论文部分内容阅读
现实总是偏爱才华洋溢的叛逆者，而意大利版《Vogue》就是敢于挑战传统的。前卫的话题，大胆的照片，构成了意大利版《Vogue》独特的风景线。所以，它能肆无忌惮地调侃某件重要的国际大事，毫无愧色地嘲笑某位名人的出位行径。而这些“噱头”亦为意大利版《Vogue》赢得“艺术”的美名。不是没有人深思这些“噱头”背后的意图——产品推销，但是，在“艺术”的盛名之下，大众对意大利版《Vogue》的或隐秘或大胆的“推销”都吝于“揭露”。
——Mac
We’re big believers in the power of an image to convey the drama, sadness, and gravity of world events. In the case of the 3)BP oil spill, that power was never more apparent, both in the photographs that captured the devastation and in the photographs that were forbidden from being taken.
The photos that caused a stir aren’t photojournalism but a fashion spread in the August 2010 issue of Vogue Italia, titled Water & Oil. 4)Uber-edgy photographer Steven Meisel shoots model Kristen McMenamy, 5)clad in black, coated in oil, and 6)draped across 7)tainted beaches. In one shot, she has a black feather8)perched on her lips. In another, an oil- 9)drenched feathered glove stands in for the hundreds of birds soaked in the spill.
Meisel has a longstanding relationship with Vogue Italia, and his topics are often edgy: from plastic-surgery patients to homeland security. But is this spread art—or 10)opportunism?
Dodai at Jezebel writes, “The model in distress and the photographer have worked together to create a scene in which the viewer feels the urge to help—yet can do nothing—similar to watching the disaster unfold on television.” That’s a generous 11)critique, and one that doesn’t quite 12)jive with the title of her post, which calls the photo shoot “awful” (the rest of her essay makes her 13)disdain for the photos clear). Do we need to be reminded of how helpless the oil spill made us all feel?
Where does fashion fall as an art form is a question that’s constantly up for debate, as is what is the role of fashion photographs. Yes, the images in high-end editorial spreads can be stunning, and great 20th-century artists like David LaChapelle, Herb Ritts, and Annie Leibovitz have advanced modern art through their fashion and celebrity spreads. But while the photos themselves may be art, and while those images make serious statements about current affairs and often end up in galleries, they start out with less noble aims: to sell clothing. And that makes the photos seem somehow tasteless. So argues Fast Company, which points out some of the 14)tone-deafness in the spread’s 15)captions on the shoot, “Oil Is the New Black.”
“Kristen McMenamy in the ‘survivor’ version, where she interprets in images the environmental drama that’s 16)afflicting the Gulf of Mexico,” it sing-songs. “She keeps her skin golden thanks to Self 17)Tan Face Bronzing Gel 18)Tint (to wear alone or with 19)foundation): it takes care of the skin, while giving it a hint of color.” And just a shade of THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER TO 20)BEFALL THE U.S. IN HISTORY.
Even some of the fashion-obsessed aren’t comfortable with this shoot. Refinery29, the online fashion magazine, found it wasteful:
“Creating beauty and glamour out of tragedy seems quite 21)screwed up to us, not to mention wasteful and22)hypocritical, seeing as thousands of dollars of luxury clothing was flown in, and then subsequently ruined for the shoot. Glamorizing this ecological and social disaster for the sake of ‘fashion’ reduces the tragic event to nothing more than attention-grabbing 23)newsstand 24)fodder.”
The discussions about the value of these photos in Refinery29 comments are worth a read, as are those on New York magazine’s fashion blog, The Cut. There’s plenty to discuss, and both comment sections are a good way to 25)brush up before heading out to happy hour: after all, it’s not a party until someone starts a lively debate about the artistic value of fashion editorials. But before you start writing your talking points, consider The Cut’s own 26)take on the shoot:
“If showcasing the clothing is still the 27)overarching objective in any fashion editorial, shouldn’t we be able to, you know, see them? They probably looked pretty cool before they were soaked in gasoline. Imagine the BP 28)pitch: ‘Drenching things in oil before it was cool.’”
