Quote:
Originally Posted by KhaoticKharma
I wholeheartedly agree. It's gotten to the point where it does nothing to contribute to the storyline, and isn't ~edgy~. There are times when nudity can really contribute to an editorial, and there are times when it doesn't; as of late, I feel like we've been getting more and more of the latter.
|
I was at the body shop today with my car (long story) and casually picked up the only decent magazine in the place,
Details. Imagine my surprise when I spotted a random exposed breast in the middle of the major editorial spread. The storyline was about a couple outdoors, but in the context of the story I saw no reason for the random breast. It was a close up of just the model's face and chest and seemed to serve no purpose except of course, to give male readers a reason to buy a subscription.
I am the LEAST prude person I know, but this just seemed like gratuitous nudity with absolutely no purpose. This was in stark contrast to the piece on Patrick Demarchelier in Industrie, where every photo was of a nude model. But it worked. What I don't like is the random senseless poorly integrated female nudity with no purpose other than to create supposed shock value, but in our oversaturated culture this now falls flat. What was edgy in the 90s is now completely tired and boring, and honestly annoying.