Wednesday 25 August 2010

If I see another celebrity goon in a magazine wearing a Herve Leger bandage dress I will...

Ok, well admittedly I probably won't do much. It's not exactly letter of complaint material, is it? But I can't help but recoil in horror everytime I see that bloody dress claim yet another identi-kit victim.

Seriously though - I know I'm not the first to say it and I certainly won't be the last, but when will it be written into some sort of law that bandage dresses HAVE BEEN DONE TO DEATH?

"Oh man... what are the chances of bumping into someone at a Herve Leger party who is also wearing a Herve Leger dress? Mandy, you bitch!"

Oh, and if the law ever gets passed, could someone see to it that the same goes for Ugg boots? Ta x

Friday 13 August 2010

What's that Mike Stock? Pop music has become too sexually suggestive?

Nonsense! Gaawd how terribly old fashioned. [Insert more phrases uttered by today's disaffected youth here** for full effect]

In other unrelated news, here's Rihanna in concert at New York's Madison Square Gardens. Yep, nothing to see here... It's just your average pop gig: bit of a sing song, a tame dance routine... You know the drill. I mean, yeah; so you can practically see her labia, but that's fashion right? And the microphone to crotch look? So next season. Definitely not suggestive in any way, shape or form (ahem, pardon the pun).


Above: "Testing, testing. Mike check... Well go on then, don't be shy. Say hello"

Above: "You can see my vagina, ina, ina. Eh, eh, eh.

**And yes, yours will probably be better than my attempt, which included horrifically uncool words like 'nonsense' and 'terribly'.


Sunday 13 June 2010

Celebrities 'balls’ up their World Cup geography

Whilst I don't pretend to know much about the ins and outs of football and the World Cup (well, aside from knowing that the ball has to go 'in' the goal, which for me, is arguably enough to get by) I have to say I'm feeling like a certified geographical genius after the recent spate of World Cup induced celeb geography gaffes.

Putting their foot(ball) in their mouths ahead of the England vs USA match were:

ZAC EFRON

Yes he's pretty and makes young girls swoon, but Effers is still prone to the odd interview faux pas, saying that he couldn't wait for the States' game... against Man United. Now I wouldn't want to write poor Zackie off as being ever so slightly mis-informed, so here's a breakdown of his possible thought process:

Football = soccer = LA Galaxy= David Beckham = Used to play for Man Utd= USA are playing Man Utd.

So you see, he was really being quite logical when you think about it. Really hard.

It's a scientifically proven fact that placing a shirtless image of Zac Efron on any blog will increase hits fifty-fold

KATY PERRY

The Daily Mail reported that Katy Perry, "showed her support for both teams when she stepped out wearing a rubber dress which had one half made from a Union Jack flag and the other from an American Flag".

Hmm, all well and good, except for the small fact that Great Britain don't actually enter the World Cup, hence why people have been waving around this thing called the English flag. Looking as insanely hot as she did, obviously I'm willing to forgive K-Pez and her design oversight, but the Daily Mail not picking up on such a glaring error? Tut tut...

NEW YORK POST

Also victim to the England/Britain confusion was clearly the New York Post, who ran with this front page:

It's also worth pointing out, New York Post, that a 'win' generally constitutes as beating an opposing team, not DRAWING WITH THEM.

JACKIE CHAN

Lastly, the Chan-meister should probably steer clear of the footie talk, or at least admit that he hasn't got the foggiest when it comes to the World Cup. He confidently predicted that Milan and Barcelona would go far - lets just hope he hasn't got a large sum of money riding on that happening. On second thoughts, anyone got his agent's telephone number? I have a bet I'd like to discuss...

Monday 7 June 2010

Is it wrong...

That upon reading the following hilarious typo in a university email sent to me about an outstanding materials fee* from 2008:

"As your Exam Board is taking place shorty, this debt needs to be cleared immediately."

I couldn't resist replying,

"Hey, who you calling shorty?"

Oh how I make myself chuckle. I did however, style it out with this witty aside:

"(Sorry, it's the proof reading journo in me, couldn't resist!)"

So all in all I think the sender should not deny me my graduation, based on my bad humour. Right?

* The "materials fee" being an additional £50 a year no less, for the privilege of a few photocopied sheets of paper. Obviously you'd think that the £3,050 a year tuition fees would just about cover the cost, but apparently not. Ah, you've got to love those UAL pranksters. Repeat to self: "I am not a bitter person. I am not a bitter person..."

Friday 14 May 2010

I'm in love with a 12 year old (in a completely non-sexual way I hasten to add)

Oh. My. God.

