The most controversial editorials | Page 9 | the Fashion Spot

The most controversial editorials

^Talking about religion and taking the discussion on topic again, i remember there was a lot of discussion when Linda Evangelista popped up as Mother Teresa in W Magazine's Art Issue captured by Maurizio Cattelan. I thought i find it quite amusing when religion meets art in term's of fashion.


LesMads.com


is there any place i can find scans of the full editorial? i only managed to find small sized pics


edit_ nevermind i found the thread of the issue
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That being said, I do find it (could think of another word but since it's the one I and then you used here) quite stupid to think fashion is really this light game where people don't mean to clap at stereotypes just to create commotion and sell.. it's probably that kind of convenient stupidity instead of genuine naivete.

Why must every single editorial be portraying exactly how the world should be? - I don't expect that much from editorials myself, what I expect is a bit of sensibility and conscious and if they can't handle that either, then just some 'stick to your own business' mentality, if you don't feel like you can tell how the world should be then why are you doing it by shoving us blatant promotions of archaic social and racial structures then? contradictory there.. or maybe not so much, considering fashion is probably the last industry that still has open difficulties with ethnicity.. which makes them a better target of criticism anyway.

You make an interesting point in the end, but fashion publications are more often than not a far from political outlet, I'm certainly not demanding that much from an industry that makes more profit out of oblivion... they seem to cultivate established ideas or social phenomenons, whether it's celebrity culture, internet culture, American culture, religious sentiments, they abstain from creating, they just push it through their pages and if anything, clap a little for certain spectacles, never go as far as condemning. In that aspect, fashion seems like a good refugee for people whose cowardliness is only surpassed by their wish to say something, anything out loud.

So I would assume most magazines know who their readers are and abstain from overestimating them by thinking a peculiar story picturing inequality might drive them to go as far as seeing it, processing it, understanding it, debating it and ultimately opposing them. That's really asking too much from them, the example in this thread is too clear, and I'm not saying they lack the intellectual capacity to do it, people just don't want to question fashion and I think magazines know it and that's what bothers me, that they're irresponsible about that and considering how unconscious and even vain the process of looking at a magazine can be for someone, how people just flip through it happily and leave with the image stored somewhere in the back of their head, unquestioned and accepted, why are they then taking chances perpetuating racial misconceptions? why can't they be as modern and up to date as they parade themselves to be in the rest of their content and feature the modern side of reality, instead of hanging on to the one that's slowly fading away.

Well, in a business that is geared toward judging people solely based on their exterior, there are certainly more interesting contexts Daria could have been placed in. First, the most obvious option would be for the model being Cole Mohr instead, that would certainly make this more relevant for Interview's history. And, if you want to take another angle you could throw her into a Walmart or a mall - that's where the real prejudice in the fashion world is now anyway - against unattractive poor people. But again, that is fashion's whole point for 90% of all people anyway, instantly showing that they are better than the rest.

It's pretty obvious the semi-educated have gone from disliking minorities based on skin color to disliking them based on other, possibly less genetically determined, characteristics that must not be mentioned. So the entire concept of the editorial is obsolete, I interpret it as mostly a commentary on something from the past....and something, as I said, that has special relevance to Interview's history, and the history of high powered fashion personas from the 70s - Halston comes to mind - but it would have been more gutsy with a male model.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seeing that white models have dominated for years now - and others have been excluded in favor of them - it's not surprising to have an "all-black" issue.

It's like asking why there is a Miss Black America competition - because it popped up in protest of the absolute lack of black women in these competitions.

It's like asking why the NAACP formed - because whites controlled and dominated the image of black people in the media.


These specific ethnic-based groups formed because of the constant segregation of them from "white" society. But yet, it's "racist" when THEY do it. :lol:

As for using racist stereotypes for magazine editorials? Yawn. Please, get creative. Racism is not "edgy" or "cool" - it's racism. Exploiting these painful stereotypes in the name of creativity is disgusting and unethical.

White people still do. All the stereotypes of Black people right now are being more and more enforced by the media. I'm surprised the NAACP hasn't shut down BET yet, though it is geared towards Black people, it is totally promoting all of the stereotypes against Black people, which I find really really odd.

But this is about fashion, and I will say that Fashion is definitely mostly white, but I will say that there are very many minority models that are starting to rise, so it's gotten much better very recently. If you look at all the hot new faces right now, a lot of them aren't white, Rose Cordero, Ming Xi, Joan Smalls, Lais Ribeiro, Shu Pei, Yvonne Si, etc. So yes, fashion is and always will be mostly white, even though it should be equal, it's not going to change, but it's starting to get more balanced.
 
