The upcoming March issue of British Vogue has a Hadid sister on the front and back cover draped in shimmering Versace gowns and in the inside spread a photo suggesting incest?
Right when British Vogue shared this image to their Instagram, I took a screenshot because I found it instantly weird. To me, everything about this image is a little strange; the posing, the nudity, the editing, and especially the fact that the two very well-known models are sisters. I was wondering if people would notice this weirdness, and they sure did. Twitter users are uprearing about the image, calling it disgusting, disturbing, and even that it promotes incest.
https://twitter.com/walton_314/status/958496738352025601
In addition to the social media war about whether this photo taken by Steven Meisel is inappropriate or not, viewers are also criticizing it's overly edited appearance. Some are saying Bella, on the left, doesn't even look like herself. Many people are also addressing the nudity, saying it's far from fashion. Every element of this image is making the Internet uncomfortable, causing a back and forth about its presence. I want to know what you all think of this controversial image.
Yeah, I dunno, a bit over-reaction in light of recent events. You're always going to have people making noise like that. If the girls felt it was demeaning, would they have done the shot? I like the shot, I think it's OK. Not that it's the greatest shot or anything like that, but it's still a nice shot.
Meh...dunno how to feel about it. Nice looking gals though and before anyone complains..I would equally admire the photo if it were two good looking dudes.
I'm unsure too, I do know one thing though the technicality of the posing drives me bonkers. Bella's arm and both of their backs. It's an iconic shoot since people are back and forth about it, so I wish they would have nailed the posing and editing at least!
Gone are the days where artistic works are considered art and simply become targets for others passing judgment without real cause. Positions, editing, siblings etc.
The only thing I find weird are people that try to exact high moral standards on our works.
It certainly seems that back in the 70s Vogue could have published such a photograph without such a brou-ha-ha. It's rather chilling that we are entering an age of such anti-art prudishness and ideological testing--which is quickly surpassing anything religion or politics has ever committed.
I think is completely natural for two sisters to pose like that if they have that kind of confidence.
here you have twins film and photograph by Peter Hegre. They are having fun, the perversion is in the mind of the people who think otherwise
https://www.instagram.com/p/BbCZEulnBj4/?taken-by=petterhegre
"perversion is in the mind of the people who think otherwise"... you do realize Hegre's work is pure hardcore porn, with emphasis on showcasing and implying the young age of his models, right? No matter how artsy, or classy, or whatever, it's... straight up porn. So, no - sex is not just implied here but is actually emphasized.
Personally I've no issues whatsoever with the Vogue cover or Hegre, but masking it as something that is pure and devoid of sexuality is... silly.
Hegre's work isn't hardcore porn. I don't think is even porn but if have to be labeled "porn" I think "softcore" is more appropriate.
And what was emphasizing by magazines like Vogue and the whole fashion industry the last 50 years? The only pure fashion photographer that I know, Bill Cunningham, and I don't think he was a fashion photographer.
I don't mask anything. I say, it has sexuality if is in your mind. They are sisters, and they are having fun and earning some money. But for them is completely natural because they have that kind of confidence and they are used to it. Of course, they implied, images do that and they try to sell mags.
I've photograph porn actors "working" and they are really working. Sure they are having fun, but they are working and they take very seriously his work. it doesn't even occur to me "masking" sexuality in any way because is completely natural.
Fair enough. Though, while I certainly don't claim to be an expert on porn classification, having seen my share of Hegre's work it ranges from benign to pretty hardcore, but... we digress.
Funny thing is, I recall seeing other images of one of the Hadid sisters sandwiched between two other Angels, nude, on a cover somewhere else not long ago and don't remember reading all this fuss. I guess including "incest" comments is the way to get the crowd going.
Oh the world we live in. Everything is an issue nowadays. It's not like the Hadid sisters are new to that kind of shoot.
Agree with you, I just hope they keep talking about the real issues in the industry, that would be lovely :)
Well, the @jwalton account has like 8 tweets so it's just someone that complains. @jenk simply used not like a photo of the property bros as their reason to not like it? Eh, who cares what these people say. It's fine.
I mean I am assuming the sisters approved the shoot and were ok with it...soo why should we be outraged if they seem cool with it
It’s a bit unorthodox and probably not the way I would pose two sisters but in the grand scheme of things it’s not that big of a deal.
Indeed, it's not the first time art causes that and won't be the last.
Cue all the comments from defensive males!
Oh wait, I'm already too late.
Haha!
Can somebody explain to me how women are empowering other women by using their naked bodies? The are being “used” as tools.
In my opinion women that aim to empower other women should know better than to use their bodies as tools.
An empowered woman does exactly what she wants with her body without paternalist mens telling if it's wrong or not. They are adults, they signed a contract.
As much as I respect the views of others, I believe women have way better potential than to empower eachother through nudity. Seems like an overplayed lazy way to empower women.
