Not seeing the big deal. Definitely nowhere near pornographic and not even any more exploitative than the usual pretentioid ‘artsy’ fashion photography. And the pretention is not borne out, either, as mentioned earlier; any ‘edge’ to it is safely dulled. If this is inappropriate, so’s half of would-be-avant fashion photography out there, whatever the model’s vital statistics.
Would it be inappropriate (or illegal) if it were, let’s say, me and my neighbor’s daughter?
If so, then yes. The fact that it’s a big corporation and a commercial venture doesn’t change its right-or-wrong-ness.
I don’t think parental consent plays a role in the question either.
These actually look fashion-ey.
Does anyone remember when Calvin Klein released those tv ads in the early 90s of the very young and blonde model-children talking in front of a camera against a wood-panelled basement wall. And they were demonstrating dancing or crumping and it was all very weird and whatnot? Those were sort of creepy child pornesque and were terribly controversial (for good reason…I don’t want to see wood panelling unless it’s on Freaks and Geeks…I mean CRIPES…spend some money on adverts Calvin Klein). These are just America’s Next Top Model-ish…seasons 1 & 2 maybe.
I don’t find the photos inappropriate from a sexual-content point-of-view, but there are a couple of things that bother me.
-
What are they selling? The picture in question (with the blurry partial-boob) is supposed to be “fashion” photography and you can’t even see the piece of clothing. What they’re selling appears to be a semi-nude child.
-
This is supposed to be professional photography?
All I know is that if these photos are inappropriate, we as a culture need to figure out how we can condone 20-somethings playing sexy teens on the TV or in movies yet become upset when sexy teens play themselves.
The more I dwell upon it, the more I wonder why. What is the value of hinting at nudity in such a young girl, whether the nudity and/or youth are real or imagined?
Why do parents allow their 12 year old girls dress so scantily?
Bullshit. It’s about everyday people who aren’t exposed to the fashion industry. The layout was purposely created to push the sexy edge, thus the inclusion of the half-drugged ‘sexy’ facial closeups. Look at the spread again, imagining it without those images. Oddly enough, without those images, I would bet that it would have registered differently to joe public, but when coupled with the coat image and the one where her crotch is hidden by her hand and a ribbon (which is hilariously credited to a designer). …
I will say these things: that she looks even younger than some of the girls in the ads/editorial in the glossies, that the rest of those image collections have been art directed the hell out of and with that amount of attention to detail, there was no way in which the up-play of her lolitaness couldn’t have been the subject of the conversation when the shoot was arranged.
Now to all who say that these images don’t turn you on, that is not the issue, since you are not pedophiles. The issue(s) are that they would/might appeal to someone who is into child porn, and secondly why is the fashion industry perpetuating the photo style. It’s unlikely that it could have been targeted to girls that young since how many 11-14 year old girls are that interested in haute couture and have thousands of dollars to fritter away on a jacket?
This is just an example of a frenzy of one-upmanship one sees sometimes around creatives. I know I’m in the minority, but my humble opinion says inappropriate.
I hate that sort of photo. It makes me sad.
But, then, I think of Brittaney Spears as an abuse victim, so go figure me, huh?
TrisShe looked young, and she looked too thin.
But my main line of thought looking at the photos was that I do not ‘get’ fashion photography in which you can’t see any clothes. I realize that high fashion clothes are supposed to be extreme; but this is one step further – photographs of unwearable high concept clothing bunched up in such a way that you can’t even tell what it is. I am probably lowbrow (actually, I know I am lowbrow), but it just seems stupid to me.
See above.
I have no opinion to offer about the appropriate/kiddie porn aspect, as I couldn’t get past the “these are horrifyingly ugly” reaction that I have to most pictures of anorexia.
Most of these kind of high-fashion, super-model photographs are creepy in the extreme. These are not much worse than others of their kind, although that is not much of a recommendation.
My response to the pictures of this emaciated child is not “I’d hit that”. More like “let’s insert a feeding tube, stat!”
Regards,
Shodan
So the whole of human society should be structured just because there exists a small percentage of deviants? Frankly, I don’t care what a pedophile gets off on, so long as he doesn’t actually do anything to another human being. What he does with a New York Times fashion spread … well, who cares? If a pervert actually tries to inflict his deviance on a real person, lock him up. If he buys a newspaper and gets his jollies? All the better for society he’s not out on the street.
I’m not saying that either, although the devil’s advocate in me could say that the whole of society is structured a certain way because of a small amount of deviants who think it’s ok to murder.
It perpetuates the slimy ‘fashion’ photographer who takes ‘art’ photos of young girls who they know would never make it in the modeling world anyway. It’s win win for them, they get paid for images they’ll probably sell again, possibly getting their rocks off in the process. It encourages the deviant behavior by making it commonplace. There’s been many comments about it being ‘just like any other fashion spread’. That doesn’t make those posters deviants, but in the long run, they’ve come to accept that this is just what’s done in those circles.
In pushing the envelope and trying to be in-your-face, they’ve just gone too far and they knew they were doing it at the time.
If there’s nothing wrong with the photos, why is the father of the girl uncomfortable with them?
We’ve banned murder. We haven’t banned certain kinds of photography or other expressive activities.
Is it harmful or criminal or merely slimy? Are the images themselves slimy?
If it’s so commonplace, is it really deviant? I thought the “deviants” we were talking about were paedophiles. Are all slimy fashion photographers and the people who enjoy their work paedophiles?
Is this really the standard to look to? There’s whole damn lot of things that make fathers uncomfortable that are nevertheless considered acceptable in society.
I wish my two granddaughters (16 & 18) were here. I’d be really interested in their take on this.
Yes we have banned certain kinds of photography, namely child porn. You can generalize and split all the hairs you want, although doing them at the same time is misleading. We just disagree.
As I said before, a LOT of thought gets put in those photo sections, and it shows. For them to claim that it was unintentional that the girl looks too young, or too sexualized smacks of a lie.
Did you genuinely misunderstand my point? We haven’t banned certain kinds of photography as a solution to the problem of murder. We have banned murder as a solution to the problem of murder.
We have banned child pornography as a solution to the problem of child pornography.
The question at the bar is: Do these pictures constitute child pornography? My argument is that your contention that “some paedophiles might get off on these pictures” is not sufficient to answer that question.
I just want to know whether they are illegal child pornography. If they aren’t, I don’t really care about the rest.
It seems like I did, but that we were making the same point.
The argument seems to be that since they were hired to a professional photographer by a corporation who paid money, it makes it not illegal child porn. People could argue that point about corporation created vs. indy created all day.
I bet if Uncle Jethro took pictures of one of the neighborhood girls, gave them money for it, and the mom was agreeable but the father uncomfortable, ACS would be all over those households in a second.
I really wasn’t trying to address the kiddie porn issue at all. When I spoke of the partially-clothed model, I was comparing these to TV commercials that you watch and have no idea what they’re selling. If those are fashion photos, then they’re very bad fashion photos because you can’t see the clothing that they’re supposedly trying to sell.
If the intent of the photo is to sell something, and the only thing in the picture is a nude girl, then what conclusion do you draw?