The most controversial editorials

[TommyAlbania]

could someone post "The Simple Life" by Peter Lindbergh??? I cant find it..

 

[MissMagAddict]

could someone post "The Simple Life" by Peter Lindbergh??? I cant find it..

The Simple Life

 

[TommyAlbania]

Thanks very much!!!!!

 

[thejarc]

What's so controversial about it? I really don't see it.

 

[windlagoon]

^the amish theme.

 

[BetteT]

Yes ... the Amish are known for putting down all things relating to vanity. So this fashion shoot is totally in contrast with Amish values ... something that they certainly would see as being disrespectful towards their values.

 

[YoninahAliza]

Having known several Amish people I am able to personally reflect on the editorial. I know for a fact that these people would be horrified if they saw this editorial, its disrespectful towards the values which they hold dear. Lets just say fashion and Amish values just don't go together.

 

[indepwe]

Isn't fashion all about taking risks and pushing boundaries? Fashion is always looking for something new and different and I celebrate that.

 

[MulletProof]

^ I don't know.. I don't think taking risks and pushing boundaries equals being after something different or new, at least not in fashion. Fashion's idea of new can be quite conformist, look at Marc Jacobs, he customises vintage finds or trends from only 15 years ago and everybody praises it as the 'new' and 'brave'.
The fashion industry seems to have promoted itself so much as the industry of the new and relevant that it's now viewed as such even though most designers or magazines really are not and the way they conceive design and imagery is as conservative as it gets. They rely on the reputation only, providing zero effort.

The Amish story doesn't seem to have any intention for controversy to me, I think it's more a sort of tribute to their aesthetic, the solemnity in which they wear clothes and the beauty not just in the garments but in the compromise, too. Yes, designer clothes and trends are featured, something they do not relate to, it is a fashion magazine after all, but I think it's more of a tribute instead of a dramatisation and the execution isn't really something to get offended about, the models aren't really suggesting much except that they lead a rural life and spend time with other young people of similar beliefs. If they were dressed like that while doing something more.. liberal (think an orgy in Vogue Italia!).. then that would probably be unnecessary and.. despite being an obvious theme that begs to be classified as 'controversial', it would be very conservative in a way.. ridiculing others' lifestyles, that is.

 

[YoninahAliza]

The new Vogue Italia has an editorial which I think is simply appalling. Its titled Water and Oil and was photographed by Steven Meisel. This ed is a BP oil spill themed shoot not only is tacky but also down right controversial. The models appear to be dead/dying, much like the poor animals which have died from this spill. So its not only disturbing for this reason but also portrays women badly. This editorial is disrespectful towards the magnitude of the disaster but also towards women.

 

[kokobombon]

^I think it was done in a very conscious yet artistic way. Some shots were beautiful despite the theme. But that´s just my opinion.

Why do you think it portrays women badly? how is disrespectful to women? I can understand that people find it disrespectful to the event but to women...? I´d like to hear more about why do you think this

Here´s the ed, scanned by blackangel41999

Vogue Italia August 2010
"Water & Oil"
Model: Kristen McMenamy
Styling: Karl Templer




The cover

 

[Deleted member 116957]

Although I don't agree, but perhaps it could be offensive to women because it is a woman being victimimimized in a sense, but I'm not sure...

 

[dior_couture1245]

I've been voicing my opinion quite passionately in the thread specific to the August issue of Vogue Italia which the editorial is featured in.

I'm curious as to what you find so disrespectful about the spread? I've read so many negative comments towards this editorial and I can't wrap my brain around why people are so sensitive towards the oil spill. It makes me furious! Everyone is, or at least, everyone should, be outraged by the BP disaster, but I don't understand why that would prohibit anyone from addressing the issue...whether one addresses it in writing, in song, in a drawing, in a painting, or in a photograph...I don't understand the outrage towards this editorial, really. I'm baffled and disappointed.

There is no reason whatsoever for the Gulf Coast situation to be a taboo subject of discourse (verbally, artistically, etc). In fact, it has to be the opposite. The cold reality of it has to be a part of our day to day. There is no other way for us to become passionate about it and about oil reform in general. If we keep entirely hush hush about the topic, always concerned about being politically correct and sensitive, then what chance do we have at ever solving the issue, if it's only to remain a whispered subject, reserved only for intimate and personal conversations?

 

[kokobombon]

Although I don't agree, but perhaps it could be offensive to women because it is a woman being victimimimized in a sense, but I'm not sure...

I don´t see Kristen as a "woman" but as the embodiment of nature in this ed, know what I mean?

