The most controversial editorials

[YoninahAliza]

First off I feel that the editorial victimizes the model, Kristen. It gives the sense that she's trapped (which I understand she is) but also have you ever noticed they never have male models giving off the appearance of being trapped or the victim. I think it would be a totally different situation if they had a male model in this situation, or if they had female and male models together.
Also I do think that it does glamorizes the spill by trying to make it appear beautiful (which clearly it isn't if you've seen pictures of the spill). Yes I think that magazines do need to take a risk and produce bold editorials however their is a time and place when its okay. This wasn't an appropriate time. Thousands of people have lost their only source of income, the wildlife has been ruined, people and animals have died. Perhaps I would look at this editorial differently if they had shown pictures of the actual spill, showing all the damage which has been done, or if they had photographed people who's lives were ruined by BP. I know its not The New Yorker or Time magazine but if they are going to do a ed like this the least they could do is inform their readers about the issue.

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

I feel like I am the only one completely agreeing with dior_couture1245
like I said before in the thread the only reason why there is clothing is too portray
animals as well as so she just wouldnt be there naked...She is clearly a dying bird in
one of the shots, and could easily be a mermaid in the third shot...I believe Franca did say this editorial was for people to open there eyes up about treating nature well and the pieces of clothing used such as Ann Demeulemeester and Haider Ackermann very well have elements of nature in their collection...this was an ed where clothing was an accessory to the story instead of it being the other way around.

^^and what is beautiful about this oil spill?? she is choking in one shot and appears washed up and dead in the rest...and there are editorials where the male is the victim...just look at other Steven Meisel and Steven Klein eds where the woman is in power.

 

[With_the_wind]

How is it disrespectful to women? Because they're on the cover? If it had been men, would you say it's disrespectful to men? What about ducks?

I don't see how it's tacky either. It's a commentary on the oil spill which has become farcical at this point as attempt after attempt to clean it up has failed. I think it's quite appropriate to protest against it, which is all Vogue Italia has done.

 

[MulletProof]

The idea that the story victimises women is just incredibly off-base and rather sexist in my view, there HAVE been conceptual stories in both menswear and womenswear editorials where the model 'suffers' in some way, I have actually seen more menswear stories where the point is completely missing and the model is "victimised" for the sake of being visually provoking only.. completely different from what's happening in Water & Oil. I know it's not a contest but the comparison was made and it is off, just like the idea that the woman played by Kristen (or any other model in any other story) can only go as far as representing her gender and be that 'fragile' woman bound for abuse that's been trapped and made suffer because of her sex, if that isn't sexist and anti-feminist, then I don't know what it is. The magazine IS for women, the message is not, she's representing what any living species in this world will be experiencing if we continue to exploit and cause disasters such as the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill..

As for the story itself, this is the kind of message I have been hoping to find in a magazine for a while, and yes, fashion is there primarily to sell but that doesn't mean consumers should continue to be treated and encouraged to act like vultures in front of products, people may be trying to find escapism through magazines but there are things we should all humans take responsibility for instead of turning a blind eye on it, and I think Vogue Italia is making a point on how you can sell and still create consciousness and sensibilise people that consume and think at the same time..

dior_couture1245 has pretty much said everything else I wanted to say.

 

[azizza]

I like controversial eds,they have a feel to them that mekes you want to look at them more and more.
A new one that may be considered contraversial is "Dark Habits"
DEdiCate Magazine June 2010
Shot by: Greg Gex
Styling by: Yoko Myake
Model Ashley Smith.
It touches the religion theme again...

 

[BerlinRocks]

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?

When or Where this subject was taboo ?
We've been hearing about it for months and months ................. And I've never heard any media saying this was not damaging ...... Where did you see this issue was taboo ?

Also, Artists and photographers work on that subject for decades ...... Since you live in NYC, I suggest you to go @ Exit ART to have a look at The Tragedy of Beauty (but noticing your feelings for these issues, I'm sure you've already seen the exhibit)

And, of course, the oil spill is a big issue, but this is not the first one, nor it is the last one ...
This is ridiculous to talk to people here onto tFS like you do ........

What I mostly hate about your post on this subject, is how tragedico-dramatico American this sounds !!

Yes the oil spill is a big issue, Yes Meisel is right to do such a story ... But no, this is NOT on time ! This problem of oil spills is nothing new .... And here, the problem (to me, at least) stands much more on offshore petroleum factories (since this doesn't show the problem of oil, but how weak these ocean-machines can be !!!) than on the oil itself ... Just reconsider how many offshore stations there are in the world .... And how, this will remain taboo ... That is what is taboo, not the oil spill itself !
We have to find solutions for avoiding the oil (since it is natural ressource ... we won't have it for ever, viewing how gourmands we are for it) ... but people are already thinking about alternatives, and this is certainly not the BP oil spill that make them realize that !

Oh, and what I hate about this BP-American Tragedie-Dramatic is that some of us sometimes have lack of memory ... Since, I think one of the most outrageous oil spill (much more outrageous than the BP one) already happened in the Mexico Gulf, like 30 yrs ago .... Almost sounds like an Anniversary (sorry for the french irony)
But it was near Mexico, not near the USA .......................


* And I'm sorry, but I thought political subjects were banned from tFS ....
This sounds very politico-ecologic, to me ..........

* oh and I have the most respect for your ideas and your person ... But this post was too much, to me ..... This sounded too much activist like ........

 

[BerlinRocks]

Oh and what interest me too in these political stories of Meisel, is when and why this political consciousness started .......
Could someone (with more memory than me ... ahah) could draw when this all begins ?
I would like to know WHY .... Because I don't remember any story like that in the 80s or 90s ............

