texts, debates, classes, hell, entire schools based around those first five words.
You simply cannot use them definitively. It's just not that simple.
There is art that crushes the human spirit. Art about war. Art about slavery. Art about personal trauma. I think if we only depicted pretty war, pretty slavery, pretty rape and genocide, that's pretty disgusting.
High fashion photoshoots are a multi layered production. Several people would have viewed these photos, edited, adjusted, filtered out bad shots, etc prior to this campaign being released. The fact that no one seemed to bat an eye at a judicial opinion including the words "child sexualization" seems concerning. No special knowledge is required.
Basically the modern version just has the serial numbers filed off and doesn't reference Jewish people directly, just "the elites" (note finance, entertainment and academia have long been considered "Jewish" domains for various reasons.) But if you did deeply enough, it's always there.
Not sure about the satanic thing, as I'm an atheist myself, but to put that sort of document inside a photo-op that already looks fishy as hell is not ok, to put it mildly.
[1] https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/11/28/20/65014791-11478639...
Fashion is an art form. Sometimes it makes statements and attempts at subversion.
Not people wearing horns, dear god. I think we might be summoning the devil.
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.
Is it tasteless? De gustibus non est disputandum. So much high fashion is stupid and provocative, imo.
Is it pedophilia? No.
Are you attempting to imply that the "non-binary" or "porn" adjectives are relevant here? I may be going out on a limb here, but I am not sure that "non-binary" or "porn" people commit shootings at different rates than the rest of the population--do you have any evidence, rather than mere implication (if that is in fact what you are implying)?
The one you just cited, obviously.
The point is that you are either misinformed, speculating as it suits you, or lying to present that shooting as being motivated by moral panic type politics because it has since come out that the shooter did not subscribe to those beliefs.
And as much as it pains me to agree with you I concur that the shooter's gender and father's occupation are irrelevant.
Non-binary according to the shooter's attorney but referred to as "he" by his father. Neighbours also asserted that the shooter frequently used homophobic slurs and didn't identify as non binary at any point in the past.
This art is probably intended to be edgy, just like the faux-satanism fashion, it's meant to rub freedom of expression in the faces of certain people the in-crowd dislikes. All that is happening is mutual provocation and outrage. The same thing is happening on Twitter with performative trolling and then people claiming that Twitter is now a threat to democracy. Obviously, that means a lot of people who claim to want free speech only want it for themselves.
This particular speech that I don't like is a threat to society
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 capitalized on by the hard right, and mostly ignored by the hard left. You would think that children are some of the most vulnerable people in society, and that these need protection from 1% sexualized capitalism, something the far left usually fights for, but these seem pre-occupied with battling global fascism right now.
Transsexuality is a big satanist topic. Male homosexuality has a big pedosexuality problem, but this is occulted and taboo to talk about.
You ask if it is tasteless, but then quote the Romans on debating taste, so assume it has a taste. This is the taste of pedophilia and Baal worship. This taste certainly provokes those with more common sensabilities.
It is pedophilic in nature. These people involved did their homework. Not like pop clips for children from about a decade ago, where they just slapped together some depictions of Isis to raps of Jeffrey Dahmer eating out hearts.
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.
who says this? probably not "actual pedophile[s]"
>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.
So you're saying that the photos tell us more about the viewers, based on their reactions, than about the photography itself? Interesting take, actual pedophile; interesting take.
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?
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?
So, here's a random person hired to do this shoot boasting about it on their Instagram page. [1] I don't even know what angle you can come at this to make this seem normal.
[1] https://twitter.com/curioslight/status/1596822351668469762
Nevertheless I think he showed poor judgement. I doubt he could pretend that he didn't know that the teddy bears were sexually themed as BDSM styling is not that obscure. And it really feels to me that he should be paying attention to what he is photographing.
So I stand by my point that I hope that other professionals pay attention to what they are being asked to do and decide whether they will do it.
At the risk of going close to Godwin's law I would say that a photographer publishing pictures of anti-semitic symbols is going to face negative feedback if they don't understand what they are photographing and present it appropriately. I'm not justifying threats of violence but criticism is definitely valid.
I was trying to talk about the photographer not having shown good judgement and how we should learn from that. If it involves sexuality, race, ethnicity, children, disabilities, or politics then professionals should probably think about whether they are qualified to do it appropriately.
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.
https://nitter.net/jakeshieldsajj/status/1597051525830152192...
[Edited to add: I don't know any of these people, fashion, or anything. I'm however extremely skeptical of conspiracy theory talk, poorly-contextualized information, and so need way more than context-free photos allegedly from an instagram page.]
>innocuously edgy
No way.
