Balenciaga apologises for bondage bear advert involving child

So despite the statement Balenciaga appears to have a theme of child sexual abuse running through the marketing and brand. I wonder who the driver is, one could assume it’s the creative director who is leading the creative

Because no outside parent would sign off on it?

Isn't there some power imbalance going on here. Can we use your child in our photo shoot, and btw, remember who you work for and who pays your wages.

And possibly some parenting classes might be a good idea.

Then social services and the police need to do a lot of hard drive checking of the Balenciaga employees.

According to the daily mail, the kids are all children of Balenciaga employees.

They’ve got it all in this one…
White rabbit, mad hatters tea party, ruby slippers.

Missed it the first time but looks like that’s Baal again on the top left where the door frame is.

Would be interesting to get a high res version of this so the book titles etc could be seen, as well as the drawings in the wall at the back/side

And just for good measure they got a picture of a rainbow in there, hmm.

That's particularly revolting. Literally revelling in depravity.

Exactly!

😱😱😱

Also, if you look at the picture next to the toy rabbit that’s highlighted in the image above, it’s of Baal.

Balenciaga was spelt ‘Baalenciaga’ with the Baal being the prominent letters shown in some crime scene style type in one of the pictures

@Datun obviously it was the work experience person.......who's now left and gone travelling so can't be contacted....🤫

In fact, I bet there is an internal investigation, and some nameless creative gets blamed and apparently fired.

The end.

Exactly.

The photographer is fucked unless he either sues, or gets paid a lot of money.

However, I'm not sure how much money, exactly, would compensate for entirely ruined career. It's not as though he could change his name, since that would be part of his brand.

To clear his name, he has to sue. I bet they're wishing they had been a little more circumspect before they decided it was all his fault.

If you've 'never heard of her' I assume it's because your bias prevents you seeking out alternative media.

Candace is huge in the US. She's part of the Daily Wire, the fastest growing and most prolific right wing media production company. Some people would even like her to run for President. Of course you've never heard of her, you only listen to people whose politics you agree with!

And pro-life is an ethical position, albeit not one you agree with or is pro-choice automatically propaganda too?

How do people like you negotiate life only paying attention to people you like? I mean I can't stand James O'brien, for e.g. but I still occasionally listen to him and when the man's right, he's right. Despite me largely not agreeing with his politics. Try and make an effort to widen out your media sources. It's only good. For every 10 things you dislike they'll be a position you agree with.

It would be an interesting case. All of those horrible Easter eggs in those images are in and of themselves not illegal (certainly published judgements and books are not). They are distasteful, and perhaps Balenciaga will claim not in keeping with their corporate image. If there is nothing illegal in these photos, then what is Balenciaga's claim against the photographer? They can't sue him because they public finds the images disturbing. They could claim a breach of his employment contract - that he didn't stick to the brief or their corporate standards - so they would need to produce evidence of the brief and show the photographer's breach of this. A counterclaim by the photographer would be that he did his job as briefed, did not have the final (or any) say over these images and their composition, had no control over set design, publication etc, has been unfairly dismissed and has been libelled as a pedophile, thus damaging his chances of ever working again.

Creative Director at Balenciaga has comments turned off on Instagram. He’s accountable too. And the team there - more so than the photographers

I'm waiting for the spin that actually what they were doing is highlighting the horror of child abuse with those images and the carefully placed references, but considering they are the company who made the repulsive bag and signed off on using children to advertise it it won't wash with anyone with half a brain.

@PicturesOfDogs I know about Baal but can't see why we're talking about him. What reference have I missed?

That certificate is appalling! The book I could overlook as an arty reference. The court ruling and the certificate- not plausibly deniable.

Datun I think that you are right on both counts.He's left with no option but to sue if he wants to keep his reputation,but having this all forensically detailed in court,about exactly who conceptualised the shoot and how many people ok'd it before it was signed off is not something that the company will want. So I agree that a pay off is more than likely.

Either side going to court runs the risk of a 'Mermaids Moment' and we've all seen the fall out from that.

I don't think they've done anything illegal but I would hope the police would take a closer look at everyone involved in these campaigns.

When I watched the runway show yesterday, I saw models with make up to make them look like they're bruised and bleeding.

No one said anything about that when the show happened. I saw the mud trench getting a lot I'd press coverage but sending models out looking like they'd been physically abused? Silence.

It feels like they're upping the ante trying to shock and push boundaries. And desensitise.

It scares me.

I cant help thinking it was a mistake to blame him so roundly

I agree, it was very knee jerk.

*sues, not 'uses'.

Yes. The only way to start lifting the stone is if someone uses.

What's the likelihood the photographer gets paid off?

I cant help thinking it was a mistake to blame him so roundly.