part of a spread from one of the more arty fashion magazines. might of been POP but i can't remember as it was a few months ago now and i only got to scanning them yesterday. its mainly illustrating the D+G range and shows the different variations on their chrome lockable belts.
i do think that the model's leaning back against a latex sheet in a frame? and she's been airbrushed so she has doll parts - or lack of parts...
xx
3 comments:
Pardon me for saying this, because I know, this happens, but:
The model. Yes, models are supposed to be skinny, but emaciation does nothing for me. Why bother having a lady doll with the tiny tummy if there aren't any curves to properly set it off? The model in question doesn't *need* a waist cincher, she needs to put on 15-20 pounds so she has hips and breasts again.
Because ribs and hip bones aren't sexy. That kind of aesthetic applies to pets under a veterinarian's care, not to people.
Not that the pics are useless. ^_^ At least I have some idea now of A) what Big Poofy Doll Hair looks like on a real person, and B) what kind of curve would need to be drawn to show a proper seam for a doll's *hip socket*.
Still...the lady needs to eat something. And no, I'm not talking about splitting *a* rasin, *an* M&M or *a* peanut with her BFF. So to speak.
Thanks again,
--Brad Poe
Do you think that the fetish edge is lost when it is pushed as haute couture? I know that fetish lovers who need some excuse to be seen in their fetish gear are loving that fashion designers are using (copying" fetish items into their collections. But does the average women who would wear fetish looks from a designer who isn't into fetish feel that they are just a new "look" and in a sense dilute the fetish quotient of these things?
There are so many fashion clones who copy and don't "get it". Think of what happened to tattoos. They were edgey and then every girl got one and then the edgy ones got larger and more freaky ones and then they are copied and at some point it will be completely out of fashion. It always seems to be that way... except tatts are pretty permanent aren't they?
Hmm...this is going to sound weird coming from me, but...
I don't think fetish *has* an "edge" per se. It isn't really and truly like pop music or like technology, where you have a "mainstream", a "cutting edge" and a "bleeding edge", at least not in the culture here in the States. For the most part mainstream audiences look at the stuff, say it's *all* "weird" or "out there" and leave it at that.
Seriously....Look at EGL. It's literally about grown women wearing retro, seriously retro, doll clothes of a little-girlish sort. Likewise, the latex rubberist thing dates back to at least the 1940s. Likewise, if you go to *any* public library and look up books on historical fashion, you see that at least with women's fashion, there's not so much forward "movement" or "progress" as there are cycles: Up until the 20th century, the cycles alternated between highly structured looks (corsets, petticoats, pannieres, hoop skirts) and looser, more flowing looks. And yes, there were plenty of variations within each cycle, but still...
Everyone and his brother in this community has told *me* for years, "Brad, this stuff is *never* going to be fully mainstream," and they have a point. A fetish is an obsessive behavior, it's a compulsion to have and *be worn by* something unusual and idiosyncratic.
And as such...you really don't see movement in a "forward" direction in the sense of progress. You see cycles, and the question becomes, how *big* does a cycle get, and how long does it last? This is especially problematic with something as *flexible* as dolling since there are so many ways to do it: the cycle can favor dolling *of some sort* for a very long time without letting *any one* look become dominant.
So I don't think this thing *has* a cutting edge, any more than Metal Music has one. It goes through cycles, and it's versatile enough to have *some* popularity no matter what's going on, but no *one* style or method stays "on an edge" for very long.
You see kids dressing "emo" for example, but you don't necessarily see a lot of "cutting" among the newbies who take up that style. And in the meantime, these same newbies who are taking up that look, are the same demographic (young, disaffected teenagers) that had previously taken up getting tattoos, taken up "hair metal", taken up the whole "disco sucks!" thing, and on and on.
So what's happening is: we have newbies who are taking up the *look* of plastic/rubbery fetish dolling right now. That doesn't mean they *want* to become giggly shiny Barbies anytime soon, just that for whatever reason, the look is "in" right now with a certain crowd that *cares* what's "in" right now.
And in due time, that crowd will get into EGL. Or masking. Or something else. And it won't be cutting edge so much as it will be *the piece* of dolling that is currently popular right now. As in, where on the curve, on the cycle are we?
Right now, the models and their managers are on a bit of a tight, shiny object kick. ^_^ This will change because models and their cliques are *flighty* that way.
^_^ So, have fun with it while you can, and don't spook the ponies.
So to speak,
--Brad Poe
Post a Comment