Sunday, August 9, 2009

Abbey Lee Kershaw disrobes again....for PURPLE

purple diary

Last week frockwriter presented a preview of Abbey Lee Kershaw, together with Catherine McNeil, in a 30-page Greg Kadel shoot for Vogue Australia’s September 2009 edition (and we've lost count of the number of blogs that picked up those shots). Much was made of the fact that Vogue Photoshopped out Kershaw’s and McNeil’s nipple rings from one of Kadel’s semi nude shots, while Kershaw’s body jewellery was left intact in at least one other shot in the spread. Well here is a preview, courtesy Olivier Zahm, of yet another upcoming editorial for which Kershaw (right, above) has disrobed, together with Euro supes Magdalena Frackowiak and Eniko Mihalik – shot by king sleaze Terry Richardson for Zahm’s PURPLE FASHION magazine. Just in case you missed the first teaser shot of the naked trio that editor Zahm provided about 10 days ago on his blog. Yes, he really wants us to know that there are naked women in the issue. This is at least the third recent gig that Kershaw has shot with Richardson, following the 2010 Pirelli calendar and an editorial for Vogue Nippon.


Anonymous said...

This is shocking, terrible, disgusting, etc.

Unknown said...

In response to the above comment and the subject of the media's objectification of women in general.

As long as it is consensual.
At least these men above worship the female body somewhat - it is a start.

- I have more issue with the mags that print ugly papped close up shots of the flaws beautiful women have.

Really the weeklies at the supermarket counter often make me feel sick and ashamed we are accepting this abuse.

when we ALL start loving ourselves-and really honoring our feminine side can you imagine how beautiful the magazines will be :-)

Anonymous said...

Abbey Lee is being very badly managed. I think her star will burn out very soon as she seems to do any job that comes along and doesnt get the single girl blue chip editorials like the bigger girls get.
She is like 'the other girl' in every story of late.

A Colourful Guy Drowning said...

Oh, it's just nudity! What's the BFD? I'll get naked for you, if you want. ;)

Patty Huntington said...

marian -

i think you will find the first anon was being sarcastic.

anon @ 1.20pm -

you are entitled to your opinion. with anonymous comments of course, it's never clear whether or not they are coming from competitors.

just off the top of my head, vogue nippon was an only girl editorial and there have been others. and while it's true that kershaw has appeared as part of a multi-girl cast in no less than four consecutive gucci campaigns, a fifth campaign was solo - flora by gucci. it is worth noting that many models would love to be able to secure five gucci campaigns. the other girls with whom she has been posing are at the absolute top of the business. i don't think her career is doing too badly.

there is nothing wrong with nudity. for a fashion observer, it's a perfectly valid point to make that there is a lot of it in mainstream fashion right now. some fashionwatchers have even complained about the volume of breasts on show - even on show cards. it depends how nudity is done, who is doing it. and for a mainstream fashion model, how often they do it. this blog does not focus on the mens' magazine market. it is primarily focussed on high fashion.

but just on the word "disgusting", interestingly, it was used by one australian agent to describe some of the shots leaked from richardson's pirelli calendar shoot. notably the shot of catherine mcneil pouring rubber milk over herself. not that anyone would go on the record about the matter. why is that? "because they're 18 and he's terry richardson" offered another agent.

richardson's nude model 'pileup' shot in the magazine is one thing. it's quite glamorous in fact. the gritty sneaked studio shot taken to one side is another. no idea if kershaw's agents would prefer that pervy nude shots of their clients weren't blogged out of context on the side of jobs by the relevant commissioning editors. but you know, zahm can do it because it's his shoot and, like richardson, he apparently wields a lot of clout in the fashion business. zahm has a proven track record of taking gratuitous ass etc images of women. one reader asked me not to repost any more because she feels as if she (presumably it was a woman) "is contracting an SDT every time i look at them".

SkirtTheIssue said...

I agree with Patty's above comment above- it's not the pictorial that bothers me in this case- if you look at the link it shows that the resulting picture was the part of quite a great looking colorful pictorial, and the end picture was rather tame- from the angle it was taken from you can't even see Abbey's breasts, and it just shows the curve of her bum, not the cleft;

The thing I find a little disturbing is, as Patty said, the fact that Zahm felt it was ok to take this snap shot from a totally different angle, at a totally candid moment- and posted it. I don't have issue with Zahm's seaming attitude of celebration of sex, and most of his more explicit pictures posted on his site seam to be with the consent of the subjects (in that they are they are posing to his camera), but this just seams a little sneaky- did he ask the girls if it was ok for him to take this shot? And by ask, I mean really find out if it was ok with them- as Patty said, he is a powerful guy in fashion, he would be rather intimidation to say no too. Consenting to a nude shoot is not the same as consenting to candid behind-the-scenes shoots- it's a bit like taking photo's of models getting changed backstage.

I don't agree with the comments about Abbey's career- she is going great-guns, she is everywhere! I think it just seams that she is constantly doing these kind of shoots (ie featuring nudity), because that seams to be a bit of the editorial flavor-of-the-month at present. I don't mind that, non- exploitative nude fashion photography can be absolutely gorgeous (Abbey and Catherine shoot in the Sept Vogue Australia is a great example)- it's just that sometimes the line between exploitation and celebration of female form seams a little blurred when you are dealing with such young girls, and a team of very influential men (like Richardson and Zahm)

A Colourful Guy Drowning said...

People would silly to be intimidated by anyone - be that person Richardson or Zahm - as these guys are not the only game in town. However, with all of these models being rather young, and naive, I can see how they could be potentially intimidated by some "powerful" photographer and magazine editor.

I'm sure I've pissed off more than one influential person over here because of things I've written or said. However, I don't really care and if they choose to ban me from shows, events, etc., because of my opinion, then so be it.

Regarding by comments about nudity and getting naked earlier: I was making a joke. ;)

SachaStrebe said...

It does seem that there are more breasts appearing in fashion editorials, but i have to say that i agree with SkirtThelssue in that I don't mind non- exploitative nude fashion photography and also agree that it can be absolutely gorgeous as we have seen in Abbey and Catherine shoot in the Sept Vogue Australia... as long as it is tasteful then i have no quarrel, but i have to agree with you patty that zahm has a way of sexualising his fashion photography and behind the scenes shots may be construed the wrong way, as the image that appears in the magazine is very tasteful and doesn't seem to reveal much in the way of sexual organs at all... so i say all hail the gorgeous abbey, she certainly has it and she is flaunting it while getting paid and all while securing multiple gucci campaigns. i think she's incredible..

Anonymous said...

I'm happy to see some people still have a grain of common sense and understanding of the objectification of women. I have no problem with a woman displaying her body (though, ladies, panty hose are NOT pants, so please put something on. i can actually see some women's labia, and if i, as a man, exposed my genitals that way, i'd be in jail, and rightfully so. it's gross).
the problem i DO have is when an adult sexualizes the body of a child, and many models are 14, 15, 16, 17. It's unacceptable. Terry Richardson has not a grain of talent say Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, etc. and they gave the women they worked with magnificent presence and dignity. Terry Richardson is a disgusting pervert, who diminishes the hard earned rights of women. Women are most beautiful when they are respected and afforded the dignity they so much deserve.

Blog Archive