Benetton Report

Design Practice in Context 1                                                                     TFD1065

Shaunie Harker

Analysis: United Colours of Benetton advertisement: Priest kissing a nun

Oliviero Toscani first sparked controversy in 1982 with extremely visual photography for the advertising campaigns for United Colours of Benetton. With a series of extremely talked about campaigns, I specifically looked at the “Priest kissing a nun” campaign. His work being “poignant, usually controversial and always memorable”, Oliviero uses shock tactics to engage an audience.

The Priest kissing a nun; a simple yet extremely controversial image, consisting of only a black and white contrast, “immediately sparked controversy across the world”. The use of striking black and white contrast creates a composition that is striking to the visual eye. The black of the priest’s attire draws immediate attention for the audience then visually perceive the rest of the image and process the actual subject. The nun, dressed in white, suggesting purity, evaporates into the white of the background making it almost hard to distinguish her from it. This could suggest the vulnerability of the nun, giving her no escape. Nevertheless, the clear subject of the ad coincided with the “creative strategy” that needed to appeal to “social consciousness.”

It is clear from simply glancing at the ad that there is not any products used that Benetton offers, it is merely a front, “a source of debate and inspiration”. The advertisement creates a social response, whether it be positive or negative, awareness of the ad still sparks a response. Clearly the ad is extremely controversial with regards to a religious perception. The mere sound of a “Priest kissing a nun” to non-religious ears can immediately be profound therefore making it extremely upsetting to those who are. The motifs undoubtedly “use religious forms and affect religious feelings”, resulting in the ad being banned in Italy, slating it “illegal”. From a creative and design perspective, is advertising used simply to shock people and spark debates? Within in the genre of “shock advertising” this can be seen to be true. The small green slogan of Benetton appears in the top right corner of the ad with no striking composition holding it to the audiences’ eye, thus setting it more of a ‘trademark’ to the controversy the image will generate. Inevitably the social response will give the Benetton name the awareness however the interpretation of the campaign will distinguish whether it is a positive, coinciding response or a response of criticism along with insult. This brand awareness strategy can be judged however the reality of the image offends most religions however hold the simple understanding of ‘unity’. The adaption of reality as well as a hopeful opposing (yet harmless) outcome is not always successful in holding the positive moral it intended to bare. Once these elements have been brought together, we can clearly see the lack of intention within selling any products, it is simply a “case preoccupied by social propaganda”. A question that will be evident from the analysis of the image would be to ask; did Benetton/Toscani create the ad to combat and unite or simply to provoke and “gauge a reaction?” With celibacy being the sparked conflict, it would be unfair to judge the response of others and their opinions and feelings towards such an arresting image. With the vast global audience the advert is accessible too, it could be claimed that is inevitable that a debate would arise when an image uses a juxtaposing narrative subverting a religious element. Religious narratives are perceived loyally thus creating strong opinion.

Looking narrowly at the bond between theory and narrative, it is clear to assume that shock tactics come from such a dangerous element, religion being the narrative. Therefore, the theory behind the ad would simply be to shock the audience and create a debate. However, to what extent this could have been taken too could have been more vulgar but to establish that balance was important. Benetton and Toscani could have theorised wrong and created a much more graphic and suggestive image playing with the same narrative but they didn’t. Why? Simply because the theory was well thought out to support the trademark and be consistent with the adverts he/they had already created. Toscani claimed his curiosity was “to see if the reaction aroused by looking at (the image) could overcome the taboo of knowing about a recognised fact.” (Salvemini 2002, p.50) This highlights within itself that subverting a vast audiences expectations and providing them with a juxtaposed narrative, would shock and create propaganda. Summarising this theory, one could simply title it ‘successful’ in terms of creating brand identity whether it fulfilled the proposed intent of unity.

