I stood by the image and defended the reasoning for its existence, citing examples of other, similar images that were in print and had made the model, photographer and company lots of money.
That made no difference to those who cited the inappropriateness of the image in question.
Here are the images I posted...
All photos ©Carlos Paradinha Photography |
The image that was cast as "awkward" is the fourth image (second down on the right in the series) where the model is bent over, laughing, with his hand still inside the waistband of his shorts. The commenters stated that the positioning of the model's hand, coupled with his laughter and bent over positioning lent to the idea that he was "caught in the act" of manipulating himself, or "grabbing his junk." (I dislike that term - to state that a man's genitalia is "junk" is as offensive to me as calling a woman's vagina a "snatch" - equally as vile and uncouth in my opinion.)
I stood by the image and defended its existence as a candid moment and photographically relevant to the brand that was being 'advertised' for the school assignment (which was the use of ring lighting, btw).
With that image above in mind, please take a look at this image taken from a publication for the same line of apparel the model above is wearing:
©Abercrombie & Fitch, Summer Quarterly Catalog, 2002 |
My point, I would suggest, is that fashion is not only about clothing, but lifestyle. We don't buy clothing just to cover our nakedness, but to adorn our nudity. We accentuate, lift, shape and tuck (where necessary) in order to be alluring, sexy, appealing or what have you. To capture that in a way that provokes attention is key to the industry, in my opinion.
Without a little provocative edge, or sex appeal, where would the fashion world be?