[ErnstLudwig]

why in fashion? = "sex sells"

[model_mom]

A few hundred thoughts on the subject....

http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f96/nudity-24462.html

[Crying Diamonds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sethii I think nudity is excessive in fashion when it dominates rather than complements the clothes. For example, if a shot shows a model in a dress - but the picture is cropped so you only see a tiny bit of the dress because the photographer focused on the breasts/body/face - then I might find it annoying.

I agree with Sethii - this annoys me when it's the cover of a fashion magazine and there's a nude model with a dress around her waist, barely visible and the picture description is like "Earrings by Bvlgari, dress (just seen) by Dior."
I don't care to see some more airbrushed skin - I know sex sells fantastically but personally, a decent dress is going to sell me Vogue.

To me, sex in fashion is like a detail on a garment - you have to exaggerate it unless you want it to look like a mistake.
I absolutely love some of Steven Klein's work because it is so sexual and explicit. But then I hate Lara Stone's cleavage in the Calvin Klein winter campaign because it isn't appropriate.
That's it - some people don't know when sex is appropriate and when it isn't.

[mikeijames]

honestly, i find sex appropriate in fashion editorials/advertising specifically when they contribute to the mood or create the sensation one should feel about the clothes. one of the most impactful ad campaigns tom ford put forward remains the ysl M7 cologne advertisements. while it didn't show a stitch of clothing, re-create one real life situation, or tell us anything about how the fragrance smelled, it INSTANTLY let the viewer FEEL the way fragrance should.

additionally, we find lots of nudity in bruce weber's work for abercrombie and fitch: while many conservative folks objected to the excessive amount of nudity in their quarterly, the nudity actually imbued those clothes with a type of identifiable american sexuality that other brands in that niche -- polo ralph lauren, tommy hilfiger, et al -- simply did not have. it also had a noticeable effect on the success of their brand as many wear their clothes -- sometimes age-inappropriately -- to convey that same sense of sexuality.

finally, when we turn to magazines, we find that most times the nudity contained does actually construct a mood into which the clothes fit. yes, the dior dress is worn as a necklace or a belt or a sash, but the image remains striking enough for us to discuss it months later. that's the point of these editorials, to speak to the mood that has overtaken fashion or that one sees in a trend and then communicate that to the reader. if that takes nudity or sexuality, so be it.



(source: ohlalamag.com)

[Squizree]

^ Abercrombie & Fitch ads are quite disgusting to be honest. The models usually look underage and come off as looking quite desperate.
There are boundaries for sexuality.

[mikeijames]

^disgusting....to you. many of the customer base of abercrombie and fitch actually enjoy that youthful aesthetic. so much so that they re-vitalized the book despite the controversy just recently.

[Deborah]

The first M7 ad there, yes I get that. But the 2nd one does seem like nude for nudes sake.

[tigerrouge]

I rather liked the way that ad campaign was a riff on the 1971 Sieff shot of Yves himself, for the "Homme" perfume. That Tom Ford chose to go one step further and to dispense with the shadows in favour of a frontal shot... that was his way of adding a new layer of controversy onto the concept for a modern audience.

I can only remember the second shot running as an actual print ad in Vogue Paris, although I'm sure it turned up in some other publications.

But even if I discount Tom Ford forever needing to come up with visual tricks to sell products, I would still admire the image for being rather beautiful. Here we have "man as he is" - nothing added, nothing hidden, no game being played, and certainly, no photoshop deforestation of his body hair into a flat, plastic landscape of skin. He's a man, he's all man, no more, no less.

Women's nudity is so endemic that we've come to accept it as an essential part of our culture that's supposed to exist for the benefit of both sexes, whereas men's nudity is something that's still rationed.

[LoraV]

I agree with many you above! Nudity is so old, nothing can shock me including nudity anymore. Everywhere i look i see nude models. So what? More interesting was an article in Elle magazine where they had nude plus size model Chrystal Renn i think that was an editorial from McQueen!

http://www.art-dept.com/artists/afan...outure_RGB.jpg
This picture was in Elle magazine.

[Imaginara]

A dress makes no sense unless it inspires men to want to take it off you. ~Françoise Sagan

Sex and eroticisim have been a part of the fashion industry since it was invented, sometimes to hide it and sometimes to flaunt it. Question is rather if it's used properly.

Being a photographer myself, this is a question i do battle with quite often, when does nudity (or partial nudity) improve an editorial, and when is it used as a crutch because the rest of the story/styling/idea doesnt work.

In my book, adding nudity today is a tough thing simply becuase it's been quite overused recently and used as the crutch way to often. A bit like "well we dont really have anything nice to show so lets flash some crotch or some breasts" which is just sloppy workmanship.

note that im not talking about shock value or anything like that, since if your intent is to shock, it's all about your audience. Readers of Elle will be more easilly shocked than readers of Purple mag

So to summarize my own thoughts as a photographer, nudity can be ok if it heightens the editorial/image. And there are few instances out there where this actually happens. Mostly it's just overdone.