我们都深信，图像在表现国际事件的戏剧性、悲壮感和严峻态势方面具有异常的效果。就BP石油泄漏事件的发生，这种效果再显著不过了，一方面体现在捕捉这场灾难的照片中，而另一方面在那些被禁止拍摄的照片中也充分体现出来。
这些引起轰动的图片不是新闻图片，而是时尚杂志的跨页彩图，其刊登于2010年8月号意大利版《Vogue》杂志上，标题为《水和石油》。在超级前卫的摄影师史蒂文·梅塞的镜头下，模特儿克莉丝汀·麦玫娜蜜身着一袭黑衣，上面涂满了石油，懒散地躺在饱受污染的沙滩上。在其中一张照片中，她唇上突立着一根黑色的羽毛。在另一张照片中，她戴着一对在石油中浸泡过的羽毛手套，象征着那成百上千的在油污中的鸟儿。
梅塞和意大利版的《Vogue》已经合作多年，他的选材话题常常前卫又出位：从整容手术病人到国土安全。但这次的图片是时尚杂志的跨页艺术呢，还是机会主义的体现？
网络女性杂志Jazebel.com的撰稿人杜戴写道：“落难俏模特与摄影师合作，制造出一种让人看了之后很有冲动去伸出援手，却又无能为力的场面，就像在电视上看着灾难降临一样。”这算是比较仁慈的点评了，而且跟她这篇文章的标题不太搭调，因为她在标题中用“糟糕透顶”这个词来形容这些照片（她这篇文章的余下论述都表明她对这些照片有多嗤之以鼻）。我们还需要别人提醒那次石油泄漏事件当时让人感到多么的彷徨无助吗？
时尚作为一种艺术形式，其地位若何？该问题一直未有定论，而时尚服饰图片扮演着一个怎样的角色也同样争议不断。是的，高端杂志的跨页图片可以很震撼，而二十世纪的伟大艺术家，如大卫·拉卡贝尔、 赫伯·瑞茨和安妮·莱博维茨，也通过他们拍摄的时尚和名人海报照把当代艺术推向更高层次。虽然相片本身也许堪称艺术之作，这些图片对当今大事也有其严肃的立场表态，而且往往最后都被各大画廊所收藏，但是，这些图片一开始就不是出于什么崇高目的而拍摄的：而是推销衣服。一想到这个，那些图片就显得挺庸俗的。网络杂志fastcompany.com亦如此认为，并指出某些自以为是的时尚潮人还在这组照片的标题处标榜“油污黑是最新流行的黑色”。
“照片中，克莉丝汀·麦玫娜蜜以‘幸存者’的身份出现，诠释这场墨西哥湾被蹂躏的环境惨剧，”配图文字高调唱诵道，“她保持着古铜色的肌肤，因为她涂了‘面部古铜色仿晒染色喱’（可以单独涂抹或者与粉底后结合使用）：该产品养护肌肤，还可以给肌肤上一点颜色。”只是它抹上的是“美国历史上最严重的一场环境灾难”的阴影色。
甚至一些时尚狂热者也不太能接受这组照片。网络时尚杂志Refinery2.com认为，拍这些照片太浪费了：
“在我们看来，借悲剧来制造美艳效果，这本身就没成事。更别说这有多么浪费多么虚伪了，要知道这些价值数千美元的奢华衣服被大批运到之后，为了拍摄这些照片而用油污完全糟蹋。出于所谓的‘时尚’之名来美化这场生态和社会灾难，这令整出惨剧沦为耸动坊间的谈资笑料。”
网络时尚杂志Refinery2.com上对这组图片的价值所在的评议值得一读，同时《纽约杂志》的时尚博客栏目“The Cut”的评论也不容错过。其实还有许多有待讨论之处，在下班加入知己畅谈之前，不妨看看这两个评论栏目，准有启发：毕竟还是要有人带头讨论时尚杂志照片的艺术价值，才能一石激起千层浪。但是在你开始写下自己的论据之前，参考一下“The Cut”对这次拍摄的观点吧：
“如果任何时尚杂志图片的首要任务依然是展示服饰，那么我们是否应该，你知道的，看见那些衣服呢？在被油污泡染之前，这些衣服很可能非常光鲜漂亮。想象一下BP的广告宣传语可能会变成：‘我们的石油能把东西泡得更美更炫！’”
——Mac
We’re big believers in the power of an image to convey the drama, sadness, and gravity of world events. In the case of the 3)BP oil spill, that power was never more apparent, both in the photographs that captured the devastation and in the photographs that were forbidden from being taken.
