S Magazine

[meduse]

Kathrin Bruhn.

Images Removed - Please do not upload pictures with nudity via Imageshack. Please read: http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums...k-30835-4.html

`
Finn, thank you for the work, but isn't it a shame, for nothing…
i'd love to know who you have ID, would you please repost these on an authorized spot?
cheers!

 

[MissMagAddict]

`
Finn, thank you for the work, but isn't it a shame, for nothing…
i'd love to know who you have ID, would you please repost these on an authorized spot?
cheers!

It would be more of a shame if tFS were to be banned from imageshack permanently...which would mean that every image posted on this site that was hosted by imageshack would no longer be available for viewing.
I have already posted to Finn on the previous page that he is welcome to upload the images again using another host that accepted nudity of this kind or to use the tFS image upload feature.

 

[Patches]

Thank you all for posting. Id love to see more!

 

[MissMagAddict]

and generaly for everyone, i don't want to argue about "is it fashion ? is it erotism ?"
in fashion industry there are models, and models could be nude because this is how we all look like when we don't have clothes on… and the possibility that having no clothes on becomes erotic is not a question to discuss, it's only a fact… and the aesthetic possibilities are endless, from harsh to sweet, from extreme to shy, from trash to delicate…
look back to ALL art history
nudity IS always, and has always been the thing
among other subjects…
i love nudity, though most of the time i get bored by most of men's magazine
magazines like S or Paradis, at last, offer nudity with great models and great photographer, and this is upgrading today erotism…

i've open this thread to offer more informations about S not to discuss if you like erotism or not, so as i discover this is an agitated topic, i might open one simple conversation thread call "fashion and erotism"… and we could talk forever if you want B)

Sorry but you can't open a thread for a magazine such as S or Paradis & not expect a discussion to take place...and why shouldn't it?

I find the photography in S & Paradis quite dull & gratuitous...and IMO there's nothing creative or groundbreaking about it. I agree with Berlin that it's just a fake argument for fashion/eroticism...these images are carefully constructed vignettes of lovely women with their clothes half off or entirely off in nice lighting...it's pretentious & trying too hard to be erotic. Frankly I'd rather look at the images of Terry Richardson or Christine Kessler...at least these photographers have an imagination & I know I'm going to get a definite point of view...instead of this masquerade.

 

[educo]

I'm all for erotic photography and S sometimes achieves that. But most of the time, the poses aren't erotic at all, they're exploitive and pointless. Some of these images don't show the grace of a nude body, instead it makes it look like something to conquer. IMO some of these ladies look like they're waiting/preparing to get F*&%ED, rather than displaying a beautiful body.

 

[Algama]

.... I don't know... I think this is a magazine that cross fashion and erotism.... but to me this is more about photo-erotism and fashion is just a fake argument to undress the girls for men and lesbian eyes' pleasure (nothing against lesbians, girls don't get mad!) and of course for the Love of Body...

I think there's no fake argument as S magazine is cearly explicit about it in their editorial line (as stated in their site). I quote "...to create a publication that celebrates diversity, decadence and the occasional libido enhancing gadget". Their goal was to "... create a magazine that artists, stylists and writers could express themselves freely" and to "give back the creative freedom to the artist and let them show where they could go if there were no restrictions".

We are, in the other hand, to judge if and how the magazine succeeds in its goals, which unfortunately I think, for the major part, it doesn't. Apart from the academicist viewpoint of the gratuitousness of the poses and whatever (which i kind of share) i think the major fluke is the lack of reaction and/or thought I get from much of the editorials. ALTOUGH I must say, there are a few that I found interesting (check the site please)

sorry i'm just laughing alone.... big loneliness joke moment...

I think your joke is perfectly understandable.

 

[BerlinRocks]

ALTOUGH I must say, there are a few that I found interesting (check the site please)

I checked the website yesterday night (wanted to see the men nudes which are - Flinn was right - a waste of paper for the major part).... and it's true that there are some interesting shots... but bizarrement they are not the ones posted there...

then the argument with the Art History thing is really "pfff"....
Maybe I'm just not enough "open-minded", but Art History is not all about nudity , please (and you know about it because you wrote "among other things" (badly quoted)!!!! Though it could be considered as the beginning of it (see Adolf Loos, Gilles Néret, Bataille....)
If you wanted to argue about erotism AND p*rn*gr*phy, please give arguments from Paul Ardenne, Dominique Baqué or better Georges Bataille.....
but don't give me with the most boring and annoying and weak argument :

look back to ALL art history
nudity IS always, and has always been the thing

because this is ONE argument.... and ONE has never been enough for me.... We don't do something because it's part of our culture............ or it's just conservative (weak arguement, as well)....
here is the problem with S : it shows only one or two sides of erotism and p*rno.... it doesn't try to go further, to explore new directions.... as Algama said it's very "academic"!!! Here is the problem....