That was my reaction - along with the other 11 million plus viewers - when I watched 12 year old Greyson Chance's rendition of Paparazzi on youtube. In the two weeks since it was loaded, Greyson has gone from school talent show hero, to small time celebrity, and has already appeared on the Elen DeGeneres show where he spoke over the phone with Gaga.



The difference with this kid in comparison to other annoying youtube sensations (yeah, you Justin Bieber) is that he has genuine incredible talent, both vocally and on the piano. Not only that, but a scary maturity and articulacy when being interviewed by Ellen. He's 12! Any other kid would surely have crumbled!

And rather tragically, watching him hit the high notes he does with such ease not only made me insecure of my own vocal talents (sob), but also a little bit sad at the prospect that he might lose some of those notes once his voice breaks.

(Ahem, I was going to make a joke about finally understanding choir boys being castrated, but that would just be tasteless wouldn't it?)

Anyway, regardless of that, this kid is an immense talent (he writes his own songs as well, including the morbid Stars which is about a woman who dies of cancer and is shortly joined in the 'stars' by her husband), and deserves all the praise he's getting. You can criticise youtube all you like, but when a gem like this comes along, it makes it all worthwhile and proves it's a vital social platform.

Now excuse me while I go and stalk, sorry listen, some more.

Wednesday 28 April 2010

M.I.A vs. Gaga

After seeing M.I.A's controversial new video for the single Born Free, I feel a little sad at the fact that gone are the days where the excitement of music was simply about getting your hands on [insert favourite artist]'s new record/tape/cd, and is now simply geared towards the sentence, "oh my god, have you seen so and so's new video??"

It's like the actual song has become secondary, and the bigger the budget/more controversial the video, all the better (extra points if you can combine high budget and controversy like Lady Gaga, in which case you'll be laughing all the way to the bank).




But anyway, onto the actual video for Born Free. M.I.A's got balls, I'll give her that. The nine minute film was directed by Romain Gavras (whose last controversial offering was Justice's Stress) and has already received the obligatory ban from youtube.

In summary, it features American police storming into a block of flats, aggressively pushing aside a middle aged couple in the middle of getting down and dirty (sexual scenes: check), before finding their target - a young man who they bundle into one of their vans and drive off to the desert. His crime? He, like every other person in the van, is a redhead. Yep, welcome to the ginger holocaust.

Reaching their desert destination, the redheads are lined up, and watch as one officer shoots a young boy in the head.


Just in case you missed the gore, this is helpfully played out in slow motion, for full bone chilling effect. The rest of the line-up are ordered to run, in a chase to their inevitable deaths (a combination of gunshots and being blown to pieces by landmines if you must know). Meanwhile, our protagonist eventually stumbles, and is brutally beaten. You get the gist of it...

Interestingly, eagle eyed youtube commenters have spotted that the colouring and complexions of the police would suggest that under their helmets, they too have red hair - a clever symbol of the hypocrisy involved in most conflicts.

Highly provocative and politically charged, it's clear that with this video, M.I.A isn't interested in 'sucking up' to her American audience; she's been outspoken in the past about what she believes to be the US government's censorship of Sri Lankan homicide, saying of the scenes of fighting between the rebels and the army: "It's systematic genocide, ethnic cleansing ... it's just out and out Nazi Germany".

However, in her native Sri Lanka, the majority of people view the rebels as "terrorists" and deny a genocide. The singer - whose father was a Tamil "revolutionary" - has also faced accusations of spreading "terrorist propaganda".

Regardless of her personal reasons for the video, the simple fact is that a statement like this is always going to face cynical accusations. Make a controversial video, stir up some buzz, and hey presto: record sales. M.I.A might believe she's doing things her own way, but it's to the glee of her record company.

In a Guardian article, Anna Pickard comments on the video's unnessessary use of 'shock images', saying that the video's powerful message:

'Is diluted by the fact that Gavras, again, seems to pack random "shocking" images into the film, for no apparent reason other than to say "LOOK! Overweight naked people! They're having sex, even though they're FAT! And here in the next room there's a nice old man smoking crack! Ooooooh, isn't it shocking!

'It's not a part of the film that adds anything or contributes to the story, the message or the issues. It's more like the News at Ten opening with Huw Edwards shouting "POO BUM WILLY TITS!" before launching into the headlines.'

I somewhat agree with Pickard, and it makes you wonder: just how much of the ideas in the video are M.I.A and Gavras' doing, and how much of it has been pushed by record label fat cats, greedy to generate column inches and an internet buzz?