True, I do believe that when we do exactly what we want however there’s a way to do it so that it does actually empower others to do the same. Maybe that’s not what they wanted I guess. I just find it low quality for who they are
I don't know whether it's meant to be empowering or not. The posing isn't empowering, at least to me. It's very vulnerable. I love artistic nudity but not really a fan of this, wasn't done right in my opinion
If this 2 sisters did this completely voluntary and for fair payment and no coercion was used. Who are you or any other person to say anything about it that halt this type of work?.Of course all of us has a free speech opportunity. but it should no be used to push some prudish agenda.
I usually tell people around me Why do we complain about women in Muslim countries using the veil over their head/face/body if we complain all the time about a women chest or butt been exposed to everybody? The only reason some people complain about naked human to be walking on the street is religion. Even those who are not into religion they have ingrained the sense that been dressed is moral and correct. I guess that natives in Asia S.America and Africa are not human.
Disclosure. Muslim women using the burka or hijab that are coerced to use it is a different thing I am talking about those that use it voluntary as cultural tradition.. most of them. I am not religious, nudist or has any connection with muslims
you are probably a big fan of sharia....
You do realize you are on a photography forum, right?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. For those who do, is it also then wrong to take a bath with your siblings, as many children do when younger? Why do we feel the constant need to sexualize the human body? That over-sexualization is why we have the #metoo and other movements, NOT because of a nude photograph of two sisters.
It would be one thing if they were forced to pose as such, or if they were told to kiss or do something sexual. But as they are not, I feel there should be no fuss about it. It reminds me of this shot by Peter Coulson, although I much prefer his. (http://blog.peter-coulson.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Milu_0191.jpg)
You're right Cody and Peter's picture is nice.
So if we bring back the best fashion photographers (the ones who published in vogue France in the 70's) like Helmut Newton or Guy Bourdin, that would be fun to watch. Helmut Newton did a shoot called "animal spirit" with a girl and a saddle, wouldn't be able to publish that today without being twitter slapped.
From an historian perspective, fetish is the root of fashion photography, what differentiates some pictures from porn is solely the women's attitude.
Everyone who is offended by this is just supporting the idea that a woman's body is inherently a sexual object. Nudity is our most natural form. Just look at the controversy Sally Mann caused years ago with nude images of her family, including her children. Assuming all parties were willing and comfortable, I don't see the problem with this at all. We may not be able to see ourselves posing this way with our siblings, but does that mean that there is something sinister happening when someone else does it?
European (even Britons) have very different views to nudity, sex, sexuality etc. Needless to say they are more comfortable with then it is in the US.
Thanks for bringing up this point Motti, you are right nudity is seen in a much different light.
"Every element of this image is making the Internet uncomfortable, causing a back and forth about its presence." The total number of likes & comments on those tweets is 8. I see this way too often on articles (not just here) where 'the Internet is up in arms' over something. How long did you have to search to find these three accounts? And if there truly is an Internet uprising, why not use a more popular account to show this?
I am soooo happy that when I started out one of the first things i did was get a good set of pay and test shooting contracts done.
What goes in the contract stays in the contract...
2 models that are sisters... been around one another their whole lives... either they agree todo the shot or not.
Depressing that other people who do not have all the facts are now dragging this onto their oh so holy moral pedestal.
The latent landscape photographer in me is awakening.
The photo doesn't bother me at all. It's a strange pose but not sexual as some suggest, in my view. The women are adults, agreed to the pose and agreed to it's release. American Puritanism is often way too sensationalist and sensitive to the modern world.
What it does do, however, is remind me of there Benneton ads of the 80s and 90s which had nothing to do with their products but kept them in the public the so people visited the shops. How many people are now aware of Vouge who gave no thought to them before? It's good marketing, if nothing else.
I think everyone who is “offended” by the image need to take a step back and relax. If this were a pic of a man and one of them, it would have been labeled racy because they were naked but more people would have found it less offensive.
If it were one of the sisters and another woman it would have also be racy but maybe considered more empowering because it could have symbolized same sex love or it could have been considered pornographic. If it were two men people again would have probably said the same thing
Either way people who find it wrong are only projecting their own self insicurities onto the image. Had it been just one of them the same people would have found something wrong there too.
For those people out there who are siblings,you can’t tell me that growning up your parents didn’t put you and your sibling in the bath together so you guys could bathe and play with toys in the tub. You see this everywhere.
So why is it so wrong that two grown adults who are siblings do the same thing for a photo? I think it shows their bond and love for one another.
The pose is to suggest closeness if you post them apart it would not have the same close relationship feeling. Sister love and protection. It’s not sexual in nature at all.
The arm reaching back to hold on to the foot is a little out of place. It just looks like they didn’t know what to do with the arm but that’s just a technical point. I would’ve had her probably curl her arm into her own vest while they’re still leaning into each other.
Just like any other form of art you can’t please everyone. You’re going to get people that love it and people that hate it. That’s what art is meant to do is bring emotion out, but in some cases when people can’t see the good in something they may have bigger problems than just the image.
