so, photography is a new art medium, but artists have been in LOVE with depictions of death since cavemen drew on walls. renaissance art is chock full of it - and it's shocking, stunning, arresting. women look like they have no agency, but they make beautiful (submission, dainty, obedient, pure, religious) corpses. talking about art using death to create heightened emotion is absolutely *nothing* new... the *kind* of death the slideshow demonstrates here is a whole nother question. are we uncomfortable with death in art period, or just violent crime death? #deadmodels
@miss.terious: I think we're uncomfortable with death being used to flog us a dress or a pair of boots.
Fashion photography is not art, not in the strictest sense, because it has a commericial endevour beyond trying to sell you the image itself - it's trying to get you to pony up your hard earned cash for an item.
I don't care about depictions of death in art; I care when the violent murder of a woman is seen as a good way to get me to buy a new pair of jeans. #deadmodels
@jenrobe: Since when did works of art begin losing artistic value due to their intrinsic commercial motivations?
The frescos of the Sistine Chapel were only commissioned to attract more visitors and feed the Pope's sense of grandeur. Even Michelangelo resented his work there, but hey, he needed the money.
@FADviral: I think that could well be a good argument, that the Sistine Chapel was a commercial work, although it had a religious context and was created arguably by someone who believed in that faith.
However, Michelangelo was pissed about the commission because he was already working on sculptures for the Pope's tomb, not because he hated the church. And then he demanded to be able to do the work the way his vision told him to, not according to what the Church initially invisaged.
I didn't mean to suggest they lost their "artistic" value, but that there is clearly a divide between a work being created for its own self (art for art's sake) and to sell stuff. #deadmodels
#1 is kind of funny, death by roller skating around a mansion is ridiculous enough to not be gruesome. Just about everything else made me squirm though. #deadmodels
I guess no one ever told the photographers that at some point every photographer shoots a dead girl in couture and thinks they're a freaking genius for 15 minutes. #deadmodels
Hmm...I think it's a little hypocritical of us to get our panties in a twist about this, when every third article on Jez is rape this captivity that. We're fascinated by it as a society - hell, we're fascinated by it as a blog! Yes, the teddy bear is upsetting. So is reality.
I'm not saying it's all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when art imitates life. #deadmodels
@Seize: Hypocritical, how? The one offends me because of the reality of the other. Glamorized, sexy images of dead-eyed women stuffed in car trunks, scenes arranged to look like sex workers killed by clients, we're surrounded by fictional images of sexy male violence against women. Sex workers really are sought out for rape and murder, men really do take women out to the woods and kill them. Women really are treated as disposable, interchangeable, valuable only in our usefulness to men. The images reinforce that. You can't reflect society without contributing to it. #deadmodels
Generally speaking, feminism isn't always about choice; many women will opt toward the disempowering option if it benefits them on a personal level (we must always consider the difference between personal choice and the public good). In this particular scenario, the models had to choose between participating in these offensive shoots and losing their income.
There's this thinking that great art must be dark, which I don't agree with. Disturbing things may be thought-provoking, but at the end of the day, they don't make you feel any better about the world. It's also incredibly easy to produce something dark and cheat your way into profundity for being basely shocking. #deadmodels
Wonder if we would feel differently if these were images taken by a woman and sold as "thought-provoking art"? Does the message change when we sell it in a different category of media? #deadmodels
@Tiger Lourdes: Zombie Hunter: Good point. I don't know why all this reminded me of that lady who got 40 abortions "in the name of art". I guess "art" and fashion justify everything.. #deadmodels
@yvanehtnioj: but then it's not the image itself it's how it's being used that we should be concerned with. Saying the image itself is harmful doesn't really get to the point.
I get itchy when we start saying the image is offensive when it's really the context of that image. Very different. #deadmodels
@yvanehtnioj: but then it's not the image itself it's how it's being used that we should be concerned with. Saying the image itself is harmful doesn't really get to the point.
I get itchy when we start saying the image is offensive when it's really the context of that image. Very different. #deadmodels
@Tiger Lourdes: Zombie Hunter: Image and implication are terms that are used interchangeably in photo shoots all the time, because the image itself is the medium for the message. So if the artist is saying "Wow women who are victims of violence are beautiful, and look: even better in my new jacket", it's different than an artist who explicitly says that they're trying to provoke thought on the topic of depictions of violence against women in mainstream media and advertising.
You can't paint the critique of the piece with the same brush that you use on the piece being critiqued (in your example, at least). #deadmodels
@yvanehtnioj: my point is that you CAN, and I think should in some way, critique the images from both sides if you are going to judge them on the outcome equally.