 

[Melisande]

I feel it ALL depends on the execution and tone and context of the editorial. If it were glamorizing the oil spill, that would be a no-no. (Naked girls slicked in black oil with a come-hither look, for example, you get the picture.) And don't get me wrong, there are tons of images in the media that do this, glamorizing violence, war, drugs, misogyny, greed--that's a big one--you name it--which largely go unnoticed because we're just so used to seeing them. It's a very fine line. But this, I think, with its very sombre tones and apocalyptic mood, depicts the sadness of the situation, reminding us that environmental hazards kill human beings as well. I think it's just Meisel's own way of expressing his sadness and political message, within his abilities as a fashion photographer. Granted, the fact that it is fashion photography in itself makes the message confusing; after all, is not its final purpose to seduce and sell? But here I think Meisel is just doing what he can, being that he's not a documentary photographer.
Just my two centimes.

 

[iluvjeisa]

^There's an obvious "Kristen as a wounded bird" and the whole notion of Ophelia that both appeal to our sensibilities about female beauty, I think. Also it forces us to feel like the birds trapped in oil.

 

[Deleted member 116957]

I don´t see Kristen as a "woman" but as the embodiment of nature in this ed, know what I mean?

Yeah that's how I interpret it too. Although she could be mother nature...

 

[ChristianThomas]

I feel it ALL depends on the execution and tone and context of the editorial. If it were glamorizing the oil spill, that would be a no-no. (Naked girls slicked in black oil with a come-hither look, for example, you get the picture.) And don't get me wrong, there are tons of images in the media that do this, glamorizing violence, war, drugs, misogyny, greed--that's a big one--you name it--which largely go unnoticed because we're just so used to seeing them. It's a very fine line. But this, I think, with its very sombre tones and apocalyptic mood, depicts the sadness of the situation, reminding us that environmental hazards kill human beings as well. I think it's just Meisel's own way of expressing his sadness and political message, within his abilities as a fashion photographer. Granted, the fact that it is fashion photography in itself makes the message confusing; after all, is not its final purpose to seduce and sell? But here I think Meisel is just doing what he can, being that he's not a documentary photographer.
Just my two centimes.

I actually think that the editorial does glamorize the whole oil spill quite a bit, it does have a dark and sad mood to it, but it's still a fashion shoot with the fancy clothing and all.

I think the negative response is mostly because this editorial is used as a selling point for clothes, the magazine.. Vogue is using the shock value of the editorial..
And one might consider why it would even have a shock value, but that's quite logical.. The oil spill is one of the biggest pollution disasters that have happened in well.. a long time? They're not even close to estimating the total damage it has done and will do, let's not even start about how long it will take for everything to get close to restored again, to get all the oil possible out of the ocean, etc.. This is a major disaster that affects the whole world and one does not start glamorizing such a thing.

And no that doesn't mean the subject would be taboo for a fashion shoot, but I think it's all a bit too soon. It's still a sensitive subject for a lot of people who in someway have to deal with the disaster, so I can imagine a editorial like this might look like a satirical jab.

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.

Firstly, do you honestly think that this editorial's main objective was to sell clothes? Tell me if you can actually distinguish any particular item of clothing in that editorial. Not only do the pieces get lost amongst the rocks, they're also completely drenched in oil. Maybe we're looking at two entirely different editorials, because in the one I'm seeing...the clothes are probably the last thing I'm noticing.

Secondly, who or what should qualify when a subject is finally OK to address. Is it one month later? Two? Three? A year? 5 years? In my opinion, this editorial is just in time!

Thirdly, I wish people would stop assuming the worst in Sozzani and Meisel. You really think they were sitting around a conference table poking fun at the oil spill? "Hey, Steven, you know what'd be really funny........."

C'mon.

 

[ChristianThomas]

^^I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.

Firstly, do you honestly think that this editorial's main objective was to sell clothes? Tell me if you can actually distinguish any particular item of clothing in that editorial. Not only do the pieces get lost amongst the rocks, they're also completely drenched in oil. Maybe we're looking at two entirely different editorials, because in the one I'm seeing...the clothes are probably the last thing I'm noticing.

Secondly, who or what should qualify when a subject is finally OK to address. Is it one month later? Two? Three? A year? 5 years? In my opinion, this editorial is just in time!

Thirdly, I wish people would stop assuming the worst in Sozzani and Meisel. You really think they were sitting around a conference table poking fun at the oil spill? "Hey, Steven, you know what'd be really funny........."

C'mon.

Hey I never said it was my opinion and you're right the clothes aren't the main focus, but they are present and there are plenty of people who will probably see it that way. You can say what you want, but a lot of people out there will look at this in a critical way and I was just explaining what their point of view might be.

It was a bold editorial to do, it's the same as doing some war-themed editorial when a war has just broken out.. Plenty of people will take it the wrong way and others won't. There is no point arguing about whether it's good or bad, everyone has the right to voice their opinion, don't go around attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

I do understand what you are saying, that it addresses the critical situation, instead of abusing it (so to say) and I doubt anyone here is actually discussing the intent of Meisel when this was shot. But you also have to understand that for other people this can be sensitive and there is really no point in lashing out to them for voicing their opinion.