If you want puplicity at the moment - shoot naked famous people and retouch them like hell ;)
True that my friend
funny, it's look like they're was obliged to do this shot. Or it is a stolen shot...
They agreed this photo! So where's the problem???
Funny also because a single naked lady (NSFW or not) is art but two are perversion. I think that the real problem is that the hypocritical people has too much freedom to talk.
Would Helmut Newton or Herb Ritts survive in current times ?
Be careful. Someone is going to look them up and demand that all their work be blotted from the history of photography.
I think there is an issue today in that we are going backwards in our liberalism. Which is not good. Take a look at this article. An art gallery in the UK is removing a 19th Century painting by John William Waterhouse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/what-to-see/manchester-art-gallerys-metoo...
I totally agree with you. After reading the telegraph article I actually sat down and wrote an email to the curator in question and cc:'ed her boss as well. For clarity here is the body of the Email:
To: c.gannaway@manchester.gov.uk
Cc: a.wallace@manchester.gov.uk
Dear Claire,
I am shocked and deeply saddened to read of your stance with respect
to an historical work of art from the respected Artist JW Waterhouse.
A work of art should stand on its own merits and not be judged by a
newer generations morality unless the image glorifies an absolute
taboo theme ie., ethnic cleansing.
I would ask you to reconsider your choice of profession as you seem
to come up short with respect to a "curators" job requirements one
of which is too have a sense of whats actually right and not what
appeases an in-vogue and in some respects over correction of todays
morality.
It is your job to stand for whats right for the world of art, whether
that be modern art or the art produced and toiled over by earlier
generations of artists.
I have looked at the work in question and discussed with a mixed
gender, ethnic heritage and people of different faith group of
friends/contacts and the general consensus/corum was that you are
censoring a work of art.
You have become a censor and that is not the job of a curator.
After this action I would not donate to Manchester Art Gallery.
Iain Lea
I just copy Glen "The only thing I find weird are people that try to exact high moral standards on our works"
I see nothing wrong with it. Be it sisters or brothers.
About the fuzz: much ado about nothing..
About the picture: too much about arms and legs..
If they weren't sisters then we wouldn't be getting half of the hulls-balloo we're seeing. We'd have the recurring argument of over sexualizing women along with the new #metoo movement. Their facial expressions area very easily considered sultry and the look girls give their boys when sex is on the horizon. So, yeah, I can understand the reactions. Life moves on.
Hey, I got some lenses to clean, images to process, and ...
Meh. Overblown just to troll for "outrage." I suppose folks see what they want to see in a photograph. That personal perspective is a bit of the point in artwork. Didn't think about it as particularly sexually suggestive 'til others mentioned it.
It's a beautiful and fantastic picture. Steven Meisel is fabulous. That said, this is not a fashion picture, it's a nude.
For all those who say things like, “being naked is not sexualizing,” or, “nothing wrong with nudity,” I agree one hundred percent.
For those who think this image is sexual, I agree one hundred percent.
When I look at the mood, the expressions, the pose,… it is very sexual. Two naked women in an embrace is not necessarily sexual; …but this is. …And just because two adult females got paid to, and agreed to, getting shot this way, does not mean that it is an image of empowerment of women. We have no idea if they did what they wanted to do, only that they did what they were paid to do.
But that aside…. This is a photography channel, so let me judge it as a photograph, a work of art.
In my opinion, it is too mechanical, not well done. Hard, dramatic lines are mixed with curved, sensual lines, but not in a good way. The expressions on the faces look manufactured, sort of a, “we are just relaxing here with each other, thank you for coming along,” mixed with a, “I'm so bored, I don't know what to do,” look.
The poses themselves look quite unnatural, and uncomfortable, as if they were attempting to get into a more pleasurable configuration before the viewer interrupted their ‘alone time’. It does not look like an embrace, nor a hug, nor any other pose of affection, but pure, sexual aggressiveness, yet not in an attractive way.
Whether they are twins, sisters, roommates, best friends, or total strangers is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. I think the image is below the quality standard of Vogue. Better images of naked women embracing each other? Yes!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DU47h2hVQAAI12o.jpg:large
http://blog.peter-coulson.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Milu_0191.jpg
I could talk about Sally Mann; I never thought any —okay, maybe one— of her images were sexual, and had no problem with her naked children. I never thought they were inappropriate. On the other hand, I never liked any of her work. They were just not my cup of tea. I always found something or somethings in her images as distractions, and her images never spoke to me. They looked like snapshots, but the nudity of her children was never the issue.
I sort of feel the same way here, but not really. I feel this image is definitely sexual, is definitely posed, and studio shot. My problem is not with nudity, nor nude women embracing, nor sisters embracing while nude. I don't even have a problem with art being sexual; I just do not think this particular image is good art.
That is my opinion. Thank you for asking, Gabrielle.