Well, in a business that is geared toward judging people solely based on their exterior, there are certainly more interesting contexts Daria could have been placed in. First, the most obvious option would be for the model being Cole Mohr instead, that would certainly make this more relevant for Interview's history. And, if you want to take another angle you could throw her into a Walmart or a mall - that's where the real prejudice in the fashion world is now anyway - against unattractive poor people. But again, that is fashion's whole point for 90% of all people anyway, instantly showing that they are better than the rest.

It's pretty obvious the semi-educated have gone from disliking minorities based on skin color to disliking them based on other, possibly less genetically determined, characteristics that must not be mentioned. So the entire concept of the editorial is obsolete, I interpret it as mostly a commentary on something from the past....and something, as I said, that has special relevance to Interview's history, and the history of high powered fashion personas from the 70s - Halston comes to mind - but it would have been more gutsy with a male model.

In the US, anyway, there's no shortage of minimally educated people who have issues with others based on skin color. It's not unusual for minimally skilled white men to blame minorities and affirmative action for their own employment situations. The fact is, of course, that we're moving fast from an industrial to a post-industrial, knowledge-based economy in which being illiterate doesn't qualify you for much. The time to whip our education system into shape is now ...

The prejudice against obese people seems now to be the last bastion of 'acceptable' prejudice. Who knows what people are thinking, but many people don't hesitate to voice this one. (In my mind it's simply another addiction, and unlike other substances, you can't quit cold turkey. I certainly have seen, but not once heard anyone comment on, for example, an alcohol-ravaged body.)
 
so.. not sure I'm getting the drift here completely, is fashion not supposed to travel unless it reaches equally-expensive scenarios because the contrast is just too uncomfortable to watch?

I find it distasteful when a magazine flies some overpaid model halfway around the world, to shoot her wearing a $600 swimsuit alongside people who can barely afford shoes. For me, there does come a point where the contrast becomes something crass - although my original comment was that UK Vogue seems to have stopped doing such editorials, perhaps realising that there's less tolerance for the sight of such extreme disparity between human beings being used for the purpose of selling us handbags. The editorials I'm seeing these days are much milder, and within the realms of my tolerance, at least.

But this thread has shown us that we all have our own perspective on what we're seeing in magazines.
 
I remember this ed shocked me when I first saw it because it was R´el Dade´s first big thing and she was naked... add that the other model was fully clothed, white (and blonde for that matter) + the whole submissive, bondage thing going on...
Was there ever an ed when it was the other way around? black models with naked white ones?
How many black fashion editors, stylist, photographers work in fashion magazines? Id like to read their opinions on this matter.

Numero September 2009
"Best Friends"
Photos by Greg Kadel




Scanned by Carla-A
 
Maybe there's a good reason for the studio shoots except economy - you don't offend anyone.

People do that on their vacations all the time. They fly across the globe to regions of the world where people are less fortunate and enjoy the cheap food. How is that any different?

Though sometimes the underlying nastiness in ads can be too glaring. Like today I was looking through a magazine from 1971 and found a fur ad with a lovely model wearing an entire fox, head, teeth, eye sockets and all. That was too much reality for me, I have to say.
 
^ eww... that Numero editorial is rather crass in its depiction of the two women.
 
People do that on their vacations all the time. They fly across the globe to regions of the world where people are less fortunate and enjoy the cheap food. How is that any different?

Yeah let's not criticize things fashion magazines do because it happens in real life. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Yeah let's not criticize things fashion magazines do because it happens in real life. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well, obviously crime happens a lot too but I'm not advocating that be shot in magazines. However, demanding that an editorial is shot in a location and manner where delicate sensibilities are disturbed less than on a regular vacation, that's a bit much.
 
People do that on their vacations all the time. They fly across the globe to regions of the world where people are less fortunate and enjoy the cheap food. How is that any different?

Because a magazine is a commercial entity which exists to sell products to an audience via the public promotion and constant reinforcement of certain values and ideas, and a holiday is personal experience? Most people go on holiday to 'get away' from their work, they don't go there to scout for locals so they can take shots to promote whatever it is they sell for a living. That said, there are bloggers who believe that everything they do, can and should be 'monetised' for an audience.

