We’ve all seen our fair share of airbrushing and re-touching tools being used to change women’s body parts in advertising images.
And this time, we have a case of the missing vagina on our hands. So to speak.
That’s right. It’s going to be a tough case to crack. Our bets are on Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Photoshop.
The odd thing here though – is that this woman’s vagina has been photoshopped ‘out’ on purpose.
A series of provocative photos have emerged as part of Jane Pain’s new advertising campaign, a high-end Spanish lingerie, swimwear and accessories brand.
The photographs feature women with their legs fully spread , sans lady parts. Photographer Natasha Ygel cheekily headlined the photos, “What you can’t see is all you want to see.”
The controversial campaign has won Argentina’s highest advertising prize, the 2012 Lapiz de Oro, and the Gran Prix de Bronce Clarín.
What do you think of the images – clever or confronting?
Comments
37 Comments so far
Just another thought………aren’t these the sorts of images that the CI teams on one of those Forensics shows would comment on and dissect “earnestly” on the psychological profile of the murderer ?…..You know – the type that obviously hates women ?
Just sayin’……….lol.
loading...
Disfiguring and clumsy.
This is probably thought of as “arty” & clever by people who don’t actually grasp what it is to be either…….
As a woman I’m insulted and find these images disturbing too.
There are too many people in the world trying to render women invisible as it is without this kind of self-indulgent twaddle trying to erase part of our identity and serving it up as “art”.
loading...
It seems pointless to me.
And I think it should be said, it’s a missing vulva. C’mon ladies, get to know your body!! Lol.
loading...
Oh no….
loading...
I don’t find this sexy and this photograph wouldn’t make me want to know more about their line of lingerie. Getting a prize for the ad might be okay but if it turns women off buying their products, what’s the point?
loading...
I am sad that once again women are being mutilated in the name of… art? Fashion? Sad.
loading...
What is this even advertising? I can’t see any lingerie, swimwear or accessories (unless you count her shoes!)
loading...
It’s playing with the idea that sexiness is about what you don’t see, not what you do, and lingerie does just that. It’s kinda clever.
I don’t think they’re any more out there or sexist than any of the other shit out there, but it looks a bit disturbing I suppose, kinda…
loading...
Yes I kind of like it too!
loading...
*Dislike*
Who on earth awarded this awful ad a prize?
loading...
The toymakers of Mattel
loading...
I’m not even sure what pics we are talking about? Are they the 2 above that look like they have been cut out of some magazine and glued together by a kid? They don’t even line up!
loading...
Oh please!! that´s the idea! It´s supposed to be read in a magazine, and the middle part of the image gets lost on the centerfold, that´s why “they don´t even match”.
loading...
More than a bit ick, actually.
loading...
They look like Barbie’s ladybits. And a bit cubist or something, it’s not quite right!
loading...
Hahahahhah Barbies ladybits!! So true!
loading...
I don’t find the photos confronting or clever.
It doesn’t wow me with a sense of shock, that I might have missed seeing a vagina by a cm placement – it’s only a vagina, & it doesn’t seem clever enough for me to stop and think about looking at their lingerie.
It’s just another ad I would flip past in a magazine to be honest.
loading...
It totally deforms the body?!!
loading...
I actually found these to be grotesque – I wouldn’t buy what they are selling!
loading...
When I first saw these photos I thought they were an ad for shoes because I could not for the life of me figure out what they were advertising.
loading...
I found these images really cringe-worthy. They made me uncomfortable!
loading...
Just one question: If “what you can’t see is all you want to see”, then why would you wear lingerie in the first place?
I get the concept and I do think it’s quite clever, but to me the campaign line makes me think spending lots of money on lingerie is a waste of time if the focus is always going to be on what’s underneath it (and I normally enjoy wearing lingerie).
loading...
That’s the point, the focus is always what’s underneath. That’s the point of lingerie though, to not flaunt it, because no knowing is sexy.
loading...
Considering that most photos of vaginas must be photoshopped to abide by Australian laws, I think these are brialliant images for highlighting how ridiculous those laws are. For advertising lingerie? Not so much.
loading...
Jane Pain is a brand name for lingerie etc.?
Worse brand name & ad campaign I’ve ever heard & seen!
loading...
Revolting
loading...
Oh….I’m very confused !
loading...
I agree with Fiona.. Totally forgot who was selling what..
loading...
There is a long tradition of avoiding women’s genitals in art and in early nude photography.
loading...
I find it a bit gross actually…
loading...
In a word. Stupid.
loading...
When I’m looking for lingerie, images which actually SHOW me what it would look like is actually what I’m going to respond to, not some photoshopped non-vagina which doesn’t show me their product line!
loading...
The aim of advertising is either to just promote a brand name or to sell something specific. This is clearly designed to get people talking (which we are right now) but whilst I’m typing this I cannot remember the brand name I read 10 secs ago. And as someone else said it doesn’t make me want to buy their lingerie. So I’d chalk this one up as a poor PR idea.
loading...
Well.. it´s a really small firma from uptown Buenos Aires, now half the world is talking about them… I wouldn´t call it a PR failure either…
loading...
Strangely, these advertisements do not make me want to buy their lingerie.
loading...
That is so screwed up.
loading...
I really like the photos and the style – a very clever twist on the photoshopping issue. In a high end fashion mag, this is creative and cutting edge – an attention getter for the brand name. However, even without any ladyparts visible, the images are not G rated. The intent is clearly to make the viewer focus on the ‘bits you can’t see’ so it could be argued that it’s Claytons pornography. I’d hate to see these images on TV or on a billboard.
loading...