Lilly Cole in Playboy

Discussion in 'Fashion/Glamour/Figure' started by Ian Leake, Oct 12, 2008.

  1. Ian Leake

    Ian Leake Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,424
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
  2. jp80874

    jp80874 Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,494
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Bath, OH 442
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    It would be unfair to come to some judgement with out seeing further samples.

    John Powers
     
  3. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Right. The article assumes that the reader has also seen the Playboy photos.
     
  4. jolefler

    jolefler Member

    Messages:
    420
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Location:
    Northeast Oh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Purely in the interest of fair judgement, of course.

    Jo
     
  5. Jim Noel

    Jim Noel Member

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Art or not. I wihs Ihad a copy of this French Edition of Playboy. It reminds me of the early days of Playboy when the photographs were more art and a little less revealing than recent years.l.
     
  6. johnnywalker

    johnnywalker Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,260
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Location:
    British Colu
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Who is Lilly Cole?
     
  7. gr82bart

    gr82bart Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,302
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  8. winger

    winger Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,910
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    southwest PA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The thing that jumps out at me is that the "No" essay (James Fox) seems to say that maybe it could be art if it weren't in Playboy. So putting it in Playboy makes it not art.
     
  9. gr82bart

    gr82bart Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,302
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Some would say it's artistic snobbery. :surprised:

    Regards, Art.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2008
  10. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I only read the French version of Playboy to keep up my foreign language skills.

    Lee
     
  11. Akki14

    Akki14 Member

    Messages:
    1,873
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    London, UK
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Unfortunately her face somewhat disturbs me. Nothing against her but there is something odd there I can't put my finger on it except maybe it's because she looks like a living, walking Blythe Doll which can't be natural and some would argue the point of a nude has something to do with nature at least on a base level.
    Not sure I can be bothered to buy a copy of Playboy to check out the photos.
     
  12. scootermm

    scootermm Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,865
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    The photos in Paradis where/are much more artistic than Playboy.
     
  13. jp80874

    jp80874 Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,494
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Bath, OH 442
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Braille?
     
  14. eddym

    eddym Member

    Messages:
    1,927
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A picture is worth a thousand words....
     
  15. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Absolutely. Intended and/or final use is everything. It is strictly commercial work using the techniques and concepts of fine art, as usual. It is made not for the sake of making art photographs, but for the sake of making money. It is commercial, through and through.

    Calling it art doesn't mean the same as calling it good, and calling it commercial doesn't equal calling it bad. Commercial work can be done quite artfully, or by an artist proper, and art work can be done quite commercially as well, if that is part of the concept.

    However, calling something art based only on the medium has always been a weird and overly technical argument for me. Something's physical being does not define it. Its use does. These photographs were made, arguably using artistic techniques and concepts, to sell magazines, not to make art.

    Your questioning the author's argument makes perfect sense if this were existent fine art work that was "[put into] Playboy". However, this a phrase with which I disagree. This is not something that was already in existence as "art" that was then selected for placement in the magazine. It is work that was made specifically for this purpose. Thus, "putting it in Playboy" is its entire purpose for existing in the first place...and it is thus commercial photography.

    Now, Hustler...THAT is ART! :D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  16. AutumnJazz

    AutumnJazz Member

    Messages:
    730
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Location:
    Fairfield, C
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Most, if not all, classical painters at least tried to paint for a living. So that means it isn't art?

    If someone uses a picture as pornography, does that make it pornography?

    The problem is that some people use your argument to say that child/adolsecent nudes are pornography (or nudes in general).
     
  17. jd callow

    jd callow Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Milan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    link please...
     
  18. scootermm

    scootermm Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,865
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    I have the issue of Paradis at home, but don't know of any link online.
    The UK version of Paradis is a very well done and gorgeous publication.
    The photographer was/is Juergen Teller.
    They are kinda uncomfortable and mildly trashy, but done well.
     
  19. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Painting or shooting on commission is not the same as commercial work. (The people who buy it call it "art"...and the person who made it calls it "work". :smile:) Commercial work means that the image serves some commercial purpose other than to just exist as an image. If it is selling something other than itself, it is very commercial. I would even argue that religious art built into chapels, cathedrals, etc., is largely commercial, because the imagery's point is to promote a religion, not to simply exist as art.

    If someone uses a picture as pornography...then YES! It's pornography! Good or bad, that's what it is. The problem comes with pornography having a bad connotation. People have kneejerk reactions to the word, which shuts off all intelligent thought in regards to the matter and causes falling back on preconceived strong opinions on the matter...very reactionary. The minute genitals become involved, all rational thought goes out the window, and people are ready to ban this and censor that and burn this and that. This makes pornographers very reluctant to admit that something is pornography and not art. I would be fine with pornography simply being called pornography, and this not being a bad thing. It would be a lot easier to stomach than some pretentious pornographer claiming that his or her commercial work is art so that it somehow makes it better.

    I have never heard anyone use the notion that the use and not the work itself makes child/adolescent nudes into pornography. People who believe this crap don't care about the use of the "work", whether it be on a gallery wall or in Smut Magazine. To them, smut is smut.

    I am not using the terms "art" or "commercial" to judge "quality" in any way.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  20. eddym

    eddym Member

    Messages:
    1,927
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Interesting point, but I don't think so. Religious art, I believe, is more likely didactic. It's purpose is to teach some fundamental of the religion, or in many cases to instill in the viewer a religious sentiment or feeling. In the best case, it might instill in the viewer a religious epiphany or transformation. I would not call that commercial.

    If it is used outside the church, then it could more more likely be commercial, intended to invite the viewer to enter the church. But once inside, I would not call most of the art commercial, but rather didactic.
     
  21. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes, I understand exactly what you are saying. A better way for me to say it would be that the main purpose of the mentioned religious art is something other than to simply exist as visual art. I still think "commercial" is part of it, but not the whole thing. I do believe that religions also double as businesses...if only out of necessity. Or maybe (more likely in my mind) they are businesses that double as religions...who knows.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  22. mabman

    mabman Member

    Messages:
    829
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Winnipeg, MB
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I really don't get it - if the Paradis images are the same ones viewable with a basic Google search, I don't see what's "done well" about them - she's nude/naked depending on your perspective, and what looks like blasted with light. They don't really appeal to me at all.

    I have this same issue with most of the other Juergen Teller work I've seen, and much of Terry Richardson's as well. Maybe I just don't understand fashion/glamour photography in general...
     
  23. SilverGlow

    SilverGlow Member

    Messages:
    739
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Orange Count
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Lily Cole? Who is she? She's got bird legs, big a$$...I've seen enough...
     
  24. scootermm

    scootermm Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,865
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    I think you just pretty much answered your own question.
    It just doesnt work for you.

    Thats the beautiful subjectivity of taste in art.