thisisanexperiment. no, really. it is.

Not Your Conventional Nekkid Girl Shot

Posted in Art, Interest by thisisanexperiment on June 10, 2009

Or so I think. NSFW.

taken from sexualityinart

Advertisements
Tagged with: , ,

Tidbit on Fashion & Nudity

Posted in Fashion, Uncategorized by thisisanexperiment on May 6, 2009

A long time back, I wrote about fashion and nudity. Well, here’s part III (or IV?), except that it’s actually a photographer’s view on it.

The merit of nudity in fashion photography has often been argued, and there are usually two sides to this debate. There are those who feel that fashion photography is a way to sell clothes. If a model is naked in a fashion spread it distracts from the product. Then, there are others who have no problem wit the idea, saying that fashion photography is supposed to sell clothes the idea of beauty itself. And what is beauty in its purist form, if not the human body?

In a recent interview with photographer Jonathan Leder, I inquired about his thoughts on the issue. His response was simple yet valid:

“We asked a girl the other day how she felt about being naked and she said, ‘The human body is a beautiful thing.’ I suppose its true. I don’t have any problem with nudity. Walk into any museum around the world and you will be surrounded by paintings and sculptures of the human figure. It’s powerful and emotional…”

Check back soon for the rest of Jonathan’s exciting interview. For now, here is a black-and-white editorial he shot for Pig magazine recently.

taken from fashiongonerogue

Pictures at the source! I find them perfectly tasteful.

Remember What I said about Nudity?

Posted in Fashion by thisisanexperiment on January 27, 2009

Well, American Apparel have done it again. This time, further pushing the envelope on its ads with this one- the one about socks.

Apparently, the featured lady in this ad, is one Sasha Grey- one foul mouthed porn star. I don’t know about you guys, but I think this marks the first time I’ve seen pubic hair (on women, at least) featured in an ad. Which is actually interesting; it’s like a sign that says “pubic hair is Okay”. Looks like the trend of nudity and advertorials is starting to be a force to be reckoned with…

The same question applies, Aye, or Nay? Art or Porn? And if this is porn, then this could possibly bring on a whole load of questions about the objectification of women, etc, etc. The argument could go on, and on.

Then again, the angle of  “Sex Sells” has always kindasorta been AA’s selling point, no? And I’ll admit, I’m one of those who fall for it. There’s something unabashedly, undeniably tempting and ooh-la-la-risque about the raw, unphotoshopped use of their models (curvey, pear-shaped, boy-shaped, whatnots) and the nudity featured. It’s raw, and gives off the feeling of ‘fierce-women-who-are-comfortable-in-their-own-skin-and-goddamn-sexy”,  and dammit, when I look at it, I go “mmm, I need to get me THAT”.

That being one RSAC309 Shiny Late Night Mini Skirt, and RSAPHHB Sheer Back Seam Pantyhose.

Feel free to Disagree. But I guess I’m just a sucker for consumerism, and sexy marketing.

P.s, I’d hate to be the parents who have to start explaining ‘stuff’ to their kids, when they set their eyes on these ads.

Is Less More?

Posted in Fashion by thisisanexperiment on January 23, 2009

The show of Skin and the selling of Fashion/clothes has always have had a tumultous though somewhat consistent relationship, I feel.

What started as a love-affair by most teenagers (I’m guilty myself, too) of flashing one’s navel, (hopefully) flat belly, and testing the limits of how far my jeans/pants can go without exposing my butt, has now evolved.

This season, Sheer, Sheer, Sheer seems to be one of the way to go. Not that I’m complaining; I love the peekabo, “tempt-and-tease-you-wench” effect that Sheer tops, sheer everything can bring. Sometimes, it’s not what you CAN see, but what lays mysteriously hidden, what your imagination is delectably tantalised by the too little (yet too much) glimpses of skin.

But, I digress.

I stumbled across this article on nudity and fashion.

We remember how apocalyptic it all seemed when American Apparel’s CEO, Dov Charney, came out with those racy ads: hide your children, it’s porn stars selling tube socks! Hate ’em or love ’em, it was exactly the sort of guerilla advertising that launched the company into notoriety (while their 20-dollar tees flew off the shelves). And while the L.A brand released their raciest ads just this month, another unlikely contender also chooses to bare it all: high street chain Urban Outfitters. The mass market retailer put out some killer collaborations (Lark & Wolff by Steven Alan, Rapscallian by Samantha Pleet) this past season, but never did we expect to see such T&A on display in the spring catalog (the kind that caused ad bans and protests for American Apparel). Sure, we get the whole underwear-as-outwear or no-bra trend, but are we really being sold a pair of lace thigh-highs in some photos…or just sex? Well, word on the street is that no clothing is the new clothing

http://pipeline.refinery29.com/news/nude_is_the_news_urban_outfitt.php


Aye, or Nay?

Is the nudity featured just too much skin? Art or Porn? Personally, I’m conflicted. I can’t say I dont get surprised by the sight of so much boobs in a fashion spread, but at the same time, the human body is a beautiful thing.

The female form, for one, is much of what Fashion revolves around, no? How clothing fits the female form,  follows the curves and contours of, how it drapes even. Is it not fitting then that fashion spreads feature the nude female body extensively then?

Does nudity detract from the clothes, or only places more emphasis on them?

Tagged with: , ,