Mortonovich wrote:
I  forget the term (cognitive distortion?) but the deal is you can tell the same joke to three different people and one won't get it, one will laugh and one will be offended.

The editorial in question is obviously ripe for interpretation and some of it will not be positive. But when I see things like "the photographer hates women", I tend to think the person making that remark is the one with issues.

But the phd didn't say the photographer hates women....

Mortonovich wrote:
I  forget the term (cognitive distortion?) but the deal is you can tell the same joke to three different people and one won't get it, one will laugh and one will be offended.

The editorial in question is obviously ripe for interpretation and some of it will not be positive. But when I see things like "the photographer hates women", I tend to think the person making that remark is the one with issues.

edit: "These pictures look like they were created by people who hate women,” Patricia Phelan"

Gianantonio wrote:
But the phd didn't say the photographer hates women....

Corrected. Thank you.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I'm often confused by the, relatively recent notion when it comes to art, that any chosen depiction by an artists means that the artist is somehow in favor of it. 

Satire seems to be lost today.  So is Reductio ad absurdum. 

So is, apparently, commentary, and it appears to be especially lost if a juxtaposition is used to try and make an even greater point...

I don't know if that's what the artist is trying to say in these pictures or not, but he/she very well could be. 

Depicting the fact that young, beautiful woman are often treated as disposable objects in our society, does not mean that you are for same. 

When did we become so simplistic in our thinking when it comes to art?

Many find these images to be unsettling.  The PhD in question found them unsettling enough to begin an intellectual discourse on the subject.  Seems to me this might have been a very effective form of art.  Far more effective than what many would identify as being more "supportive" of the issue.

Remember, it's advertising...

Gianantonio wrote:
Remember, it's advertising...

Actually, no, it's an editorial, which, while containing aspects of advertising, historically is as much, if not more, an artistic reflection of the artist's perspective.  Editorial fashion, while sometimes vapid, is often more often than not the last, best bastion of art photography today.

To assume that just because this is editorial fashion means that the artist is completely devoid of any artistic understanding or sentiment is simply wrong.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Actually, no, it's an editorial, which, while containing aspects of advertising, historically is as much, if not more, an artistic reflection of the artist's perspective.  Editorial fashion, while sometimes vapid, is often more often than not the last, best bastion of art photography today.

To assume that just because this is editorial fashion means that the artist is completely devoid of any artistic understanding or sentiment is simply wrong.

I never said the artist(s) were completely devoid of any artistic understanding...  I just told you to remember it is advertising (even if it is non-traditional).

Caitin Bre  wrote:
...My point is she is making a assumption that the images are created by woman haters. Rather than using her educated intellect to give a true statement, she fires off from her personal perspective.
...

Don't we all fire off from personal perspective, or at least perceive from it. The fact that she has a PhD is secondary to the fact that she is a person responding to a feeling she received from viewing art which she perceived showing women as secondary, used and discarded. If that was the reaction the artist wanted they he succeeded, if not, then maybe still a success because this caused a strong reaction and convo too.

A success.

Jen

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Actually, no, it's an editorial, which, while containing aspects of advertising, historically is as much, if not more, an artistic reflection of the artist's perspective.  Editorial fashion, while sometimes vapid, is often more often than not the last, best bastion of art photography today.

To assume that just because this is editorial fashion means that the artist is completely devoid of any artistic understanding or sentiment is simply wrong.

Sorry - but editorial work in a magazine is a long way from being  "art". It may be clever - it may be aesthetically pleasing. It's not art.

Virtual Studio wrote:

Sorry - but editorial work in a magazine is a long way from being  "art". It may be clever - it may be aesthetically pleasing. It's not art.

I think editorials can be art. I don't disagree that this one is art. But it is also advertising. Even being art, the phd has the right to comment on it from the perspective of her field of expertise and place the work in a broader context.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Actually, no, it's an editorial, which, while containing aspects of advertising, historically is as much, if not more, an artistic reflection of the artist's perspective.  Editorial fashion, while sometimes vapid, is often more often than not the last, best bastion of art photography today.

To assume that just because this is editorial fashion means that the artist is completely devoid of any artistic understanding or sentiment is simply wrong.

