Motley Crue - Girls Girls Girls: youtube.com/watch?v=vOarH4X7SN0
The other day I read a scathing opinion piece regarding the downfall of American Apparel. I think it might have been titled something like "American Apparel to File for Bankruptcy. Thank God." or "American Apparel to Close, Finally" or something along those lines. You didn't even have to read the article, it was all in the title. And I hear, also, a lot of criticism regarding their ad campaigns, their owner and how sleazy he is and such, how disgusting their hiring practices are, how it's just a home base for the worst of hipsters. All negative.
I've never bought anything at American Apparel. I went into a couple stores when they first opened because I'd heard good things about their sweat-shop free factories and I tried on some clothes but none of them fit, felt, right. All said, I'm neither for nor against the stores. I just think it's ridiculous that they've received so much negative criticism, the ridiculousness being in the conservative ways in which this continent seems to be bound.
Aren't they still sweat shop free? How would the downfall of Nike be received? Would there be articles in the paper saying "Thank God Nike will be dead. What will dumb jocks do now?" I doubt it. Why are other companies who cater to a certain crowd, who have worse business practice, whose owners probably do sleazier stuff in private, immune to this sort of venom? Why are "hipsters" (a term I think is ridiculous and overused and overly simplistic; this article will say better than I: http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/hating-hipsters/) worse than any other made up institution of being? (As a side note, I hate when people say things like "At least I have a job" when referring to the negative of the "hipster," as if that makes them a better person, inherently, or as if all "hipsters" are unemployed.)
And the ads. The American Apparel ads are all over the back pages of weeklies, in Vice magazine, billboards, etc. They're sometimes shocking in their straight forward, abrasive, aggressive sexuality. Mostly, though, they're just grainy pictures of attractive women in slight clothes. Yet a common conception in our society is that "Sex sells." What makes American Apparel ads worse than Victoria's Secret? Or Revlon? What I liked about American Apparel ads in the first place were that they used employees, not models. These were "regular people." I've heard they use models now. Regardless, the pictures aren't airbrushed to a point where the women look unreal, monstrously attractive. They use very aggressive poses, sometimes shocking, which is incredible, isn't it? We're allowed to do these things in the open, now. They're different, they're challenging aren't they? Isn't that a good thing?
And the ads being sleazy? How many of these critics have sex? Watch porn? Masturbate? You know when a homophobe hates homosexuals because they are secretly attracted to them but don't want to admit? How many of these critics are actually turned on by these ads? but hate them for this?
Perhaps I don't make the best argument. I feel I question more, assume, theorize but have little concrete to hold onto. But I think these are things to think about before condemning a company that employs thousands of people and pays them fair wages, is fairly transparent in its business dealings. Perhaps they portray an ugly side of our society, one we don't want to move toward, but I've never felt threatened or offended in a negative way by anything they've ever done. And I think the negative criticisms are unwarranted, entirely. Not to say they deserve a lot of praise either.
I did, though, once walk past an American Apparel on Queen St. Two employees were sitting outside on a bench. One said to the other, "Is it Hungary or Hungaria?" The other said, "It's Hungary." The first thought for a second, said, "Oh. Then what's Hungaria?"
That was bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment