area of knowledge of Ethics and the way of knowing of Reason.

Knowledge questions: To what extent is it ethical to glamorize/glorify immoral behavior through artistic add campaigns?

Real life situation:

Dolce & Gabbana



The controversial predecessor to Calvin Klein’s sexual assault advert; one of Dolce & Gabbana’s 2007 ad was pulled in several countries as it was thought to ‘glorify rape’.

Some people will look at this add and automatically presume it must be a result of the repulsive male mas-agonist pricks running the fashion industry. others will be astounded by the provocative nature of the add as a whole and suggest that it is anti feminism and shows severe disregard to the concepts of gender equality. The reason we cannot make these assumptions and regard the add as being completely inappropriate is because it has "Artistic Value" which leads me to my knowledge question:

To what extent is it ethical to glamorize/glorify immoral behavior through artistic add campaigns?

Art is a form of expression, and Fashion is regarded as art. the question remains, do we really have the right to judge this add if it a form of artistic expression? Rape, murder, theft slander, drug abuse and many other forms of immoral behavior are expressed through different artistic mediums such as paintings, music, fashion, poetry and many others. we listen to songs with inappropriate lyrics promoting drugs and violence, not necessarily being influenced by them but respecting the message they send purely because we classify it as "ART"

The following add shows a woman being held down by a man while two men watch on in amusement. they are all dressed very elegantly and the woman's sexual demeanor and helpless expression clearly portrays her as the victim in this situation.  or is it? is it possible that the add could signify something completely different? perhaps the image is a fantastical depiction of the woman's sexual fantasies? and if this where the case, doesn't that make the woman the dominant figure in the photograph? which leads me to my next point. Perspective. 

How can we label this image as being immoral or "wrong" if we all have different interpretations of the work? Non of us know the intentions of the designer for this particular add, all we know is what our minds tell us, which is result of of our personal beliefs and ideals. thus there is no way for us to accurately interpret what is going on in this photograph in its original context. 

However, the add was still banned from 23 countries. does this suggest that perhaps there is a form of global understanding? and that not everyone interpenetrates the image completely differently and that the photograph is universally rejected? this particular add was published in over 115 major fashion magazines including vogue and Marie Claire which shows that there was some form of appreciation for the photo's artistic value. Which proves that controversial subjects are more accepted when expressed through artistic mediums.

Another example of immorality expressed through artistic advertising is the Sisley fifth avenue add poster:

So does making it art make it right? This goes back to the concept of propaganda, and promoting brands and people through artistic pathways such as music and colorful advertisements. propaganda is often used to sell things and ideas with aren't necessarily morally correct and can be seen as a form of "Brainwashing" due to the fact that it involves the manipulation of the product being sold as well as the misinterpretation of it. 

In my opinion the photograph about isn't necessarily advertising rape through fashion, but advertising fashion through rape. What i mean by this is that the provocative nature of the add is meant to capture you and make the brand seem more interesting and riskay. I do not think that the intention of the designer was to use his brand to promote rape culture, but rather to give it the edge that it needed to spark people's imaginations and provoke their curiosity.