http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080823.AD23/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Ontario/
IF YOU'VE GOT IT, FLAUNT IT? OR DEMEANING TO WOMEN? YOU CHOOSE
American Apparel is at it again
If the clothing retailer wants to gain attention by being naughty, it's pushing all the right buttons
DAKSHANA BASCARAMURTY
August 23, 2008
The mid-morning air is crisp near Yonge-Dundas Square, and while some are exposing swathes of skin in tank tops and shorts, one woman is stripped down to nothing but a pair of barely-there nylon tights.
Strands of her black, tousled hair cling to her arched back, which is turned toward the street. A film of nylon is pulled tautly over impossibly long legs that are spread apart and serve as towering pedestals for her pert buttocks. Her left hand grips a ledge. Big surprise: It's a billboard ad for American Apparel.
Batsheva Capek said she's horrified every time she walks past the two-dimensional woman, who is captured in a grainy black-and-white photograph. The tall image hovers over the clothing retailer's storefront on Yonge Street at Gould, one block north of Yonge-Dundas Square.
Maybe one in a dozen who pass by slow down to a saunter, holding their gaze on the provocative image for at least a few languid paces. One middle-aged man, transfixed by the image, nearly stumbles off the sidewalk.
But when Ms. Capek first saw the ad, she stormed home and wrote a letter to Mayor David Miller. More than four months later, the 53-year-old singer and songwriter says the photo still disgusts her.
"That billboard is the cover of a porn magazine and it's screaming at Yonge and Dundas Square," she spits out with rage.
American Apparel's ads have sparked controversy before.
Much of the time the photographer is Montreal-born American Apparel chief executive officer Dov Charney, who is known as much for freely discussing masturbation as his multi-hued, combed-cotton T-shirts and anti-sweatshop business model.
One American Apparel ad promoting fuchsia tights catches a woman in what appears to be a toe-curling orgasm. In more risqué European and Asian ads, tank-top models cheekily expose their nipples. These ads have raised the ire of feminists, who suggest Mr. Charney objectifies women.
But in the case of this controversial image, the model was also the photographer.
Kyung Chung, a company photographer, set the self-timer on her camera while in Paris last August and snapped a series of self-portraits. One of them turned into the ad that hangs above the Yonge and Gould store and also sparked debate in Manhattan, where it was placed on a billboard.
Ms. Chung's backside loomed over the Lower East Side for nearly two months last fall before it was covered with the spray-painted scrawl: "Gee, I wonder why women get raped?" The ad was replaced with a tamer one soon after.
"I don't think you need a PhD to recognize that ... [this] is nothing but an ad for - and I'll put this gently - anal intercourse," said Ms. Capek.
She said the model's pose tells men it's okay to degrade women.
At American Apparel headquarters in Los Angeles, the ad is interpreted differently.
"It is a little bit disconcerting to see what feminism has evolved into," said Marsha Brady, one of American Apparel's two creative directors who works closely with Mr. Charney.
"When ... there's a group of people attempting to shame female creativity, female beauty, female pride under the auspices of protecting women, it's really, really scary."
She said Ms. Chung was deeply insulted by negative reactions to her self-portrait.
"It's a beautiful picture. She's an artist. It's a celebration of her own beauty," said Ms. Brady.
But it doesn't seem to matter whose finger was on the shutter. Ms. Capek's complaint to the Mayor was eventually redirected to Advertising Standards Canada, whose volunteer members (from the advertising sector and general public) review complaints to see if they contravene the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. They forwarded Ms. Capek's complaint to American Apparel, who responded in May that the ad was provocative, but not pornographic.
A frustrated Ms. Capek returned to the ad organization, who ruled that the photo "offended standards of public decency."
"The way in which the model was posed and photographed in clear focus from the rear to emphasize the model's buttocks was demeaning and degrading to women," the council wrote in its quarterly report.
In early July, it asked American Apparel to permanently remove the ad, but is still awaiting a response.
"In the vast, vast majority of decisions, an advertiser will comply with council," said vice-president Janet Feasby.
Ms. Brady said the organization's ruling was "really, really ridiculous."
"Perhaps what they don't realize they're disapproving of is a woman's pride," she said, and snorted at the suggestion that the photo could promote misogyny or sexism.
Ms. Capek said she isn't surprised that the ad remains on display.
"I expect nothing from American Apparel," she said. "And I'm sure they'd be thrilled by the publicity and it's the only thing that's keeping me [for] the moment from grabbing a billboard and standing in front of the store."
An 18-year-old sales associate at the Yonge and Gould store, decked out in black and heather-grey layers of American Apparel threads, says the chain's marketing strategy is smart, not slutty.
Surveying the photos of models on the wall - one is a young woman in a playful sundress, another boldly flaunts her naked behind, only sporting tights that end at the tops of her thighs - she contemplates whether she would do a photo shoot with Mr. Charney.
To her, he's a savvy businessman, not the guy Ms. Capek sees, who was sued by five former employees for sexual harassment (four of those cases have been dropped or are in legal limbo).
"I don't like to show a lot of skin, so I probably would only be willing to model certain things like jeans and T-shirts and leggings," she said. "If I could do it under my terms, I don't see why I wouldn't."
