So they're selling their hair styling services with an image of a woman that has exceptionally frizzy bad hair AND a black eye?

In this case, I think there IS such a thing as BAD publicity. 

Sure, I may now be familiar with a salon called "Fluid".  I also know that it's a salon run by insensitive jerks who can't style hair!

Trigger warning, please?

IMPORTANT: You are really fucking up here- the picture of Heather Morris was made for an anti-violence against women charity. It will be auctioned off for them and the money will be used to help women who were victims of male assault (aka "domestic violence"). So I find it disgusting that you put Heather Morris' activism against violence against women on par with a misogynist hairdresser ad. PLEASE CHANGE!!!

The hairdresser is also trying to raise money for a DV center. I guess that makes it ok now?

but wait, if in that cultural context the ad is actually high fashion or artistic, then in what cultural context is it that's deeming it to be offensive and trivializing?

I can't really express how I feel about using domestic violence as an "edgy" way to sell clothes.  But what I CAN express is that this is not actually cutting-edge unique edgy editorial godliness.  This has been trendy for years, so I'm moving past "offended and uncomfortable" to flat out "bored."  "Look sexy hawt while your husband knocks you out" isn't a new idea.  It was popular in the 60s and before, faded out of fashion for a few decades, and came swinging back when annoying hipsters too young to realize they didn't invent irony who watch too much Family Guy and Mad Men got jobs at an ad agency.  Also, if you need to shock or offend people in this way to sell your product (I sure haven't heard of it), your product probably isn't that special in the first place.

satire according to a quick excerpt from wiki are "vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement."  Exploiting people's misfortune for publicity is a shortcoming and possible qualifies as abuse?

From Fluid's Press Response: "Edmonton is presently the murder capital of Canada. Media’s energy and time may be better spent boycotting dangerous areas, gangs, guns, other street weapons, or a sick justice system,"

Are they honestly suggesting that high murder rates are only related to gang violence and not connected at all to domestic violence??? I don't live in Edmonton to comment on whether its murder rate is closely tied to gang violence. I do remember being warned, when that serial killer pig farmer in BC was still in the mainstream news, that there were also a lot of First Nations women disappearing in Edmonton so to always be armed and never walk alone if I ever visited there. That they can't see how domestic violence and murder might be connect and how opposing the glamorization of one in the media is not mutually exclusive with with working to prevent the other just makes me sad.

This may be completely off topic, but how does one "[boycott] dangerous areas"? Often the choice or ability to avoid certain areas is a privilege not shared by people who happen to work or live in those areas. Also, in my experience I may feel less secure in certain areas that my white straight friends are completely comfortable in than I do in places labeled as 'sketchy' or 'dangerous'. Fluid's response makes me even less likely to ever consider getting my hair done there as it has further confirmed my perception of them as total asshats.

Here's yet another ad involving jewelry and domestic battery, this one courtesy of Zachary's. In the ad above the idea is to shock, in this ad, a serious beating is considered something of a joke. Comic effect vs. shock effect. You'd better give your partner what they want or they'll beat the shit out of you!!! Hilarious! 

http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx134/ami_angelwings/misc/Zacharys-Mens-May2011a.jpg

I don't dispute anyone's right or reason to be offended or disturbed by the content, but can we at least consider what "not giving [it] a pass" would actually entail?

Would we impose censorship on images that represent things that are widely regarded as immoral or wrong? 

Would we clarify a more stringent set of norms to which we hold artists and advertisers, lest they offend us?

Would we be willing to go without the valuable and challenging works that also fall short of the moral standard to which we'd like to hold disposable commercial works like this ad?

I think that informed criticism and debate are crucial to making the most of our freedom of speech, and also that redistributing the offending content in a critical context can be beneficial to both the opponents and to the creators (who, of course, wind up with vastly more exposure than they paid for). However, as an artist who depends on the freedom to work with taboos and uncomfortable issues, I'm quite disturbed by the implication that the role of critics (ourselves included) is to police the provocateurs who trigger us. In a free society, we don't have a "pass" to offer, but rather the capacity to counterprogram bad ideas - aesthetic or verbal - with better ones. 

Unfortunately, the blogosphere is more effective at widely and rapidly distributing failures, embarrassments, bad ideas, half-truths, untruths, and lazy half-assed criticism than it is at making coherent ideas and innovative new concepts go viral. This article - which harnesses the withering power of social media's glare without illuminating anything - is a fine example of the former.

Suggested project for people whose well-being was disrupted by this ad: create an image illustrating your personal experience with the subject matter, and post it to forums like these, to shame the piss-poor black-eye response that Fluid offered. Demonstrate your conviction of the power of images with a more powerful image. 

(It won't take a pro to show that domestic violence is not really about grease paint and harsh lighting)

In my part of the world, increasing violence among women is an issue.  There have been high profile cases of women being 'glassed' (ie, having their faces lacerated) by other women in bars.  When I see a woman with a black eye I don't automatically think male-on-female domestic violence anymore.

Pfft, I'm getting tired of all of these fashion ads being treated as art. Advertisement is advertisement, and they obviously don't have a bigger statement with this than the claim for fame and attention.