Today Thu Fri
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on June 19, 2013
Clear
23°/13°
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on June 20, 2013
Clear
25°/14°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on June 21, 2013
Partly Cloudy
25°/16°

13 Comments

news

Coming Klein

20090619klein1.jpg

20090619klein2.jpg
Photos by David Topping/Torontoist.


Gaze! Gaze upon the titillating young bodies above. Are you not outraged at their thousand-mile stares and disregard for shirts?
Facing the parking lot just off King Street West at Brant Street, the Calvin Klein ad—featuring two shirtless men and one shirtless woman looking bored, as shirtless models often are for reasons unbeknownst to us—is from the same set of photos, shot by fashion photographer Steven Meisel, as a significantly larger and significantly racier billboard in New York City that features the three models plus one more shirtless guy in the thick of what seems to be a burgeoning ménage à quatre. The New York ad is causing at least a bit of outrage there, mostly among freaked-out parents, and people like Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who on The View yesterday suggested that the ad depicted gang rape. Toronto, though, has seen no such uproar, perhaps because the scene affixed to the King West wall seems to have occurred some time after the more controversial scene hanging in New York: the guy writhing on the floor has apparently left, everyone looks vaguely disappointed, and no-one’s really sure what to say to one another, let alone able to maintain eye contact.
Unsurprisingly for a company that has done so so much worse before, Calvin Klein’s pretty jazzed about the controversy the New York ad has created. According to New York Magazine, designer Italo Zucchelli said at the Council of Fashion Designers of America awards ceremony earlier this week that “that is what Calvin Klein Jeans is supposed to be. Everyone needs to be scandalized and screaming. That is what we want….I hope [people're] going to be, ‘Ooooh, what is that?’ And then they buy our jeans. In the best tradition of Calvin Klein.” We’re not even vaguely scandalized, but here we are writing about it, too! Mission accomplished, Calvin Klein.
Thanks to Emily Coyle for the tip.

Filed under: , , , , ,

[pinit] Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://undefined metabaron

    zzzzz… nothing controversial about this ad. and perhaps people in Toronto have better things to do than look and discuss the ads.

  • http://www.blog.canoe.ca/canoedossier David Newland

    There are two reasons no one’s making a fuss over this billboard. The first is that it barely causes a flick of the eye. The second is that gabbing about it plays right into Calvin Klein’s hands, as you’ve so neatly noted.

  • mister j

    ha! The only clothes I like by CK are their shirts!

  • http://undefined johhnyroyale

    I agree with 1 and 2. This does not merit a post.

  • http://undefined Marc

    I was in soho last weekend and saw the billboard, I can tell you no one was paying any attention to it. Billboard ads are placed carefully based on the demographics of the area. People who live or shop in soho are not going to be alarmed by the content, much like the people in King West are not going to be alarmed by the billboard there.

  • http://undefined Gauldar

    This only shows an example of large advertising companies issuing a cry for help for people to look at them. Good thing there is still people like Elizabeth Hasselbeck to raise awareness of Calvin Klein products.

  • http://undefined rek

    That’s controversial?
    Meh.

  • http://undefined McKingford

    The most offensive thing about this ad is that it is an obviously illegal billboard.

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

    Actually, I ran this by Rami Tabello (of illegalsigns fame) when I first found out about the sign—because I assumed the same thing you did—and he explained that it wasn’t illegal because it’s “a first party sign advertising the clothing maker that rents space in the building; they have a valid permit for a business identification sign.” But Rami explained that the “sign used to be larger and illegal” (see here).

  • http://undefined IllegalSigns.ca

    David is correct. The property owner initially had a large, illegal sign, see:
    http://illegalsigns.ca/2007/05/31/before-and-after-539-king-street-west/
    He then applied for a variance, see:
    http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-7100.pdf
    Which Councillor Adam Vaughan opposed. He then applied for and obtained an as-of-right Business Identification sign permit for a smaller sign, see:
    http://app.toronto.ca/ApplicationStatus/details.do?folderRsn=2065653
    The sign in question is legal so long as it identifies a business or a product available to the public in the building. In this case, it appears to be promoting stores in Vaughan Mills and Hartland; however it is my understanding that Warnaco makes CK clothing and that is their Toronto office. So, I wouldn’t file a complaint about this one.

  • http://undefined montauk

    maybe it’s actually a video screen with an animated GIF and the girl model starts sucking off the guy model while the other guy model goes down on her
    AND THEREIN LIES THE CONTROVERSY

  • http://www.newmindspace.com Kevin Bracken

    The expressions on their face betray the following conversation:
    Guy 1: “Who gets the rear first?”
    Guy 2: “Yeah, who?”
    Girl: “Um, how about nobody?”
    *mood killed*

  • http://undefined Solex

    I want to take a close-up picture of the girl’s toes peeking out from under the jeans!