If you are going to say that fashion can't excuse the impact of an image based on it's immediate purpose (selling clothes) then we, as critics, can't ignore what the exact same image in another context could have a completely different impact.
Can't we learn to use fashion as thought provoking art in a positive way? #deadmodels
@Tiger Lourdes: Zombie Hunter: The thing is there is a fine line between "thought provoking art" and "tasteless crap done in the name of a so-called art". #deadmodels
@Tiger Lourdes: Zombie Hunter: I don't understand what "judge them on the outcome equally" means. The outcome of a feminist artist selling thought-provoking art (thought is provoked by small number of consumers) and the outcome of mainstream advertisers using Hot Dead Chick as their go-to image to sell any and everything (violence against women is glamorized, huge number of consumers are further desensitized, many real-life victims of violence are likely traumatized) are very different. Input (artist intention) affects outcome, so how can you judge them equally?
I may be completely misreading your point. #deadmodels
@yvanehtnioj: I'm talking about the difference between viewing something objectively and subjectively. If you are imbibing a meaning into something for one reason then what is the reason it doesn't carry that message in another?
Are we mad because it's used to sell clothes or are we really mad because of the image. Yes, we can be angry at both. But, if a feminist artist does it to make a point about selling clothes with violence but then sells the piece does that make it ok? #deadmodels
@Tiger Lourdes: Zombie Hunter: If you are imbibing a meaning into something for one reason then what is the reason it doesn't carry that message in another?
We're back at the beginning here. Context does matter. It seems to me that what you're implying is that the viewer provides all of the context for a piece of art, and that the artist / reason it was commissioned / method of dissemination / purpose of a piece of art don't matter. Yes, every viewer brings her own experiences to bear when viewing art, and that makes each interaction with art slightly different for different people. But all of the other things I mentioned (context) also exist, and are an important part of the piece. The pieces don't exist in a vacuum. Context does matter.
The picture might be objectively objectionable in both scenarios, but the context of the first makes it worse. #deadmodels
@Tiger Lourdes: Zombie Hunter: For me and I think for a lot of us, if a woman artist did the exact same thing just to provoke debate, no, it would not be different. It would be cheap, easy provocation exploiting violence against women. If there were some subversion apparent in the work, well then it wouldn't be what it is now, would it?
Just for fun, I'd like to talk about the OP, instead of the "what if the sexes were reversed!!!!11" diversion that always gets brought up here. The context for these images, as they were created, is of an industry that seeks to make its customers unhappy with aspirational models, and excludes a huge segment of the population by demanding that they shrink to fit the product. It's an industry that exploits an endless series of young models with insane labor practices, scant pay, and rampant sexual assault. So many designers have talked about women as disposable, as sex objects, as over the hill when they're out of their teens, that it's little wonder that the fashion industry continually makes use of violence against women in ads and editorials. #deadmodels
@yvanehtnioj: No, I'm not implying anything. I'm asking if it makes a difference where the piece comes from then why is not questionable when used in the context of art for a non retail commercial use?
Personally, I think that if an image glamorizes (positively or negatively) violence against a person and one finds that questionable it carries through to however that piece is created or sold. #deadmodels
@femme-bot: 50% off WHERE? I want that green dress.
Do you see this as the only other option? Frankly, violent death images in fashion editorials and advertising are boring. They're both boring and offensive because they are unoriginal and because they exploit the real pandemic of abuse and violence against women. #deadmodels
Don't buy them. That's what I do. But then it's easy for me since I think couture is usually ugly and too expensive - not to mention not in my size. ; )
If I ever have enough money I will call/write them and tell them why they aren't getting any of it. #deadmodels
Also, writing "high fashion" on the ad itself is the advertising equivalent of proving your classiness by going around telling everyone how classy you are. #deadmodels
argh, I might be a little behind on this, but this is part of what annoys me about Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi" music video. It flashes the fashionable pictures of dead girls, then in the end it never explains what they have to do with anything!! #deadmodels
@Penny: Exactly! When Jezebel commented on it, I actually mentioned how much I hated that all the models were dead, with lingering, loving camera attention. And I was told off because I wasn't sophisticated enough to recognize satire. #deadmodels
I admittedly don't know a lot about "high fashion". My idea of fashion is limited to JCrew and Target, but I still feel the need to give my opinion on these types of photoshoots. Whenever I see these types of shoots in magazines, or on billboards, I can't help but roll my eyes. It seems like the fashion industry tries SO HARD to be "edgy" or "provocative" and dark, that they come off looking foolish and mentally ill. Really the juxtaposition bullshit is so played out, and really, what the fuck point are you trying to prove placing your clothes on a seemingly dead body? The people behind these shoots must ask themselves "Do I feel sick to my stomach after looking at these pictures?" "Yes. Success!" "Have I surely offended a large portion of the population?" "Yes. Success!"
