Sex, Nudity and Fashion

[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/afa...ashion 1-4 2-1/2/Shot 1-008505couture_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 p*rn 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]

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.

 

[fantastical]

this topic started in the Most Model Views thread, but I figured it belonged here instead. I still think that sometimes there is a clear difference between nudity done well, but I remember reading from a user here in an old thread that if you take into consideration the average people in the world (not directly related to fashion) then it becomes clear that sometimes even though nudity may be thoughtfully done, to others it can still come across looking just like the other nudity in playboy or maxim.

That is NOT TRUE at all. There is a BIG different between the nudity in Vogue Italia, Numero, VP, etc. and the nudity in playboy, maxim, etc.

But from a teenage boy's standpoint (because I am one, lol) I can say that the nudity in VI, Numero, and VP (high fashion nudity) is even MORE intriguing to me than the typical nudity. It's much more alluring, smart, and intriguingly sexy. It leaves you wanting more of it. But from most teenage boys' standpoints, they'd rather see the playboy type nudity

I used to agree with you on that difference between nudity in playboy and vogue italia, but the topic at hand is how many views a model gets. What I meant by naked is naked is naked is that you can find high fashion models like Lara or Eniko amongst other trashy types of nudity floating around on the internet.

for example:

1. http://guyism.com/celebrities/why-are-there-naked-women-in-womens-fashion-mags.html - in regard to W Magazine with Daria, Kate, and Lara

2. http://www.nsfwpoa.com/2010/03/kate-moss-naomi-campbell-amber-valletta.html?zx=e3798d06dba2467b - in Regards to Love Magazine issue

3. http://www.totallycrap.com/magazine/eniko_mihalik_for_self_service/ - in Regards to Eniko M. editorial for Self Service


both of these websites show the editorials for models like Lara, Eniko, and the ladies that were featured completely nude for Love magazine among titles like "Dita Von Teese completely naked for Hustler" and "Madison Welch showing her t*ts for Zoo" or "Larissa Riquelme naked for Playboy Brazil in 3-D"

what agee was saying is that when page views come are concerned people who see pictures of these girls would be more likely to look them up and view those pages moreso than other models.

but in a bigger perspective, these horny guys aren't looking at these pictures going "Oh what beautiful Dior scarf she's wearing" while looking at these images. They are looking at them because they are naked. period.


at the same time, I'm no prude, and I still do enjoy the tastefully done nudity. but as for where the real difference is...I'm not sure there's really a fine line anymore

 

[Imaginara]

Just some food for thought. A lot of the comments are directed to "if i see naked bodyparts, it wont make me want to buy that item" but remember that with editorial fashion photographer, the main purpose is not always to directly sell the contents of the editorial, but rather to convey an idea, a concept, a feeling/emotion. Now, granted, the content of the editorial today is mostly based on what ads are running in the magazine, but the primary objective of an editorial shouldn't be to be just a free advertisement for the designer/label featured. It is supposed to evoke something in the viewer that you probably wont get through the advertisement.

Now of course this doesnt just apply to nudity in editorials but to any kind of provoking imagery really.

The sad part comes if the ads are actually better done and more thoughtprovoking than the editorials

 

[mmerqueenish]

I really like nudity in the fashion, because it shows that fashion don't consider only clothes. Nudity can create a good atmosphere for some kind of clothes.

 

[Menace]

I don't want to start a disagreement with anyone, but since OP asked... I feel like vulgar nudity and overt sexuality should not be associated with fashion. Fashion is art and "selling sex" is for profit (ex. Tom Ford's scandalous perfume editorial). But it's happened. And there's nothing I can do about it.

It's kinda like what Hedi Slimane did with Dior Homme, combing rock music with fashion, but that makes much more sense compared to putting a bottle of perfume in front of a vagina.

It's a gimmick because it's hard to be really creative.

 

[blueorchid]

Fashion is art and "selling sex" is for profit (ex. Tom Ford's scandalous perfume editorial).

But fashion is a business as well.

 

[Menace]

But fashion is a business as well.

Yeah, that's true, but I don't like to acknowledge it because fashion for me is, first and foremost, art.

You could say the same thing about music. Music is a form of art, but it's become a business factory sending out Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, etc.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Yeah, that's true, but I don't like to acknowledge it because fashion for me is, first and foremost, art.

You could say the same thing about music. Music is a form of art, but it's become a business factory sending out Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, etc.

Agree about the sad state of music and I know fashion is a business but it is not meant to be exploitative. I see fashion more like an art, like you. In fact, I went from fine arts into my career in fashion. (New career now, though.)

There is a line between exploitation and art. People like Terry Richardson, whose aestheic I loathe, for e.g.,have crossed it.

 

[Vega Magnus]

Source: Cracked.com

What is going on in that ad? They must be trying to appeal to the gay gang r*pist market.

 

[Lapin de Lune]

Initially, I thought the same...until I began to study it. There's a lot going on here, for me, and I am now far more intrigued by the image than disturbed. How the image is cropped, the details which the director/photographer didn't include fascinate me. I'm wondering about the figure wearing dark clothes, what his significance is, as opposed to the others. Both the dark dressed figure and the guy with his legs spread seem to be regarding the nude chap more analytically than sexually.

This doesn't usually happen to me. I see overtly sexual imagery and I am bored. This, however, is another matter.

 

[AlbertNoir]

bp.blogspot.com, miqrogroove.com