Marc-ed Up

I liked them at first. I did. I mean, the colors take a bit of getting used to. The gazes seem a bit off. The hair is maybe a little messier than usual. But it worked. I kept an eye out for them. And I still do.

But then Victoria Beckham joined the group. And things got, you know, a little weird.

I'm talking, of course, about the Juergen Teller ads for Marc Jacobs. Loved the Cindy Sherman ones. Loved the M.I.A. ones (Especially the one to the right: the color of the wall and the color of the shoes - perfect! And does she not have the best hair, like, ever?). Even thought the Dakota Fanning ones were pretty cool, if not slightly creepy and potentially a bit exploitative.

But Posh? I'm struggling with these ads, dear readers.

I still think the essence and the energy of the original ads are there. Maybe it's just the unnaturally orange color of Victoria's skin? Or the way her hair falls stick straight down to her bony clavicle? Maybe I just don't like this dress and I'm taking it out on Victoria:

She tends to strike a quasi ballerina-on-top-of-a-jewelry-box pose in her ads for Marc Jacobs. Perhaps this is a nod to her early training as a dancer at Laine Theatre Arts College (yes, she had formal training). Or perhaps it's a nod to the superficiality often ascribed to the way she lives her life so obviously aware of the public eye. Doesn't the gal ever just want to throw on a pair of loose jeans and a t-shirt to run some errands? Apparently not.

Here's what I like. I like that the turquoise part of this dress reminds me of the afghans that my grandma used to crochet. And I like the scrunchy gloves.

Here's what I don't like. I don't like how it looks as though she forgot the rule that you don't wear a white bra underneath dark clothing and then let said bra show through. I don't like how her face seems to be frozen in an expression of emotionless vacuity.

And that feather thing in the hair? I'm ambivalent, leaning towards actually liking it.

But none of this compares to the most controversial ad from the series, the one where what's being sold is not readily apparent. Oh, shoes? Oh. Shoes. Or maybe not.

In a recent article in the New York Times, Cathy Horyn argued that, "Certainly the ads are not overtly about selling anything. 'They’re not aspirational pictures,' Mr. Jacobs said. Pointing to the Cindy Sherman ads, in which she [Sherman] and Mr. Teller look like dumpy siblings. 'You wouldn’t look at them and say, "Oh, mmm, that dress is so attractive."'" (Yeah, that's a lot of quotation marks, but how does one close a quote within a quote within a quote? Exactly.)

The article is titled "When Is a Fashion Ad Not a Fashion Ad," but I would argue that these are fashion ads. Sure, M.I.A.'s pants might be in no way related to the way that I would choose to wear Marc Jacobs' trousers, but I still gravitate toward her shoes, and probably want to look for them when I'm in a store.

And really, Marc Jacobs' lines have totally moved into more of a lifestyle brand, something akin to Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein. You've seen Little Marc for kids, right? Check out those well-shod little urchins, at left. And Marc Jacobs for Waterford? Plus there's Marc by Marc Jacobs for the rest of us. The man is everywhere.

But the slight subversiveness of the Teller ads and their undeniable artistic credibility ensure that Jacobs' brand maintains its cache without becoming diluted.

But maybe next time they can do that without Victoria Beckham?



Any purchase made at a Goodwill Retail Store or on eBay funds Goodwill's mission of training and employment programs for people with disadvantages or disabilities.