Sofia Coppola's commercial for Dior's new scent cuts between shots of a girl flirtatiously wandering through Paris and fitting for couture, all beneath the musical accompaniment of Brigit Bardot's "Moi je Joue". It's very lovely, and I think Coppola did a great job. Her images of the young girl strolling and biking in the fresh Parisian air, and the exquisite display of macaroons, is placed cleverly alongside shots of the perfume bottle; evidently equally fresh and delicious.
But to look at it in another light, what do you think about using artists to create advertisements? Where do we draw the line? Of course there is money to be made in advertising, it's the only way artists can continue their work, but this short film/commercial is extremely confusing. We view it as a visually inspiring Coppola piece, note the beautiful old-style cinematography in light colour, but is it not merely an ad created for our passive consumerist minds?
Then again art and commerce always go hand in hand, so maybe we should give Dior some credit.
Thoughts?
1 comment:
good question.. this reminds me of when artists would paint for magazines and do posters for money. toulouse-lautrec is associated with his posters and his paintings are not well known at all.
i think its ok in the case of dior because it is a couture house. even though this is not a couture ad, it is a brand that represents the highest and most precise level of fashion as an art. especially because galliano is a master tailor by trade. if coppola was doing a mass-produced chain brand like the gap it might make me a bit uneasy.
Post a Comment