And for my personal work, i definately have not hit the mark all of the times ive used it

(And this goes for male and female nudity likewise)

[irulan]

I have often complained about too much nudity in fashion magazines. Maybe that's because I'm a purist. When I buy a fashion magazine, I do it because I want this magazine to help me choose what I should wear - to inspire me to make the right dress choices. I buy it because of the fashion in it. Not a mood it conveys, not a lifestyle it promotes. I'm interested in the plain, old clothing.

So what I expect when I open it is clear images of this clothing first and foremost. I do appreciate a beautiful setting, a clever inspiration, a skilled, healthy model, an elegant styling. Just as long as nothing overshadows the clothing. I'm not into fuzzy, I'm not into artsy - the lord knows I'm happy with a classic studio ed. Because I'm into fashion and fashion is clothes. I'm afraid I'm being repetitive.

Now from that point of view- which is, I am aware of that, a seldom one - a pair of boobs isn't helpful. I don't need to buy boobs, I got two of them, they're attached to me. I buy a fashion magazine so that experts on the topic can tell me what I should buy to dress my boobs and my *** and all the rest of things society thinks I should cover before I step out of my house. I don't need to see boobs on every second page. I can see some whenever I want, I don't need to spend money for that.

Yeah, sometimes the models in such nude shots are partly dressed - they wear pants or a jumper or stockings or some shoes. But I'm also interested in how to put pieces together. And the suggestion: why not wear a Chanel jacket with nothing else but some pearl necklaces? is one I must reject.

However I do understand that from a different point of view and for people who buy magazines out of a different motivation, nudity can make sense. It's a question of personal tastes. And a question to buy the magazine that suits your taste.

Like I said, I used to complain about nudity in fashion magazines. But now I just stopped buying German Vogue because the insane amount of nudity and the sometimes all-together too obvious lack of expertise and all other publications that promote a side of fashion that doesn't appeal to me. That has left me with Vogue US and man, am I happy with that.

[Ayisha1978]

I think what's needed is actually a bit more definition and clarity. I wonder if Fashion should be restricted to clothes? Because if you take clothes out of fashion you wouldn't have an industry, with bodies you'd still have porn and even perhaps 'style' if you accessorize them. But fashion industry itself couldn't exist. So personally I think if you pick up a fashion magazine it shouldn't include nudity.

I would like to think also that a responsible parent could still leave a fashion magazine around for their preteen to look at for inspiration toward a future fashion career without sexually orientated content being part of the package for a young child picking up such a magazine.

Now if you're talking about a "style/art" magazine that's different. This also makes me wonder if there couldn't be a kind of rating system for magazines that would allow industry professionals to have a choice who happen to be parents or simply want to focus more on what's happening in the clothing industry to get magazines that meet their needs and tastes better.

For example, Alexander Mcqueen is one of my favorite designers (I don't think anyone will be able to replace him) and when I check out one of his couture collections I've never been interested in what his choice of models looked like in the buff. I'm like, "what's that got to do with the clothes?"

[misterhomme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crying Diamonds I agree with Sethii - this annoys me when it's the cover of a fashion magazine and there's a nude model with a dress around her waist, barely visible and the picture description is like "Earrings by Bvlgari, dress (just seen) by Dior." I don't care to see some more airbrushed skin - I know sex sells fantastically but personally, a decent dress is going to sell me Vogue. To me, sex in fashion is like a detail on a garment - you have to exaggerate it unless you want it to look like a mistake. I absolutely love some of Steven Klein's work because it is so sexual and explicit. But then I hate Lara Stone's cleavage in the Calvin Klein winter campaign because it isn't appropriate. That's it - some people don't know when sex is appropriate and when it isn't.

APPLAUSE!! I might condone nudity where it is deemed AS nudity (think Purple: NAKED) however it is RIDICULOUS when it is thrown in a FASHION magazine with garments barely scene.
Although if the magazine considers itself a STYLE rather than FASHION magazine I could understand it more. They are simply trying to conjure up a mood rather than a look.

[loladonna]

I think the "sex sells" phrase is overrated and possibly not true with regard to fashion. If sex was the number one thing that sold why have classic non-sexy brands like Chanel endured through time? Chanel doesn't sell sex as much as sophistication.

Seeing Lara Stone's breasts for the umpteenth time is not going to make me want whatever shirt is barely visible in the editorial. Seeing a beautiful shirt that I think will look great on me will make me want to buy it.

[hiven]

if you don't like it, don't look. i personally hate tery richardson and his awful, over-rated work but i'm not bothered by the odd boob.