Is it okay to buy/wear Balenciaga given the controversy related to children? They have apologized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to know about the company is that they were closely tied to the Franco fascist regime in Spain, which also has a horrific history of baby stealing as well.

I will never wear anything associated with the brand, and actually I am also done with the celebrities that aren’t saying anything here or giving weak condemnation like Kim Kardashian. There is just so much evidence here. It is impossible to ignore.

Kim has spoken out

Barely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Out of my price range, but I wouldn't.

They could have missed the Supreme Court child porn ruling that perhaps the stylist slipped in (also some books in the shoot that contain questionable depictions of children, a horn on Isabelle Huppert's head, or the name on a framed document of a man convicted of molesting his granddaughter between the ages of 4 and 16)), but no way those who approved printing the ad could have missed the kids wearing the bondage panda bears wiht alcohol on the table in the foreground.

Of the big celebrities involved with Balenciaga, only Kim K so far has said anything. But not definitive on her ongoing relationship. Bella Hadid has removed some picture of her in Baleciaga but has not said anything publicly.

What could they possibly have had to gain from doing this? Was this some robe stylist trying to have a moment?

I guess we’re talking about it, but I don’t really get it, either.

[Anonymous]

If Balenciaga was my only option, sure. Luckily I have access to lots of different brands of clothing who have not recently tried to garner edgy attention though nods to child p**n.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Out of my price range, but I wouldn't.

They could have missed the Supreme Court child porn ruling that perhaps the stylist slipped in (also some books in the shoot that contain questionable depictions of children, a horn on Isabelle Huppert's head, or the name on a framed document of a man convicted of molesting his granddaughter between the ages of 4 and 16)), but no way those who approved printing the ad could have missed the kids wearing the bondage panda bears wiht alcohol on the table in the foreground.

Of the big celebrities involved with Balenciaga, only Kim K so far has said anything. But not definitive on her ongoing relationship. Bella Hadid has removed some picture of her in Baleciaga but has not said anything publicly.

What could they possibly have had to gain from doing this? Was this some robe stylist trying to have a moment?

I guess we’re talking about it, but I don’t really get it, either.

yeah but we are disgusted. That's not good publicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Balenciaga was my only option, sure. Luckily I have access to lots of different brands of clothing who have not recently tried to garner edgy attention though nods to child p**n.

No thanks. Bottega and Louis Vuitton for me.

[Anonymous]

No, do not buy or wear their products.

[Anonymous]

Balenciaga isn’t really that kind of brand. Avant garde edgy art is their thing. It’s not Disney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Balenciaga isn’t really that kind of brand. Avant garde edgy art is their thing. It’s not Disney.

They are definitely into promotion of fascism, true. They do stick to their roots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure it’s okay if you want to support a company that sexually exploited children I guess

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:of course it is. They were misguided "art" pictures. They didn't DO anything to children.

Buy what you want.

Nope. It is very sick to use children in that way. Using children is doing something to them and putting images that are disturbing with their faces.

[Anonymous]

I’m a retired museum photographer and I have retouched over 45,000 photos of my work and other photographers images. Those images were heavily scrutinized and there’s no way I would have missed the stuff in the background of the office photos.

I didn’t work in the fashion industry but I have two close friends who did. A fashion photographer and a retouch artist. The fashion photographer almost always works at the direction of an art director who has cleared their project with those at the top. A retoucher reviews every detail of an image used for advertising and usually works with a team. There’s absolutely no way one photographer or a rogue art director made these images happen alone. Balenciaga is right they are wholly responsible but I don’t buy the “we didn’t know what was going on in our own shop” bs.

I’ll also just say that the Michael Booreman book in the background is absolutely questionable and everyone at Balenciaga would damn well know that. They would know what that is and allowed. Photographers/art directors are well aware of who the controversial photographers are and you don’t even bring them up in conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:of course it is. They were misguided "art" pictures. They didn't DO anything to children.

Buy what you want.

I don't know about you, but I question a company that stretches art pictures to sexualizing children and using weird satanic allusions like Baalenciaga for a public ad campaign.

Misguided doesn't seems like an inadequate word to describe it.

+1 It reflects the mindset of those who work for that company. Their apology rings hollow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a retired museum photographer and I have retouched over 45,000 photos of my work and other photographers images. Those images were heavily scrutinized and there’s no way I would have missed the stuff in the background of the office photos.

I didn’t work in the fashion industry but I have two close friends who did. A fashion photographer and a retouch artist. The fashion photographer almost always works at the direction of an art director who has cleared their project with those at the top. A retoucher reviews every detail of an image used for advertising and usually works with a team. There’s absolutely no way one photographer or a rogue art director made these images happen alone. Balenciaga is right they are wholly responsible but I don’t buy the “we didn’t know what was going on in our own shop” bs.

I’ll also just say that the Michael Booreman book in the background is absolutely questionable and everyone at Balenciaga would damn well know that. They would know what that is and allowed. Photographers/art directors are well aware of who the controversial photographers are and you don’t even bring them up in conversation.

+1

This was a deliberate choice.

[Anonymous]

Everyone saying they won’t wear Balenciaga again also means they won’t wear Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent too, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone saying they won’t wear Balenciaga again also means they won’t wear Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent too, right?

When did those brands advertise using Supreme Court opinions about child pornography?