Well this is very interesting all the debate that my quick post
about a magazine cover has inspired!
I guess like anything else the experience of it, of percieving it and
having different reactions is kind of like what good (or bad) art is
supposed to do. There is what VF intended or had motivation for
and there is what we see in it. I think what VF intended was a more
multilayered thing because of the type of magazine it is.
At first yes they have to make an impression and sell magazines.
In the next layer it's how they presented what they did that makes
it more than just some second rate rag with a flashy cover.
As for the nudity I don't see them as being "naked" like in Playboy
and you don't really see much of anything particularly titilating as
far as I'm concerned (unless you're a butt man . . . . er um I mean
person... and like Scarlett's
butt
).
I read the articles in VF about it and yes Rachel McAdams was supposed
to be in it but then backed out when she found out about the nudity.
The article said something about how 3 girls together is a slumber party
while two is a depiction of lesbians and that wasn't what they were
going for. They felt the shoot needed something more and so Tom
Ford, the VERY GAY artistic director for the issue and who rarely
puts himself into any pictures got into the mix. Therefore another layer
to this shot is that to those in the know, it's kind of an inside joke that
he is there with the girls on the cover. And since he's gay it is deceiving
to someone who doesn't know this thinking that there is some heterosexual
chemistry there or thing going on.
Which leads to my next point and taking from what some people have
said about the artisticness of it. Look at this painting by Manet:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/ma ... -herbe.jpg
This is Dejeuner Sur Leherbe which is a very enigmatic painting.
Kiera's pose is not unlike that of the female nude in the painting
and Scarlett's is not unlike many other nude poses from paintings
from that and earlier time periods. I think this was no accident
as the artistic merit of the photo has to do with its homage, its
specific honoring and use of classical artistic techniques.
I think this is also one reason why the girls did the photo in the first place.
They knew that VF was not a Maxim or FHM and to me I see no
correlation in the poses or depiction to those openly racy
magazines. They knew that any shoot would be artistic and classy
and present them in a more tasteful fashion. As we have seen from
watching Scarlett in public appearances since LIT, she often has a
retro classical look of a movie starlet from the 30s or 40s etc.
To me the guy there looks like one of the clothed men in
the Manet painting. Ford also being the fashion industry icon
that he is and that VF is partly about fashion and Hollywood is
completely about fashion, the photo is all about THAT!
And if you're not into fashion and all that stuff then one is not
going to like or appreciate it on that level either.
Not everyone who likes seeing the girls is going to like
seeing him there or understand what he is doing there
and I for one didn't get what he was doing there either when
I first saw the cover.
"just wish there was one attractive female star who avoided that aspect"
Natalie Portman comes to mind!
And in the end no it won't hang in a museum - although given the
Museum of Fine Arts having a Herb Ritts exhibit of his
photos with celebrities in them you never know - but unlike
great enduring art, it is pop art which only needs to endure the
zeitgheist of its time and be "it" for the month it's on the stands
and then "it's" time for something else.