Give me fucking jumpingmoddlewholookshappy any day, and take your blackface/deadwomen/molestationhinting photoshoots and shove them up your ass.
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
Fashion photography is not art, not in the strictest sense, because it has a commericial endevour beyond trying to sell you the image itself - it's trying to get you to pony up your hard earned cash for an item.
I don't care about depictions of death in art; I care when the violent murder of a woman is seen as a good way to get me to buy a new pair of jeans. #deadmodels
11/03/09
The frescos of the Sistine Chapel were only commissioned to attract more visitors and feed the Pope's sense of grandeur. Even Michelangelo resented his work there, but hey, he needed the money.
Not art in its strictest sense then? #deadmodels
11/03/09
However, Michelangelo was pissed about the commission because he was already working on sculptures for the Pope's tomb, not because he hated the church. And then he demanded to be able to do the work the way his vision told him to, not according to what the Church initially invisaged.
I didn't mean to suggest they lost their "artistic" value, but that there is clearly a divide between a work being created for its own self (art for art's sake) and to sell stuff. #deadmodels
11/02/09
All that death really makes me want boots! No, wait... #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
They're hilarious and awk and funny and intriguing.
Why yes, I do have a morbid fascination with death and crime scenes, how funny you should ask.
Also, I really like the K-Fed slasher pic for the laugh factor. #deadmodels
11/02/09
I'm not saying it's all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when art imitates life. #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
I'm generally very blase about violence in video games and TV, but I neglected to see this as the part of rape culture that it is.
My bad. #deadmodels
11/03/09
11/02/09
Lunchtime Poll: Seriously, has anyone here ever seen a crime-scene photo and thought "cute shoes!" ? #deadmodels
11/02/09
There's this thinking that great art must be dark, which I don't agree with. Disturbing things may be thought-provoking, but at the end of the day, they don't make you feel any better about the world. It's also incredibly easy to produce something dark and cheat your way into profundity for being basely shocking. #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
I get itchy when we start saying the image is offensive when it's really the context of that image. Very different. #deadmodels
11/02/09
I get itchy when we start saying the image is offensive when it's really the context of that image. Very different. #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
You can't paint the critique of the piece with the same brush that you use on the piece being critiqued (in your example, at least). #deadmodels
11/02/09
If you are going to say that fashion can't excuse the impact of an image based on it's immediate purpose (selling clothes) then we, as critics, can't ignore what the exact same image in another context could have a completely different impact.
Can't we learn to use fashion as thought provoking art in a positive way? #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
I may be completely misreading your point. #deadmodels
11/02/09
Are we mad because it's used to sell clothes or are we really mad because of the image. Yes, we can be angry at both. But, if a feminist artist does it to make a point about selling clothes with violence but then sells the piece does that make it ok? #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
We're back at the beginning here. Context does matter. It seems to me that what you're implying is that the viewer provides all of the context for a piece of art, and that the artist / reason it was commissioned / method of dissemination / purpose of a piece of art don't matter. Yes, every viewer brings her own experiences to bear when viewing art, and that makes each interaction with art slightly different for different people. But all of the other things I mentioned (context) also exist, and are an important part of the piece. The pieces don't exist in a vacuum. Context does matter.
The picture might be objectively objectionable in both scenarios, but the context of the first makes it worse. #deadmodels
11/02/09
Just for fun, I'd like to talk about the OP, instead of the "what if the sexes were reversed!!!!11" diversion that always gets brought up here. The context for these images, as they were created, is of an industry that seeks to make its customers unhappy with aspirational models, and excludes a huge segment of the population by demanding that they shrink to fit the product. It's an industry that exploits an endless series of young models with insane labor practices, scant pay, and rampant sexual assault. So many designers have talked about women as disposable, as sex objects, as over the hill when they're out of their teens, that it's little wonder that the fashion industry continually makes use of violence against women in ads and editorials. #deadmodels
11/02/09
Personally, I think that if an image glamorizes (positively or negatively) violence against a person and one finds that questionable it carries through to however that piece is created or sold. #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
At least it's more interesting than this. I'd rather be offended than bored. #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
Do you see this as the only other option? Frankly, violent death images in fashion editorials and advertising are boring. They're both boring and offensive because they are unoriginal and because they exploit the real pandemic of abuse and violence against women. #deadmodels
11/02/09
If I ever have enough money I will call/write them and tell them why they aren't getting any of it. #deadmodels
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
Give me fucking jumpingmoddlewholookshappy any day, and take your blackface/deadwomen/molestationhinting photoshoots and shove them up your ass.