The photos that caused a stir aren’t photojournalism but a fashion spread in the August 2010 issue of Vogue Italia, titled Water & Oil. 4)Uber-edgy photographer Steven Meisel shoots model Kristen McMenamy, 5)clad in black, coated in oil, and 6)draped across 7)tainted beaches. In one shot, she has a black feather8)perched on her lips. In another, an oil- 9)drenched feathered glove stands in for the hundreds of birds soaked in the spill.
Meisel has a longstanding relationship with Vogue Italia, and his topics are often edgy: from plastic-surgery patients to homeland security. But is this spread art—or 10)opportunism?
Dodai at Jezebel writes, “The model in distress and the photographer have worked together to create a scene in which the viewer feels the urge to help—yet can do nothing—similar to watching the disaster unfold on television.” That’s a generous 11)critique, and one that doesn’t quite 12)jive with the title of her post, which calls the photo shoot “awful” (the rest of her essay makes her 13)disdain for the photos clear). Do we need to be reminded of how helpless the oil spill made us all feel?
Where does fashion fall as an art form is a question that’s constantly up for debate, as is what is the role of fashion photographs. Yes, the images in high-end editorial spreads can be stunning, and great 20th-century artists like David LaChapelle, Herb Ritts, and Annie Leibovitz have advanced modern art through their fashion and celebrity spreads. But while the photos themselves may be art, and while those images make serious statements about current affairs and often end up in galleries, they start out with less noble aims: to sell clothing. And that makes the photos seem somehow tasteless. So argues Fast Company, which points out some of the 14)tone-deafness in the spread’s 15)captions on the shoot, “Oil Is the New Black.”
“Kristen McMenamy in the ‘survivor’ version, where she interprets in images the environmental drama that’s 16)afflicting the Gulf of Mexico,” it sing-songs. “She keeps her skin golden thanks to Self 17)Tan Face Bronzing Gel 18)Tint (to wear alone or with 19)foundation): it takes care of the skin, while giving it a hint of color.” And just a shade of THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER TO 20)BEFALL THE U.S. IN HISTORY.
Even some of the fashion-obsessed aren’t comfortable with this shoot. Refinery29, the online fashion magazine, found it wasteful:
“Creating beauty and glamour out of tragedy seems quite 21)screwed up to us, not to mention wasteful and22)hypocritical, seeing as thousands of dollars of luxury clothing was flown in, and then subsequently ruined for the shoot. Glamorizing this ecological and social disaster for the sake of ‘fashion’ reduces the tragic event to nothing more than attention-grabbing 23)newsstand 24)fodder.”
The discussions about the value of these photos in Refinery29 comments are worth a read, as are those on New York magazine’s fashion blog, The Cut. There’s plenty to discuss, and both comment sections are a good way to 25)brush up before heading out to happy hour: after all, it’s not a party until someone starts a lively debate about the artistic value of fashion editorials. But before you start writing your talking points, consider The Cut’s own 26)take on the shoot:
“If showcasing the clothing is still the 27)overarching objective in any fashion editorial, shouldn’t we be able to, you know, see them? They probably looked pretty cool before they were soaked in gasoline. Imagine the BP 28)pitch: ‘Drenching things in oil before it was cool.’”