I see the thing like that : It just has as a direction "the desacralisation of erotisme and sexe".... So what ? We all know about this.... Now it's time to explore new things..... non?

another thing is also funny.... If i remember well, in Paradis thread the question of erotism and nudity hasn't been discussed that much....

conclusion : there are some interesting stuff in S. this is right..... but not enough to me....not enough for me to get excited about this....
try to explore new stuff.... be creative (it seems to be a major problem those times).....
and you could also try to read André Guindon "L'Habillé ou et le Nu...." always wanted to read this, never found time....

 

[Finn]

 

[Finn]

 

[Finn]

Few random scans.

 

[Finn]

I´ll post more later.

 

[jaben]

another thing is also funny.... If i remember well, in Paradis thread the question of erotism and nudity hasn't been discussed that much....

Paradis is a great, classy magazine. I freely admit to buying Paradis for Anouck's edit but was blown away by the articles. I even read articles on stuff I had no interest in. The photographs are nude and sexy but they are not sexual, with the possible exception of Malgosia spreading her legs.

The photographs in S are overtly sexual. It's not that the images are not classy, compared to Playboy etc, but they also convey the impression the model wants sex. In that way S is different from two other mags that are now long gone - Deliciae Vitae and Vellum. Those mags were about classy nude photos of mags. But as I remember there wasn't anything overtly sexual.

 

[meduse]

then the argument with the Art History thing is really "pfff"....
Maybe I'm just not enough "open-minded", but Art History is not all about nudity , please (and you know about it because you wrote "among other things" (badly quoted)!!!! Though it could be considered as the beginning of it (see Adolf Loos, Gilles Néret, Bataille....)
If you wanted to argue about erotism AND p*rn*gr*phy, please give arguments from Paul Ardenne, Dominique Baqué or better Georges Bataille.....
but don't give me with the most boring and annoying and weak argument :
because this is ONE argument.... and ONE has never been enough for me.... We don't do something because it's part of our culture............ or it's just conservative (weak arguement, as well)....
here is the problem with S : it shows only one or two sides of erotism and p*rno.... it doesn't try to go further, to explore new directions.... as Algama said it's very "academic"!!! Here is the problem....

True! i was weakly arguing, and you're right about Bataille, but i'm too lazy, and i worship you for such an elegant reaction
i'm just in lose mood about S…
of course if you compare their pages to the work of i.e. Hans Bellmer, well ok this is pretty light, and poor and weakly imaginative…
but you know sometime i enjoy a serious good meal, and sometime i'm having fun with junk food…
S is cool, not masterpieces stuff, but really cool…
and please excuse my disastrous english, which is also a part of my lack of involvement in the discussion… i don't know the words i would need for such a conversation

 

[flyingace]

I don't mind the content of the pictures as long as they are good, it doesn't matter to me if they're considered erotic, fashion, art... the picture itself doesn't change. I've seen a few good things on this thread, though it seems that the photos focus too much on the models and their erotic positions and faces. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think they should be a bit more creative. Most of them are too simple. The base is good, but they should squeeze their brains, play with the angles the composition the colours, and make them more interesting. Make them something more than showing some beautiful girls, I love seeing these pictures, but I understand that people who are not interested in women don't find them too interesting.

 

[alxxxfast]

I'm with meduse

agree meduse, S is cool, that's he word ... because there are naked beauties inside (not even the best ones) but hardly a masterpiece, worth to take a look at the scans

the food example is perfectly clear ... I can clearly understand cause I'm italian , but you must already know

 

[sedirea]

Some of the pictures arent that great, but I like A LOT of the pictures posted @ #48, i feel like they can take some beautiful pictures, also I feel like theyre trying to be more shocking than anything else :/ 50/50 for me.

 

[Finn]

The photographs in S are overtly sexual. It's not that the images are not classy, compared to Playboy etc, but they also convey the impression the model wants sex. In that way S is different from two other mags that are now long gone - Deliciae Vitae and Vellum. Those mags were about classy nude photos of mags. But as I remember there wasn't anything overtly sexual.

So you have many issues of all these 3 magazines you mentioned,
I believe? To come this cobclusion. I have only Vellum and S magazines
so I guess that you know better than me?(Vellum magazine had very provocing edit´s), and about PB (except French) I don´t know
what´s classy thesedays, but PB illustrates women that have more silicone
and plactic on their body than a doll from sexshop and afterwards the pictures are usually airbrushed so my opinion is there´s nothing classy
about PB these days, unlike 80´s or 90´s PB´s.

 

[foxglove]

Does anyone know what shots Judith Bedard has in the magazine? (I read earlier in the thread that she was one of the recognised models)

 

[butcherboy]

Judith Bedard isn´t in these scans, I think; you can see her in the 4th number (beginning form the left; the girl in the cover looks like michelle buswell) in the web page.
I find S and Paradis quite good magazines; irregular, but with some very good editorials. By the way, thank you very much for the scans, Finn!

 

[Finn]

Does anyone know what shots Judith Bedard has in the magazine? (I read earlier in the thread that she was one of the recognised models)

I had to check, She has an edit in the third issue of s magazine.