I get the feeling I haven't explained myself in a way that enables people to see my point. I have no problem with editorials where foreign travel is involved, or where models are shot in front of gorgeous landscapes - or the idea that people from developed countries will visit less well-developed ones.

I have a problem when the deliberate commercial depiction of the disparity between the human beings in a fashion image is at such an extreme, that it becomes a crass stereotype of poor 'exotic' people being used as a convenient backdrop to show off a model - usually white - as some sort of glittering goddess in a Gucci dress, in charming contrast to someone's shanty hut.

And even if we argue, well, it's the reality of things, there are rich people and there are poor people... then let's also have an editorial where the model wears her expensive items on location inside the overseas factory where they were made, on front of the people who made them. I'm guessing that would offend more 'sensibilities' than my own, even though that's closer to 'how things are in real life' - with the added bonus of far more potential to 'shock' than a thousand shoots featuring lesbian sex.

Ah, but there's no fantasy in that, nothing that sells. It's not going to happen. I think part of the problem is, I don't share the fantasy of wanting to own expensive clothes - certainly not ones that seem overpriced to me. I look to fashion editorials for the sight of the psychology of how things get sold to an audience, so more of my attention would go on the representations of the people, rather than what I'm supposed to be focusing on, which would be the desirability of the items on sale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I'm so glad you expanded more, tigerrouge, I can totally see your point now and I couldn't agree more.. I don't mind price tags of clothing when they blend in with the surroundings and the locals, stories like this or this one.. even this one, which still has a bit of contrasts but done in a sensible manner imo.. I think the result can be quite beautiful and if I was a photographer/stylist, I would choose 'developing' country over studio location in the blink of an eye..

I remember seeing these 'contrasting' stories in the past but can't really remember specific info, probably because they never interested me.. I do remember this one by Terry Richardson (surprise, surprise) shot in a small community (a tribe) from the Amazons with a model wearing Yves Saint Laurent, posing with an air of superiority while the kids behind her wearing only briefs just stare at her confused. It was published in Harper's Bazaar in Spring 2002, I believe.
 
I remember Vogue India did a editorial a while back where they had models wearing thousands of dollers worth of designer clothes and then their were locals of Mumbai (I think is where it was shoot?) just standing in the background. When the photos were published they caused a huge uproar because their was a clear definition between who was wealthy and who wasn't. Plus they also didn't give any credit to the other "background" models, just calling them by man or women. When I first saw the photographs I remember thinking I thought they were really nice but once I really looked at them I saw them for what they really were. I think this editorial is a really good example of the whole exotic shoot gone wrong.
 
^ I'm so glad you expanded more, tigerrouge, I can totally see your point now and I couldn't agree more.. I don't mind price tags of clothing when they blend in with the surroundings and the locals, stories like this or this one.. even this one, which still has a bit of contrasts but done in a sensible manner imo.. I think the result can be quite beautiful and if I was a photographer/stylist, I would choose 'developing' country over studio location in the blink of an eye..

I think this is another example of what you´re saying. You can see a lot of references to Buenos Aires and the local people going about their normal lives, a hint of third world country but not exploitative way. It´s been shot in a non-touristic kinda way making it look very high fashion imo...

http://forums.thefashionspot.com/showpost.php?p=7170525&postcount=35

some outtakes with local people

http://forums.thefashionspot.com/showpost.php?p=7181943&postcount=126
 
^ exactly.
One thing that I love about that story is that even if the model looks completely out of place at first glance and the contrast might be a little strange or maybe even distasteful for someone unfamiliar with the scenery, they really managed to convey the eccentricities and decadence of the city.. it really isn't that strange to be in a very poor neighborhood and see some old man walk out of his modest house dressed like a total dandy or women doing their groceries wearing funny hats.. like there's this nostalgic ghost from the tango era that stills wanders around the city or lives among its residents.. which I'm guessing Dafne is supposed to represent in that editorial and I think they succeeded at it. :heart:
 
Because a magazine is a commercial entity which exists to sell products to an audience via the public promotion and constant reinforcement of certain values and ideas, and a holiday is personal experience? Most people go on holiday to 'get away' from their work, they don't go there to scout for locals so they can take shots to promote whatever it is they sell for a living. That said, there are bloggers who believe that everything they do, can and should be 'monetised' for an audience.

I get the feeling I haven't explained myself in a way that enables people to see my point. I have no problem with editorials where foreign travel is involved, or where models are shot in front of gorgeous landscapes - or the idea that people from developed countries will visit less well-developed ones.

