Victim of Beauty

Victim of Beauty

            I’ve chosen the Victim of Beauty campaign to analyze. To begin with, the photo centers around a very striking woman, pictured right of the center. Her face is slim and pale, with slightly sunken in cheeks that darken on the outside. Her lips form slightly downward, painted in a striking red color, which matches her simple dress towards the bottom of the frame. Overall, she seems to be rather skinny and pathetic looking, but her beauty is very evident and profound when placed upon the black background.

The real attention getter, however, is her swollen and nasty looking right eye, which is black. It looks as though she’s been abused or beaten, tinted darker purples and pinks. I believe this to be the main focus of the entire image. Her left eye is done in makeup and very gorgeous, though it appears to be sad and looking off into the distance, not directly at the viewer. Perhaps also to set her mood, her hair is nearly as black as the background, tying her gloominess her to the darkness which surrounds her, yet consistently keeping her as the main focus.

The image is done elegantly, and isn’t too busy, so the statement is clear and true to the viewer, however they may interpret it. In white all caps letters is the statement “Victim of Beauty” pictured to the left of the center, balancing the ad off very nicely. I first go to the woman, directly to her black eye, and then immediately I notice the words to her left, connecting the two things together. It is a very bold yet simple statement, which keeps the viewer interested and maybe even adds shock value so people will seek it, whether they like it or not. Ads like this are meant to be powerful and show something that isn’t average, and the feedback usually consists of strong dislike or awe.

In fact, there is entire campaign showing images of beautiful women with nasty and bloody cuts to their face, however this image seems to be the most well-known for the campaign. These models have been dressed in high end clothing and accessories like Valentino, Galdini, and H&M, so one would think they are trying to advertise clothing along with make a statement. Some believe this campaign to be a declaration against the modeling agency and how models are treated and perhaps even abused. This could even be a form of protest. Others think it is mainly an attention getting ad meant to sell clothing and bring attentiveness to the modeling industry.

The negative responses to this ad consist of organizations against violence. Mostly, they were appalled that such ads be shown in this light, and thought that it nearly supported violence and made it seem very grotesque. This could even go as far as to say it was showing gender-based abuse of women by a significant other or somebody stronger. The editors-in-chief of the magazine which produced the images, Huben Hubenov and Slav Anastasov, argued that “…we do NOT support violence of ANY kind, and this is NOT a shoot glamorizing, or encouraging, or supporting violence against women. We believe that images such as ours can be seen from various angles, and we think that exactly that is what is beautiful about fashion and photography in general – that anybody can understand it their own way, and fill it with their own meaning.” This being said, I would like to look at this from an artist’s stand point first.

Reading further about why the editors made this particular ad choice, I can agree that it was meant to start a discussion, if not a debate. The campaign has become renowned because of this, so in a sense, it is accomplished and successful. Actually, I’d even say it was a brilliant idea to but light on such a touchy subject around the world, and stick it in the faces of the masses. The editors wanted there to be mixed responses, and encouraged people to make their own artistic assumptions; though, they held firmly it was not a campaign to support violence against women. This campaign was to be open and interpreted, controversial and daring, and absolutely breathtaking.

For the counterargument, this is definitely an outrageous and ridiculous ad. It is insensitive to those who have suffered from abuse and to those who are trying to prevent and raise awareness of how terrible abuse is and can be. Putting myself in the shoes of an abused person, I would say looking at his woman could nearly bring a person to tears and tear down their confidence. By beautifying the ugly and horrendous side of spousal or any kind of abuse, especially targeting women, seems sexist and wrong. People could interpret this to mean that even though women are beautiful, they are still the weaker sex, and men have the controlling power over them. No matter your standing with intelligence and whit, it seems that women will always have the lower hand.

The arguments combined make a strong standing for both parties, though I am not here to pick a side. Victim of Beauty had some hard hits from critiques and concerned citizens who absolutely protested the ad. Secretly, though, I think this is what they were striving for, so that the ad could become viral like a bad disease, or a very excellent one. So that beauty could be shown to have an ugly and neglected side. So that it could stand out from the rest of high end magazines and shoots, to become a sensation all its own.

            It’s hard to not be prejudiced as an artist and say that I like this bold ad, because it raised hell and started a long chain of talking and repulsion. I think art should be meant to always do this, appeal and appall. I do think this will sell and be known for generations to come, because beauty and violence together can be brilliantly terrible when blended.