Monday, February 20, 2006
Rant: Vanity Fair ... Porn or Poetry?
You can't Miss (or can you?)
This week I want to talk about the March Vanity Fair issue. Every year this is the 'Hollywood' Issue, where fantastic photographers like Annie Leibovitz get to shine showing off her amazing portrait skills. This year, controversy was stirred up before the issue even came out, when Rachel McAdams apparently walked out of the cover shoot because she did not want to get naked with Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson. Why would the three starlets get naked in the first place? Two words: Tom Ford. He is the controversy behind the issue, and he is also on the cover (filling in when McAdams walked out)
The special editor for this issue, Editor Graydon Carter gave Ford full reign over the Hollywood portrait section, and Ford proceeded to deliver a portfolio that will not soon be forgotten. His arranging is seen all over the spreads, and the pictures are either of beautiful girls without clothes on, or devil-may-care men surrounded by naked girls.
Here is George Clooney..I get the picture, but why do all of the lackeys around him have to be women in their underwear? It reminds me of pictures of purgatory, and I see where they were going with this--but would the picture change at all if it had been both men and women in the picture?
Here is Tophur Grace's portrait, that lovable kid from that '70s show, definitely shedding his good-boy image. I've showed this to some people, and most think it's just a funny picture, but I think it almost goes too far.
Even though Ford is only on the cover, his vision is seen through the entire photo spread. Apparently his theme was 'the human body and its glory' or something like that, but in all honesty, it was about SEX. I have no problem with nudity, and think many of the spreads were tastefully done. The problem is that when you combine ALL the nudity together, I think the art is lost, and all that is left is that sick feeling that you've accidently been reading a porn magazine. I suggest that everyone go out and strum through the portraits, the magazine is $4.50, but I don't know if I want everyone buying this. It might encourage VF to try it again.
So what do you think, is this tasteful? Is it too much?
This week I want to talk about the March Vanity Fair issue. Every year this is the 'Hollywood' Issue, where fantastic photographers like Annie Leibovitz get to shine showing off her amazing portrait skills. This year, controversy was stirred up before the issue even came out, when Rachel McAdams apparently walked out of the cover shoot because she did not want to get naked with Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson. Why would the three starlets get naked in the first place? Two words: Tom Ford. He is the controversy behind the issue, and he is also on the cover (filling in when McAdams walked out)
The special editor for this issue, Editor Graydon Carter gave Ford full reign over the Hollywood portrait section, and Ford proceeded to deliver a portfolio that will not soon be forgotten. His arranging is seen all over the spreads, and the pictures are either of beautiful girls without clothes on, or devil-may-care men surrounded by naked girls.
Here is George Clooney..I get the picture, but why do all of the lackeys around him have to be women in their underwear? It reminds me of pictures of purgatory, and I see where they were going with this--but would the picture change at all if it had been both men and women in the picture?
Here is Tophur Grace's portrait, that lovable kid from that '70s show, definitely shedding his good-boy image. I've showed this to some people, and most think it's just a funny picture, but I think it almost goes too far.
Even though Ford is only on the cover, his vision is seen through the entire photo spread. Apparently his theme was 'the human body and its glory' or something like that, but in all honesty, it was about SEX. I have no problem with nudity, and think many of the spreads were tastefully done. The problem is that when you combine ALL the nudity together, I think the art is lost, and all that is left is that sick feeling that you've accidently been reading a porn magazine. I suggest that everyone go out and strum through the portraits, the magazine is $4.50, but I don't know if I want everyone buying this. It might encourage VF to try it again.
So what do you think, is this tasteful? Is it too much?
// posted by teresasanserif @ 11:18 AM 
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