I have a problem when the deliberate commercial depiction of the disparity between the human beings in a fashion image is at such an extreme, that it becomes a crass stereotype of poor 'exotic' people being used as a convenient backdrop to show off a model - usually white - as some sort of glittering goddess in a Gucci dress, in charming contrast to someone's shanty hut.

And even if we argue, well, it's the reality of things, there are rich people and there are poor people... then let's also have an editorial where the model wears her expensive items on location inside the overseas factory where they were made, on front of the people who made them. I'm guessing that would offend more 'sensibilities' than my own, even though that's closer to 'how things are in real life' - with the added bonus of far more potential to 'shock' than a thousand shoots featuring lesbian sex.

Ah, but there's no fantasy in that, nothing that sells. It's not going to happen. I think part of the problem is, I don't share the fantasy of wanting to own expensive clothes - certainly not ones that seem overpriced to me. I look to fashion editorials for the sight of the psychology of how things get sold to an audience, so more of my attention would go on the representations of the people, rather than what I'm supposed to be focusing on, which would be the desirability of the items on sale.

People go on vacation to other countries for two reasons: 1) The sun 2) It's cheap. They are using the bad conditions in another country to further themselves - using those people as cheap servants. In essence, they are trading social classes for a week. It's not nice. It's not sweet. And the reason the magazines go there is for those two reasons as well - it looks good and it's cheap - and, yes, they do it for profit. So do the travel agencies and airlines. I really don't like the idea of hiding the cruel nature of the world from people by presenting some idealised image of how things should be. Why? Because then people think that's how it is - which is even worse.

For me, fashion is a play on fascism and personal expression. Inevitably, fascistic, nasty undertones will be present - because that is, in part, what fashion is all about. Art should be about emotions, dreams, the unconscious...not some obligatory utopian smörgåsbord, though that has a part in it too.

The very idea that using other people as your servants and as a nice back drop for your utter gorgeousness would be ok as long as it's presented with Liya (because she is black) or because someone is smiling in a friendly manner rather than looking aloof...it seems too superficial by far. I like the idea of a Couture based editorial set in an H&M factory - what an extra special morality perk for the stylish folk! :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ You can replace Liya's story with Daria's face or whoever you want and I'd still think she's well integrated into the context, skin color never even crossed my mind, it's the scenery, the styling, what the model is doing, what the locals are doing, the way it's photographed, I'm happy to say race isn't that big of an issue for me to find it so arresting and get stuck on it.. and this whole idea that locals are perpetually playing the character of servants seems to actually serve more a peculiar (and very sad) projection some viewers have of other cultures.

I honestly find your first statement, this idea that people just travel for the sun and low cost a tad ignorant, I haven't traveled extensively but just enough to have met other travelers from all over the world (developing countries, developed countries, countries you can't even locate in your mental map) and none of them were traveling "for the sun", not even those from England.. maybe some of us were traveling for low cost but maybe some of us also prefer it that way, even if going to Ibiza was half the price, I'd still by a long LONG shot would rather go to Vietnam than just lay around some cheap resort sipping cocktails and doing and thinking nothing and I'm sure the people I met were very much on the same page.. plenty of people travel because they want to be shaken up by culture, by diversity, discover how people live in other places, find their own selves in the end of the world.. it's way beyond nicer weather or price.. the only people I know who do that, who would rather go to Bahamas than Africa are upper middle-class/middle-class overstressed office workers that seriously need a break.. maybe you're one of them but to think everyone is after the same when they go to a place that's not Europe or the United States, that's just really inaccurate..

You might want to check out this community of travelers, they vast majority are from countries with little sun and they submit articles everyday about their impressions either as tourists, travelers or expats (there's a difference).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and what about the people from those undeveloped countries travelling to Europe for instance? to say that HF spreads set on poor countries equals people going on vacation is annoying and it only shows a first country view on things, imo... but I guess that at the end of the day, what makes an editorial shocking is our cultures and points of view. At first glance, I never find "black people used as props" editorials offensive because that kind of racism is not present in my country, we don´t have native black people. But I find shocking those eds where poor people/settings are used a background because that´s what´s closer to me.
 
and what about the people from those undeveloped countries travelling to Europe for instance?
you know, maybe they just want to drool over the luxurious alleys of Brixton and dream about how rich life in developed countries would be like before hopping back to their sunny misery-bound airplane. :lol:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,538
Messages
15,306,734
Members
89,553
Latest member
sweet168heart
Back
Top