To be clear, I just don't think they're any more edgy than what is already normalized. It's just easy to prime the brain into thinking it's more serious than it is, because it's being put into an ominous context. In reality, simulated murder and children in one-pieces are already normalized as popcorn-level entertainment in the context of tv shows and gymnastics. If this is bad then we should really be cracking down harder on way more stuff than an instagram page.
As for Volkova, I don't know enough to judge, but you might be right, I don't know; but it's a separate issue, in which there may be more under the cover than the usual insinuation and conspiracy thinking.
It's just shock advertising people, or at least I think shock advertising is the likelier culprit than a cabal of kiddie grooming satanists.
"50% better, 25% less expensive" just doesn't cut it as a marketing message these days.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/art/article/SFMOMA-to-display-divisiv...
What I vehemently disagree with is this assertion:
>the false notion that art should be provocative not pretty.
Why should art be pretty? Why "should" art be anything specific? I would even go further to say that to require art to have (nearly?) any specific quality is the antithesis of art.
In the culture war, the right often raises the issue of sexual abuse of children where it exists and not, or the depiction of children in any proximity to sexuality. The right is reacting to a view on the left that we should "treat children like adults". Following from this, many on the left see nothing wrong with exposing children to sex, nudity, stip shows and so on. This is related to the problematization of sex (the left would like to unproblematize sex; the right sees the problematization of sex as necessary).
I would say that we're constantly negotiating new norms and it's not surprising that norms regarding children (and how they are depicted) are a particular flashpoint. Consider Slouching Towards Bethlehem. One of the eduring images from that essay is aimless hippies feeding their children LSD for breakfast. Still, I'm optimistic about this process. The left and right both have a point and we'll slowly work towards a middle ground.
Seems bizarre
Is bizarre
Disturbing
Seems concerning
Fishy
If someone shows you who they are believe them
Shame
Disgusting
Literal demons
Very unsettling
I agree that marketing companies are well aware of shock value and use it from time to time but I would also assert that there's a large gray area where shock value becomes actual advocacy. I assert that that Balenciaga is within or past that gray area here.
When people are hurt or crimes are committed.
>If they were little Jewish kids tied up getting gassed and whipped, would you be willing to take the same tone?
That is is in bad taste, but not, in fact, the Holocaust? Yes.
>I would also assert...
And I assert that I am the most handsome and witty person in the HN comment section. (That's the thing with assertions--we can make as many as we want, but unless the are in our particular area of expertise, they are of little value.)
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
I also was into the 'danses macabres' at some point and went in four different museum to appreciate the art, in three different countries. I kinda like those photographies, they're not great art, but one or two could have their place in a museum (art show called 'danses macabres et capitalisme' could probably be done. Film/tv show extracts could be added)
When you go to an art show like the one you describe, you're prepared ahead of time for this stuff. You have some idea of what you're getting into. COUM Transmissions in the 70's comes to mind, shock was a part of the point of it all. Or if you're into death metal, a disturbing album cover is sort of par for the course. Its part of the overall artistic message.
To have this stuff mixed in with commercial fashion, or whatever you want to call that nonsense, is much stranger. And the kiddie bondage stuff... in a commercial space? It's just too far for something targeting mass awareness and consumption. We're not all open minded people with an artistic bent who want to contemplate these kinds of things. This is stuff that belongs in the fringes, and I don't see how any normalization of this stuff has a net upside to society at large.
If they tried to show this stuff to schoolkids I'd be in the long line of people asking what the heck the administration was thinking. Anyone who has had kids knows what I'm talking about.
Also, to be clear I'm talking about the Lotta Volkova pictures, not so much the BDSM bear stuff which is in poor taste but not nearly as outrageous. The relationship between Volkova and Balenciaga isn't clear, but that's what I found first when I went down this particular rabbit hole. Examples here [1]. The kid taped to a chair and the bedroom full of blood stand out as particularly disturbing, the message of child abuse is clear.
[1] https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/who-lotta-volkova-ba...
Grouping people who call it that in with people going whole hog on the moral panic serves no productive purpose other than to lend legitimacy to the moral panic.
You will eventually reap what you sow with this "everyone who has a criticism is an extremist" rhetoric.
Did you mean the Colorado shooting, which was done by a non-binary person whose father was a porn actor? Or the Orlando shooting, which killed 49 and was the product of a muslim immigrant who self declared as a supporter of ISIS?
>or pizza parlors.
You mean, the one shooting in which nobody was actually shot?
It’s called having standards.
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.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Balencia...
I wonder why they dont go with political outrage, it's all the rage these days. Like, imagine some pictures of Epstein on that table, or something to do with vaccine controversy . gah, i think i found my new talent