I think Meisel mostly draw the irrational and bad situation of the USA ... pointing out all the issues this country has been through for the past decade .... Meisel draws a portrait of his country .... and sometimes not a nice one .....

 

[j'adorekapusta]

^^ BerlinRocks, i think what dior_couture1245 meant by 'taboo' is not the topic being a taboo per se, but people's reaction to this particular editorial as being inappropriate due to its topic. the whole controversy lies in perception that the theme of oil spill cannot be portrait/featured/addressed in fashion magazine.
that said, i am totally agree with dior_couture1245 finding that sort of comments absolutely wrong. the notion of Meisel 'glamorizing' the issue is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the images published. what is so glamorous about Kristen lying in a pool of oil and dirt looking virtually unconscious and damaged? what is glamorous about polluted water and soil? what i see in the editorial is entropy and destruction caused by pollution and human vanity. what i see is a great threat to everything living on a planet, whether a Ralph Lauren dress is involved or not.
and this leads me to a very intriguing topic. as much as fashion imagery relies on clothes as its medium, do we really believe the main (and only one) goal of it is to sell clothes? are we that close-minded? do we dismiss the whole aspect of cultural context and social message that can be and has to be provided through this type of imagery? in other words, should we dismiss fashion imagery as that of product-pushing advertising tool that can do no more than just feature goods to spend money on and to be consumed?
it's true that fashion titles rely on advertising budgets and oh so often feature certain designers/labels depending on how many ad spreads were bought. but the question here is whether we take it for only this. if a magazine was only a vehicle to 'glamorize' things, where do we go from here? nowhere.
as to whether the topic is sensitive and inappropriate, i don't know. how much can these particular images offend someone? what is offensive about them? a woman lying on a rock? a woman in a damaged gown? a woman with her face covered in mud? any of this is not offensive to me. but it speaks of a great issue and makes me think of a great problem that concerns each and everyone of us. is it Vogue's mission to speak of issues like this? can it do so? should it do so? is it allowed to do so? these are questions that go way beyond comments like, 'this is inappropriate'. to me saying this - or any other topic at that matter - is a taboo equals taking freedom (and responsibility) of addressing the world we're living in with all its beauty and ugliness away from fashion titles. would i enjoy Vogue Italia turning its back on the world of here and now in favor of glossy escapist visuals, as perfect, airbrushed and tragedy-free as it may be? no, thank you very much.
Robert Farrell said, 'Fashion equips us for a world that has lost sight of the Earth'. Editorials like Oil and Water make us throw a quick glance at the Earth once again. Too bad we're too preoccupied with staying in our comfort zone to bother noticing it.

 

[ultramarine]

Honestly what sickens me is the media coverage devoted to this ed ... it is very very carefully done and I dont find exploitaition either for the fact that they use a woman nor the topic of oil + water ... this even can run deeper in the sense that BOTH oil +water are becoming more and more rare and Id interpret it as we could end up with precious things (like the clothes) but without water (or oil) we are nothing ... which wud be quite straight forward for a fashion magazine ... the context is VERY important as well .. see the Vogue Italia records and their "controversial" editorials ... I honestly believe they are smart and do not intend to preach or point fingers ....

 

[mistress_f]

I like controversial eds,they have a feel to them that mekes you want to look at them more and more.
A new one that may be considered contraversial is "Dark Habits"
DEdiCate Magazine June 2010
Shot by: Greg Gex
Styling by: Yoko Myake
Model Ashley Smith.
It touches the religion theme again...

do you have a link to this?

 

[biggirlsblouse]

I know this is from the wrong decade completely (Vogue 1969) but I thought I'd add it because a shoot like this probably wouldn't even be allowed these days. I guess they call it terrorist chic?? Scanned by me.

 

[TianSoFine]

^Yeah, I agree, they wouldn't do something like these days. I actually think its a pretty nice ed, but today's society has become too sensitive for something like this.

 

[t-rex]

October's Numero...

elitemodel

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

i really dont know how to feel about this
someone please explain who she is trying to play?

 

[TianSoFine]

They're trying to portray Constance as a black person. I don't have anything against it, but I don't see why they didn't just find a black model. This runs parallel to the Anja-Liu "China Girl" cover for Muse.

 

[agee]

i really dont know how to feel about this
someone please explain who she is trying to play?

I doubt if even the photographer and editor know the answer to your question, this ed is too stupid to be offensive.

 

[fantastical]

I'm glad this editorial was posted here. I love Constance dearly, she's actually one of my current favs, but why on earth was she cast here? I also have no clue as to the direction of this editorial and cover. this is just sooo wrong on so many levels.

 

[YoninahAliza]

This editorial was way out of line and doesn't make sense at all. If they wanted to use a black model then perhaps they should have gotten an ACTUAL black model, not someone posing as one. Also what were they trying to do with the afro's and the little baby? Were they trying to make it more of African culture type of editorial? If thats the case then they failed miserably.

 

[Melisande]

I know this is from the wrong decade completely (Vogue 1969) but I thought I'd add it because a shoot like this probably wouldn't even be allowed these days. I guess they call it terrorist chic?? Scanned by me.

Wow, Vogue 1969, that's really interesting. Yes, back in the day it was a different political climate. Revolution was all the rage...revolution chic/freedom-fighter chic/guerrilla chic/Guevara chic . But ironically, military chic, camouflage print etc. is very much accepted as part of our generation...(Says a lot... ). The idea is interesting, but the execution is tacky (she looks like a spoiled tourist wannabe posing with the locals). Thanks biggirl!

 

[t-rex]

There is a very similar editorial to "String Revolution" also from Vogue, centered around a blonde model and a Nazi. Does anyone know which one I'm talking about?