However, the criticism that followed the ad was already at a high from previous advertisements Benetton had produced. For example, an AIDS advert using the exact photo of the last image of the dying man David Kirby and his family or the ad for anti-racism, a black women breastfeeding a white newborn baby. The criticism from these previous ads could have had an impact on the one in question (priest kissing a nun). It is clear Benetton had no intention of offending people, but shocking them by portraying the worlds current issues in an opposing light with an intention of uniting. In 1991, criticism of this particular ad went as far as a Roman Catholic Group claiming that the image was “a particularly serious offense to Catholics” and they wanted the 1,300 billboards of it withdrawn. It is clear, with such a religious connotation, specific societies and cultures would be more likely to criticize the ad, not understanding the ‘for the greater good’ intention it housed. Further criticism from advertising watchdog groups stated that the ad went against generally accepted beliefs.” However, at the time, the “court ruled the advertisement did not constitute an act that could be characterized as anti-Christian.” With severe pressure from the Vatican, Italy finally banned the image but it did remain allowed in other countries. As a non-religious person the perception of the images and its denotations are sure to be differential. Other criticisms of the campaign (from a non religious perspective) would be from a feminist point. Some claim that the ad is slightly disadvantage to “females” portraying them as “vulnerable”.

My personal view and interpretation of the ad would be overall positive, from an advertising perspective only. I understand Toscani’s technique and use of shock advertising and praise him for that however to what extent he takes it too I would indicate slight personal obsession with the world’s conflicts and beliefs. Its clear he wants to unite yet all he has produced is a trademark. He offers no promotion of Benetton’s products, which may I add still could be adapted within his designs, inevitably fulfilling his determination to produce ads that generate propaganda, whether it be good or bad. I specifically chose this image from the line of his controversial ads because I can identify the good and the bad. However, justifying these points to the public who do not always understand the techniques of advertising and how to denote messages from an advertising perspective I can relate to the criticism that arose.

We see a clear rhetoric used to juxtapose a narrative (belief) and portray what we believe is wrong. By using these religious figures ‘together’ challenging the role of religious celibacy, one is to assume it is an outrage. However others do believe and accept it is a “fight for equality and peace”. The clear rhetoric in this image is what creates the shock in the advert. Toscani wanted consistency throughout his work and he used rhetoric visuals to the best of his ability. In some of his ads, I personally agree with certain criticisms that the visual rhetoric used in other ads was vulgar and in appropriate, as they were accessible to such a vast audience, young and old. Taking this particular point into consideration, the youth growing up that were able to visually understand the ad would be implanted with confusion and require guidance from parents. Clearly this could cause opposing views for the younger audience, which may result in youthful dispute.

In conclusion, I personally feel Toscani’s intentions of unity and peace were clear and he used shock advertising well in order to generate propaganda. To the extent he took it (with regards to the string of ads) I personally feel he had an obsession of his own that he was bringing to the world. People either chose to accept or didn’t which inevitably drew up debate. The accessibility of the campaigns to a younger audience I feel should have not been allowed and the billboards should have rightly been withdrawn. The ads should have only appeared on the television after a watershed to ensure the younger audiences were removed from the confusion it could endeavor.

Word count: 1475

Bibliography

-       Christopher Turner (2010) Benetton’s Most Controversial Advertising Campaigns, Fashionist (online) available from  http://www.fashionist.ca/2010/07/benettons-most-controversial-advertising-campaigns.html, (accessed December 12^th 2011)

-       Swati Kaushik (2009) United Colours of Benetton Presentation, Slideshare (online) available from http://www.slideshare.net/setukaushik/united-colors-of-benetton-presentation-2341633 (accessed December 12^th 2011)

-       Juergen Brandstaetter (1997) The Benetton Campaign, fdblawyers (online) available from http://www.fdblawyers.com/library/articles/benetton-campaign.html (accessed December 13th 2011)

-       Danielle Limpinnian (2004) Using examples from ‘infamous’…..issues of audience reception, aber (online) available from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/MC31120/danielle_limpinnian_2.html (accessed December 13^th 2011)

-       NYTimes (1991) Benetton Ad’s Opponents Fail (online) available from http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/19/business/benetton-ad-s-opponents-fail.html  (accessed December 13^th 2011)