我们都深信，图像在表现国际事件的戏剧性、悲壮感和严峻态势方面具有异常的效果。就BP石油泄漏事件的发生，这种效果再显著不过了，一方面体现在捕捉这场灾难的照片中，而另一方面在那些被禁止拍摄的照片中也充分体现出来。
这些引起轰动的图片不是新闻图片，而是时尚杂志的跨页彩图，其刊登于2010年8月号意大利版《Vogue》杂志上，标题为《水和石油》。在超级前卫的摄影师史蒂文·梅塞的镜头下，模特儿克莉丝汀·麦玫娜蜜身着一袭黑衣，上面涂满了石油，懒散地躺在饱受污染的沙滩上。在其中一张照片中，她唇上突立着一根黑色的羽毛。在另一张照片中，她戴着一对在石油中浸泡过的羽毛手套，象征着那成百上千的在油污中的鸟儿。
梅塞和意大利版的《Vogue》已经合作多年，他的选材话题常常前卫又出位：从整容手术病人到国土安全。但这次的图片是时尚杂志的跨页艺术呢，还是机会主义的体现？
网络女性杂志Jazebel.com的撰稿人杜戴写道：“落难俏模特与摄影师合作，制造出一种让人看了之后很有冲动去伸出援手，却又无能为力的场面，就像在电视上看着灾难降临一样。”这算是比较仁慈的点评了，而且跟她这篇文章的标题不太搭调，因为她在标题中用“糟糕透顶”这个词来形容这些照片（她这篇文章的余下论述都表明她对这些照片有多嗤之以鼻）。我们还需要别人提醒那次石油泄漏事件当时让人感到多么的彷徨无助吗？
时尚作为一种艺术形式，其地位若何？该问题一直未有定论，而时尚服饰图片扮演着一个怎样的角色也同样争议不断。是的，高端杂志的跨页图片可以很震撼，而二十世纪的伟大艺术家，如大卫·拉卡贝尔、 赫伯·瑞茨和安妮·莱博维茨，也通过他们拍摄的时尚和名人海报照把当代艺术推向更高层次。虽然相片本身也许堪称艺术之作，这些图片对当今大事也有其严肃的立场表态，而且往往最后都被各大画廊所收藏，但是，这些图片一开始就不是出于什么崇高目的而拍摄的：而是推销衣服。一想到这个，那些图片就显得挺庸俗的。网络杂志fastcompany.com亦如此认为，并指出某些自以为是的时尚潮人还在这组照片的标题处标榜“油污黑是最新流行的黑色”。
“照片中，克莉丝汀·麦玫娜蜜以‘幸存者’的身份出现，诠释这场墨西哥湾被蹂躏的环境惨剧，”配图文字高调唱诵道，“她保持着古铜色的肌肤，因为她涂了‘面部古铜色仿晒染色喱’（可以单独涂抹或者与粉底后结合使用）：该产品养护肌肤，还可以给肌肤上一点颜色。”只是它抹上的是“美国历史上最严重的一场环境灾难”的阴影色。
甚至一些时尚狂热者也不太能接受这组照片。网络时尚杂志Refinery2.com认为，拍这些照片太浪费了：
“在我们看来，借悲剧来制造美艳效果，这本身就没成事。更别说这有多么浪费多么虚伪了，要知道这些价值数千美元的奢华衣服被大批运到之后，为了拍摄这些照片而用油污完全糟蹋。出于所谓的‘时尚’之名来美化这场生态和社会灾难，这令整出惨剧沦为耸动坊间的谈资笑料。”
网络时尚杂志Refinery2.com上对这组图片的价值所在的评议值得一读，同时《纽约杂志》的时尚博客栏目“The Cut”的评论也不容错过。其实还有许多有待讨论之处，在下班加入知己畅谈之前，不妨看看这两个评论栏目，准有启发：毕竟还是要有人带头讨论时尚杂志照片的艺术价值，才能一石激起千层浪。但是在你开始写下自己的论据之前，参考一下“The Cut”对这次拍摄的观点吧：
“如果任何时尚杂志图片的首要任务依然是展示服饰，那么我们是否应该，你知道的，看见那些衣服呢？在被油污泡染之前，这些衣服很可能非常光鲜漂亮。想象一下BP的广告宣传语可能会变成：‘我们的石油能把东西泡得更美更炫！’”