Were these T (NYTimes Fashion Mag) Pictures Inappropriate?

[Freudian_Slit]

Here’s a Times article about it.

The pictures were taken by Paolo Roversi, a world-famous fashion photographer. They feature Ali Michael, a 17-year-old model who looks younger, posing semi-nude. One sequence shows her “wearing” a $3,890 blue taffeta coat by John Galliano. I say “wearing” because the coat is bunched around her waist so that you can’t really tell what it is. She has her back to the camera and nothing else on. In one image, she is turned slightly, showing the outline of a bare breast, out of focus.

From Broadsheet on Salon.com:

It’s entirely unsurprising that they didn’t register these sexualized photos of a seminaked (not to mention shockingly thin) 17-year-old, who easily passes as 12, as even potentially out of bounds – this has been the fashion industry’s calling card for some time. T Magazine is about as mainstream as couture gets, and its editors are simply trying to play catch-up with the industry’s boundary pushers. The upside here is that, judging by the reader response, the Times misjudged its audience; maybe the relative mainstream doesn’t want in on the high-fashion echo chamber.

The pictures are linked to in these articles, but I’m not sure if it’s kosher for me to provide a link to them. They’re easily found on T’s website.

I didn’t see anything all that bad about them. Granted, the girl is seventeen, but a year later, even if she doesn’t look too different, it’s suddenly okay? They really don’t look all that different from other fashion pics I’ve seen. (And they looked a helluva lot better than those Terry Richardson Lee jeans ads.)

I also didn’t think she looked 12 myself. She did look young, but I don’t think she looked child-porn young. Is it worse to show pictures of a person who looks younger than she is? Maybe I’m biased–I’m of age but I can pass for much younger as well. I don’t think anyone who finds the girl in the pictures attractive is a pedophile, either…I think it would be pretty natural to find her attractive. But the Broadsheet editors seemed to think that it was oh so wrong.

Do you guys find these inappropriate? Borderline inappropriate? not at all inappropriate?

[ParentalAdvisory]

I checked out the photos. So… that’s it? I agree with your sentiments exactly.

This is the land of the Jannet Jackson boob scare.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Cafe Society.

[Cat_Fight]

At 17, in a model agent friend’s words, she’s already ‘over the hill.’ Though avoiding this problem in the future is quite simple- don’t let under-18’s model adult clothing. It’s not like the world would suffer without them.

I find the fact that she looks like a malnourished 13-year-old worse more offensive a wee bit of underfed sideboob (and this has nothing to do with who’s ‘naturally thin’ or not, it’s more the fact that they specifically chose her to model and styled her to look that way), though I’ve always found it odd that fashion models don’t get flak for regular nudity while Playmates are often equated with strippers.

[silenus]

Somebody feed that girl a cheeseburger and fries!

If you get off on those photos, you can get off on anything. Not innappropriate at all.

[jacquilynne]

I think they’re not pornography, though the inclusion of the close up of her face trying to do a sexy face is to my mind the one that makes the set somewhat problematic – far more so than the near nudes.

I don’t understand why seeing them would make you want to buy any of the things she’s wearing. They all look ridiculous on her. She looks like an 8 year old playing dressup with her mommy’s things. And mommy is apparently in the circus.

So, to summarize photos==laughably ugly but not pornographic.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I find myself entirely unaroused by the pretentious camera work and would likely have checked out the latest Vogue for more interesting pictorials.

[jackelope]

My eyes glaze over when I’m confronted with a fashion spread. This wouldn’t have been unusual enough to catch my attention.

“fashion spread… skinny chick making pouty face… is there football on TV today?.. bare skin: red alert! attention!.. argh, side-boob only, move on… hmm, I think I forgot to wash my hair in the shower this morning… stupid girl has jacket tied around her waist… I sure do like ginger ale…”

[Lucky_13]

I just saw the photos in question, and it seems like a big deal over nothing to me. I’m more offended by the word “gallerina” used to describe the young women who work the front desk at NYC art galleries, and even that is relatively mild recreational outrage.

