Being edgy, or not, at the Times' "T"
In today's NY Times, the public editor takes up the complaints of child porn-ish photos in the Times' fashion magazine "T". A few weeks back there was a fashion spread in the supplement (which brings in $5MM per issue!) which featured a 17 year-old model in a few topless (and though unmentioned in the article - bottomless) poses. The editor responsible said the images "didn't give me pause
for one second." Later in the article when defending the work, this same guy claims he can't be "shy about
walking right up to the line of being provocative, and that's going to
cause debate when you get close to that line." Either provocative work doesn't give him pause or he wants to have it both ways, because those two comments strike me as self-contradictory and self-serving.
It's ironic that discussing this issue means even more people will be driven to look at the feature, titled "Gallerina". I had flipped through that magazine a week or two ago and apparently was able to pass by these images without even stopping (gimmicky fashion spreads aren't my thing). I went back and looked this morning to see what caused the ruckus.
Strangely there was one image I remember catching my attention (at left). This struck me because the montage style is so uncommon. The contrivance must have grabbed my attention. I probably looked at it for about five to ten seconds and moved on. I don't recall any of the others so I must have flicked through those pages spending less than a second on each image, making a snap judgment about whether the picture justified closer examination.
The final judgment in the article comes down to whether the audience for the image chose to view it (in other more "edgy" fashion magazines, the customer has sought it out, in the case of "T", its just come with the Sunday paper.) While I think it's a valid argument, it does completely abandon the question of whether we as a society would be able to tip toe up to the edge of exploiting teenage sexuality. In individual cases, this being a great example, various parties involved will make excuses for their own actions while taken as a collective, the impact on culture and social mores is left unexamined.
I always get the impression from these little investigations that the "public editor" must be the most hated many in the Times organization, based on the frequently condescending responses he gets to his questioning the Times editors.
It's ironic that discussing this issue means even more people will be driven to look at the feature, titled "Gallerina". I had flipped through that magazine a week or two ago and apparently was able to pass by these images without even stopping (gimmicky fashion spreads aren't my thing). I went back and looked this morning to see what caused the ruckus.
Strangely there was one image I remember catching my attention (at left). This struck me because the montage style is so uncommon. The contrivance must have grabbed my attention. I probably looked at it for about five to ten seconds and moved on. I don't recall any of the others so I must have flicked through those pages spending less than a second on each image, making a snap judgment about whether the picture justified closer examination.The final judgment in the article comes down to whether the audience for the image chose to view it (in other more "edgy" fashion magazines, the customer has sought it out, in the case of "T", its just come with the Sunday paper.) While I think it's a valid argument, it does completely abandon the question of whether we as a society would be able to tip toe up to the edge of exploiting teenage sexuality. In individual cases, this being a great example, various parties involved will make excuses for their own actions while taken as a collective, the impact on culture and social mores is left unexamined.
I always get the impression from these little investigations that the "public editor" must be the most hated many in the Times organization, based on the frequently condescending responses he gets to his questioning the Times editors.
Like you, I did not notice the ‘nudity’ but looked at the montage since I had done similar work back in school, and I still find it interesting, and an area, which I have not explored at all. So, on one level I find the discussion about the nudity absurd. However, on the other hand I am disturbed about the teenage exploitation aspect of the photos and the layout.
First of all, I see absolutely no reason to use a model under 18 for this. Secondly, I am disturbed about the emaciated look of the model. Several times in the past, I have noticed that they use extremely emaciated models for their spreads. So, now knowing that the model was in fact a teenager, I do find the whole layout objectionable because it does inject a degree of edginess based on exploitation.