Sure the models appear sexy with an air of mysterious vulnerable beauty, but isn't the point of a fashion magazine to sell fashion?
It makes me wonder whether the stylist's has any idea of what he/she is doing? There is almost an air of uncertainity where the stylist has perhaps been stumped and turned to the...
If all else fails ... Lets half dress the model with an exposed nipple in cipia tone and now the photoshoot becomes an entirely different medium bordering on soft porn/art.
And if the clothes don't sell the mag then an exposed nipple or two will!
It is human nature to idealise and worship the human form. We have been doing it for centuries from Bittochelli's 'Birth of Venus' c 1485, to Hemult Newton's photographic body of work.
Bittochelli's 'Birth of Venus' c 1485
Helmut Newton - Rue Aubriot, 1975
Painters, fashion designers, stylist and photographers alike are constantly exploring the sexuality and beauty of nudity and the human form. There does seem to be a fine line where it could be deemed sexy and the balance between exposing the flesh. This line is constantly pushed and pulled. Hem lines shorten, celevages are exposed or displayed. It's in our nature to idealise and worship the human form. We have been doing it for centuries.
This got me thinking about what is sexy? What do people consider sexy and therefore deemed beautiful?
A strong message which is being projected through mass media is nudity is beautiful therefore sexy.
Beauty = Fashion
Fashion = Nudity
Nudity = Sex
Sex = Fashion
And then in cycles...
So Nakeness is vulnerable, Vulernable is beautiful and Beauty is Fashion!!