[treis]

I can’t get the images to load. Are these any places besides the T page?

[treis]

Nevermind. For some reason they decided to load.

Much ado about nothing if you ask me. Except for the fact that the girl wouldn’t be out of place in a photo of concentration camp survivors.

[rhythmonly]

I’m not saying that she looks half-starved, or would even resemble a zipper if she happened to stand sideways, but do you think there’s a serious chance of her changing colors if she accidentally drank some kool aid?

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

@silenus

Somebody feed that girl a cheeseburger and fries!

If you get off on those photos, you can get off on anything. Not innappropriate at all.

If you get off the those photos, you can get off to photos of a cheeseburger and fries.

I don’t see it as inappropriate, although it does nothing to promote the jacket as stylish fashion. So artsy photo, whatever, lousy product promotion.

[Acsenray]

I don’t see anything remotely sexual in those photos.

[OtakuLoki]

The problem I have is that while I don’t believe that the images are pornographic, they do seem to chosen to highlight and exaggerate the youth of the model. If these pictures were taken by Joe Blow and developed at a local photography shop, I wouldn’t be surprised to see child pornography cops called for them.

So, are the images acceptable only because we know that they were taken by a well-known fashion photographer? If I saw the pictures, without the explanation of the circumstances, I’d be a bit squicked by them. Not aroused, but wondering whether I was seeing evidence of something abusive.

And, given that, I’m not going to agree with the majority of the posters who are saying that this is a nothing issue. Criminal, no. In poor taste, I think so.

[NightRabbit]

I love how those are taken by a “famous fashion photographer” and a “rising star” model. I don’t see anything special, original, or noteworthy in them. I love how the Times also refers to them as “edgy”. That’s not edgy, it’s same old same old- a tired, boring attempt at a particular type of fashion photography that’s already showing its age. Let’s do something NEW before rushing to call it “edgy”, mmkay?

Meanwhile, the Times is trying a little too hard to be something it’s not- it’ll never be on the forefront of fashion, it’ll never engineer a trend before Vogue and W get to it first and, even if it could, it doesn’t have the audience to appreciate it. Uninspired photos printed in the sunday “fashion magazine” of a metro-area newspaper that’s barely keeping itself afloat in the market as is? I’d call that “inappropriate”.

[mangeorge]

@Cat Fight

At 17, in a model agent friend’s words, she’s already ‘over the hill.’ Though avoiding this problem in the future is quite simple- don’t let under-18’s model adult clothing. It’s not like the world would suffer without them.

I find the fact that she looks like a malnourished 13-year-old worse more offensive a wee bit of underfed sideboob (and this has nothing to do with who’s ‘naturally thin’ or not, it’s more the fact that they specifically chose her to model and styled her to look that way), though I’ve always found it odd that fashion models don’t get flak for regular nudity while Playmates are often equated with strippers.

Because playmates are sexy, but fashion models aren’t? (Generalities, yes)
Take the object of this thread for example. She’s not ugly at all, but she surely isn’t sexually appealing. She looks like any 11-19 year-old, undernourished, scrawny young girl. I hope her handlers aren’t screwing up her health. It’s pretty obvious to me that they’re appealing to young girls more than men. They’re all exploiting her.
She does have some boatanchor feet on her though.
Peace,
mangeorge

[photopat]

Meh. They’re not inappropriate. I like the collage of close ups but otherwise they’re not too exciting either.

I could do better.
Of course, I don’t have a studio in Paris. Grumble grumble grumble

[Frosted_Glass]

I really don’t see what the big deal is here. I think someone should hand these people a fashion magazine for comparison.

[Justin_Bailey]

I honestly couldn’t tell what I was looking at it in half of them. In the ones that I could she was just a girl standing around wrapped in a tarp. Note to fashion photographers:

Having a semi-naked girl (even one who looks about 14) stand with her back to the camera is not “edgy.”