Vuitton says: screw Darfur, hail the Brand.

People who work in fashion like to think that fashion is an art form. People who work in a kitchen sometimes like to think that cooking is an art form as well. However, what comes from kitchens is usually not art, but just food. And the fashion made by Dior, Vuitton en D&G is not art either, it’s just clothes. Expensive clothes. I felt like I had to share my ideas on fashion with you before you read further.

Darfurnica
The label Louis Vuitton is not very much into art either. LV is not art, it’s a brand. And the brand has to be protected from those scary politically inspired artists who try to make this world a better place with their creative work. Danish artist Nadia Plesner made a painting entitled ‘Darfurnica’.

Like Picasso warned the world against war with his work ‘Guernica’, Plesner stood on the shoulder of this giant and made a painting in which she (also) depicted a boy from Darfur carrying a bag that resembles a Vuitton design. By this, Plesner accuses the media that constantly reports on irrelevant stuff like ‘Paris Hilton’s social life’ but ignores Darfur. Vuitton does not give a hoot about Plesner’s message. Nor does Vuitton care about artistic freedom, they choose to hide behind lawyers.

Vuitton. The brand.
Vuitton sued Plesner for copyright infringement. For every day that Plesner exhibits Darfurnica or shows a picture it on her website she has to pay Vuitton €5000,-. Plesner already owes Vuitton €190.000,-. As Vuitton puts it: the bag the boy is carrying looks some much like their Audra Bag, Plesner is linking the company to the situation in Darfur.
Which means the Vuitton marketing department does not get a first thing about art. Nor about marketing. (Or perhaps their chief-marketeer is such a humanitarian that he/she is willing to make Vuitton look like a bunch of complete arseholes just to get Plesner’s message out to a much wider audience then she ever could have done by herself)

Copyrights
Plesner’s art may not be my (or your) cup of tea, but that is completely irrelevant here. What matters is that big, arrogant companies with extremely large legal budgets can abuse the law to bully the well-meaning individual. Vuitton’s claim is absurd. From a humanitarian and a legal/moral standpoint. It is ridiculous that a judge ruled that Vuitton even had a point.

Counting down untill Anonymous fires away at the Vuitton website…


Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s