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.
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.
Yes, it is. Because folks talk for other people. If this two sisters agreed to pose naked together why somebody have to say that it is "perversion" and they shouldn't accept this shot?
Too much freedom to talk because today, social first, people talk like they have the absolute reason against the choise of the others one.
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.
Thank you SOO much for your input on this, I greatly enjoyed reading it. I was just reading a new discussion on Sally Mann the other day. It's all very interesting, and there is definitely no one and done answer to any of this.
People confusing nudity with sex. I definitely wouldn't take this shot, but at the end of the day it's two adults voluntarily creating an artistic image. If you don't like it, don't pose nude with your own siblings.
20min later and I'm still trying to figure out why one would want to write an article about the two most common things on the internet: images and toxic comments.
Based on the content of those twitter accounts, it's nice to see the left and the right coming together on their outrage.
The left has gone so far left that they've now become the right. ;-)
Perfect picture. Congrats to models and photographer!
much ado about nothing.........
Absolutely, love this saying lol ;)
People think too much. It's a cool image. The posing could have been a bit different in my mind, however, there's nothing wrong with it.
Nice pic.
The bottom half of the image looks strange to my eye, like it was a wide angle lens that was shot upwards from under the eye line making the legs and feet look oversized, and the heads a little undersized. Makes the feet look like the most prominent feature of the shot. As for the content... shock piece... we're talking about it, so it worked.
This is the kind of censorship I talked about. As artists, I believe we should all reject this madness.
On a social level, this kind of principal-less movement kept pumping out puritanical rules that interfere with art and humanity has to be rejected. We need to setup or return to a standard that we can follow regarding decency, and the standard should be universal instead of based on identity such as gender or color of one's skin.
World you pose your sisters or daughters of the same age this way?
Social media. These whispers from the prudish would’ve otherwise only be shared blushingly during a coffee break, never to be having had any significance or impact. Now everyone’s a hero.