Virtual Studio wrote:
Sorry - but editorial work in a magazine is a long way from being  "art". It may be clever - it may be aesthetically pleasing. It's not art.

Ridiculous. 

Look up Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Guy Bourdin, Jeanloup Sieff or Irving Penn for that matter.  Just because something is aesthetically pleasing, doesn't mean it isn't art (although there are many post-modernists would say it does).

Virtual Studio wrote:

Sorry - but editorial work in a magazine is a long way from being  "art". It may be clever - it may be aesthetically pleasing. It's not art.

Totally disagree

Caitin Bre  wrote:
I was reading an article about Interview Magazine's 'Pretty Wasted' Fashion Editorial.
https://www.yahoo.com/style/interview-m … 88498.html

It doesn't matter if I like the photos or not. I still believe that in any situation that the ability to recreate a image is a talent. The artist shouldn't be judged based on what the photo is about. They should be respected for their ability to capture the details.

I draw my attention to the statement by Patricia Phalen. Associate Professor of Media and Public Affairs
Who's comment was this.
“These pictures look like they were created by people who hate women,” Patricia Phelan, associate professor of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University tells Yahoo Style. “The media industries are notoriously sexist — in the content they create as well as the work environments to which women are subjected. These pictures reinforce the message of our culture:  human life is cheap, and women are merely props.”

WTF? To me it sounds like she hides behind her PHD to push a personal agenda. That sucks... Using her authority to fuel censorship?
She specializes in Politics and Popular Culture; Hollywood Television Production; Women in Media; Audience Research

This kind of crap upsets me very much. I don't know what more to say about it at the moment.
What do you think about it?

I think perhaps in this age of Political Correctness the most appropriate is a post regarding the original photos in Interview Magazine and I quote:

I say big KUDOS to the artist/photographer for taking such an artistic risk.
Fashion models in designer gowns are always posed the same. Here we see a different view. It puts a reality to even the rich world where rich fashionable people can act stupid and get drunk and pass out.

They still look great even passed out in the floor. LOL.
PS. for people who just have to find meaning in EVERYTHING, sometimes a rock….. is just a rock.

There are people who find "Racism" in every statement.  "Hate" in every speech. "Misogny" in any unflattering photo.

Time to cut the "PC" horsesh*t as far as I'm concerned.  I thought the set of photos was very creative and a refreshing departure from the conformist world.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

A lot of people take someone's net worth as a credential of a kind.

"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

Or

Since you are so rich, how come you're so stupid?

Michael Broughton wrote:
*facepalm*
some people wake up every morning just aching to be offended by some random harmless thing that they can twist and exaggerate to portray it as part of a sinister plot against their gender/race/religion/whatever because convincing themselves that they're victims and fighting back against some nebulous boogeyman gives their boring, spoiled, pointless suburban lives some meaning.

Yes there are people who are easily offended, and then there is 52% of the population, who literally make up the world, and yet if one of them speaks their mind the rest of the population including some of that 52% get offended and will verbally or physically attack them.

You may or may not know this, but the reality is that there is a great oppression on women all over the world, there is a war on women in most parts of that world. A woman with a PhD or any degree who speaks her mind will be more likely to be verbally or physically attacked than a man.

I've personally experience and witness this all the time, when a woman speaks her mind (and opinion or a fact from her education), an audience GETS offended.

Sandra Vixen wrote:

Yes there are people who are easily offended, and then there is 52% of the population, who literally make up the world, and yet if one of them speaks their mind the rest of the population including some of that 52% get offended and will verbally or physically attack them.

You may or may not know this, but the reality is that there is a great oppression on women all over the world, there is a war on women in most parts of that world. A woman with a PhD or any degree who speaks her mind will be more likely to be verbally or physically attacked than a man.

I've personally experience and witness this all the time, when a woman speaks her mind (and opinion or a fact from her education), an audience GETS offended.

I think many here can't see the problem you point out because they are part of the problem...

BillyVegas wrote:
"The death of a beautiful woman, is unquestionably the most poetical topic in the world." -Edgar Allan Poe (The Philosophy of Composition)

Indeed--and welcome to the 19th century...