Fashion Porn

Terry Richardson

'I love shooting guys. Some of my favorite pictures over the years have been the things I've done with guys. In a commercial context too, there's no hair or makeup with guys, which is great. I love shooting nudes of guys, but it's harder to get guys to do full nudes, I don't know why, but they don't want to show their junk. I love doing guys.'

from 'Terry's Diary'

Pirelli Calendar 2010

Since Rie Rasmussen, supermodel and women's rights advocate, confronted the world renown photographer Terry Richardson about his unethical methods of 'exploiting young girls'. Speculation has risen regarding Richardson's - who has photographed well known faces from President Obama to Pharell - and his practice.

With this in mind, I would like to visit the topic of

Art vs Pornography

When does a photograph, portrait, sketch, a statue, or an ad campaign become porn?

When private parts of the human body are exposed?

Or when sexual innuendos are prominent within the work of art itself?

What elements make art 'less indecent'? - When you thrown in a Dolce & Gabbana suit perhaps?

Or when your brand already has direct connotations towards sex?

Agent Provocateur, for example.

Place a celebrity/socialite/political figure in the spot light, then does it automatically carry a different label? PR stunt? .... Or just pure scandalous?

What if these indiscrete images were photographed flawlessly by Karl Lagerfeld?

What are the boundaries? Is there a manifesto?

'The Hong Kong Judiciary is shaking up the much criticised Obscene Articles Tribunal - which once ruled a picture of Michelangelo's David unsuitable for young Hong Kong's eyes - by almost doubling its pool of adjudicators and capping their service at nine years.'

South China Morning Post, 9th May, 10

But who has the qualifications to become an adjudicator? Who decides? Who gets to judge?

One thing I must say though. Diesel's got it right -

Diesel S/S 2010 Campaign

- sex, does indeed sell.

Peace ♥