... if you're sure you want to be.
In which case you'll need to throw any self-consciousness or body qualms out the window because that uneven skin tone you have or extra pounds you can't shift are not going to be photoshopped. Frankly you can ditch pretty much any body shame you have because at American Apparel, they embrace your flaws, you bulges and even your unsightly underarm stubble. Absolute freedom with appearance you may be thinking? Well... kind of.
While the over stylized methods of Testino and Demarchelier are shunned in favour of something a little more Jurgen Teller, Dov Charnay (CEO of the brand) makes up for in sex what his campaigns lack in glamour.
American Apparel has always been surrounded be some controversy. It is not the use of underweight models that lands AA in the naughty corner time and time again. In fact the majority of the models that feature in the campaigns are healthy looking curvy girls with hips and bums and boobs but the brands eagerness to present these hot commodities to us is the subject of this post. In terms of fashion drama, Charnay does for sexualisation controversy what Galliano did for anti-semitism.
The American Apparel campaign photos do, I'll admit, have a realism that is refreshing to see in an industry where the vast majority of pictures are stylized, edited and photoshopped beyond recognition. Shot on basic film and in not unusual settings, it is of course not the format of these pictures that have been causing such a raucous of the past few years but rather their preoccupation with nether regions.
Just take a look for yourself.
I know.
These are actually ads to sell clothes. Not condoms, hair removal cream or the latest website specialising in amateur porn. Apparently the items (or
item in most cases) of clothing are supposed to be the focal point of the photo which is generally the basis of every clothing related campaign. Not in the opinion of Mr. Charnay though. His formula seems to work like this.
Clothing + amateur model - the majority of the clothing + awkward pornographic pose + uninspired setting = AA's next controversial campaign
So there you have it. Now that you have the formula, you needn't just settle for AA model, be the photographer too!
Then just sit back, relax and wait for a bit of controversy to be dropped into you suggestively spread lap.
While I know that there are much more risque adverts and editorial shoots floating around in the fashion stratosphere, I think the fact that the vast majority of these pictures look like they could have been shot in your bedroom or sitting room makes them a little more daunting. While Tom Ford's saucy perfume ads of 2007 caused quite a stir at the time, they only exist in a world of impeccable red pouts and oiled up models makes them at least kind of acceptable. The AA ads really try to nail the point that if you buy American Apparel underwear you too could look like you just had anal sex on the arm of a couch.
Cheers for reading me sounding like a prude,
Jane
Ps. Just for the record, I do not have a problem with AA clothes. They make undoubtedly great basics - albeit sometimes slightly overpriced - that are adored the world over. I just don't agree with the heavy sexualisation of girls who could pass for 14. I also know that not all of their ads and campaigns are laid out like this but you cannot deny the controversy surrounding those that are.
Images via here, here, here and here.
In my hunt for AA images I came across
this Puma one too.
Scandalous.
+67.jpg)
+68.jpg)
+74.jpg)
+75.jpg)
+71.jpg)
+73.jpg)
+76.jpeg)
+72.jpg)
