Artist Dimitri Daniloff is a veritable photoshop wiz in the commercial advertising business; his carefully orchestrated visuals bring creepy and shocking advertising concepts to life. The first two eerie and racy images below where two women are having sex with two ginormous bugs, were designed to promote protection against the HIV virus. Other shocking visuals include two individuals tongue-kissing animals to "literally illustrate the effects that smoking can have on your breath."
These are "banned" print ads from all over the world that were not supposed to see the light of day because they were deemed too racy, violent, religiously offensive or just plain weird.
Some random descriptions: There's the well-known D&G-spawned ad where a group of young men watch impassively as a half naked dude pins a woman down to the ground in what has been variously described as a "mob rape". We also have the weird and down right creepy "beauty to die for" ad leading the gallery of the absurd; the S&M duck which is second in the gallery(I'm sorry but that one is funny!); and more images to be (hopefully) offended by.
When is shockvertising just too shocking? What sort of parameters, if any, could be delineated to mark the division between so-called cutting edge, out of the box advertising and just plain garbage with a very high shocking value designed to call attention to a product by whatever means necessary? But then again, isn't that what advertising is all about? By whatever means necessary...?