A brilliant (for all the wrong reasons) article from 1958 in which a Guardian journalist pondered the place of nylon in a man’s wardrobe.
Does the tired business man slosh it through in the bathroom basin, rinse, and drape over the edge of the bath or over the towel rail, to leave a puddle on the floor which is bound before long to rot the linoleum? Or does he leave it for his wife to run through in the morning? She would undoubtedly rather do her washing in bulk, however thankful she is to lighten the load of her ironing.
Who can argue that these are pressing issues? (no pun intended – unless you laughed).
Guccio Gucci, the parent company of the fashion brand, and the Times said that that the idea of an unhealthily thin model was to some extent a “subjective issue”. The fashion company said that the models had “slim builds” but were not depicted as “unhealthily thin”. The images were shot to make sure none of the models’ bones were visible, which would accentuate thinness, and light rather than heavy makeup was used to stop the potential accentuation of thinness in features. The ASA disagreed, saying that the ad irresponsibly showed a model with a body that was disproportionate and overly thin
I’m not sure how anyone could ‘subjectively’ arrive at the conclusion that this model looks fit and healthy. Still – job done. Their ad has now been seen everywhere that reported the story. Maybe it would be overly cynical to suggest this was the intention – shame on anyone who would suggest such a thing…