Interestingly, M.I.A is label mates with Lady Gaga, who she's also voiced her opinions on, telling NME:

"Do we still need record labels? Are they even interested in making money from music anymore? Lady Gaga plugs 15 things in her new video. Dude, she even plugs a burger! That’s probably how they’re making money right now - buying up the burger joint, putting the burger in a music video and making loads of burger money."

She goes on to say, "She models herself on Grace Jones and Madonna but the music sounds like 20 year-old Ibiza disco. She's not progressive, but she's a good mimic... None of her music’s reflective of how weird she wants to be or thinks she is”.

Some brilliantly fair points: I actually think Lady Gaga is alright, but her downfall is how seriously she takes her self-proclaimed 'art'. While I agree her that her image is refreshing (her crazy ensembles are as close as we're ever gonna get to the stir that artists like New York Dolls, Bowie et al provoked back in the day), she holds too high an opinion of her music when speaking about it in interviews, when it's not groundbreaking or different in any way.

To me, her chart songs downplay her actual talent, and it's only when she sits down at her piano that you get any sense of her as an artist, with something to say.

Gaga also claims to be doing things her own way, yet I find that her beliefs often contradict the outcome. In an interview with Q magazine, she discussed the early reservations her record company had about her image, and how she fought tooth and nail to avoid the sexualised pop star cliché: "The last thing a young woman needs is another picture of a sexy pop star writhing in sand, covered in grease, touching herself."

A valid point, yes. Yet Gaga's image has always been about flashing the flesh, and has consequently become more and more sexualised (yes, I'm talking about those close-ups on her 'derriere' in the Telephone video, not to mention the previous video offering by Bey and Gaga, aka the porn-tastic and not-at-all-subtle Video Phone).


Above: Ok, so granted Lady G; there's no sand or grease, but there's definite 'writhing'.
If this video - and accompanying lyrics - isn't a blatant display of SEX SEX SEX, then stick a telephone on my head and call me 'gaga'

So what point am I trying to make out of all of this? Essentially, when I saw the Born Free video, I felt compelled to write about it because on the one hand I think it's gutsy, and a politically charged statement like that is not something that a money-driven 'product' like Lady Gaga could - or would - ever dare do.

On the other hand, the video is reflective of the 'shock' tactics employed in music and film; the more graphic, the more violent, and the more sexually explicit the product, the more publicity it generates which ultimately equates to sales.

Whether that formula will work in the case of Born Free, we'll just have to wait and see. Then again, with Diana Vickers presently at number one, maybe I've got it all wrong, and it's actually less about the shock factor, and more about the bland factor.

Incidentally, I think Born Free as a 'song' is basically the same as what M.IA accuses Gaga of anyway. It's an unoriginal offering, wrapped up in an extravagant video which gives it the pretence of something bigger.

Strip Born Free of its provocative video, and it's just M.I.A "sampling" yet another classic song (Ghost Rider by Suicide) and adding some distorted, fuzzy shouty vocals over the top of it.

As Planet Ill says, "It will get casual pop-punk fans off the wall and those hipster folks will like it because they will assume she’s saying something deep because she’s yelling over a punk track. However, if you prefer substance over style I can give you the names of 10 punk bands that will suit you better."

Monday 29 March 2010

How It's Meant To Be

My latest distraction technique - cubase recording



sell music online
Quantcast

How It's Meant To Be

Another day has gone where you’ve been left alone
Footsteps surround you but there’s no-one walking home
They seem to look into your eyes so desperately
Until the sun is down you’re all for them to see

And now your mother’s asking who you’ve been around
She tells you daddy’s not surprised when they were found
This isn’t how it’s meant to be
This isn’t how it’s meant to be

Because you’re alone
Because you’re alone

And now you’re searching for the place you see in your mind
Blank people tell you it’s impossible to find
The broken heart of all the dreams you had for me
Is now the faded blood that only I can see

And your now mother’s asking who you’ve been around
She tells you daddy’s not surprised when they were found
This isn’t how it’s meant to be
This isn’t how it’s meant to be

Because you’re alone
Because you’re alone

Wednesday 10 March 2010

Jack the Ripper blame game: Jew, toff or medic?

Jack the Ripper: Tabloid Killer, channel five

So I just watched a documentary on Jack the Ripper (this is fast becoming a film/tv blog, I realise) and I'm kicking myself that I didn't think to choose it for my dissertation topic! Suddenly punk seems so tame...

I've always had a strange fascination with the Jack the Ripper killings, and the Victorian East End as a whole. I think it's a culmination of feeling some sort of connection, due to my mum being from that neck of the woods (we found out recently that her great great great grandfather was a constable on the Jack the Ripper case!), and loving the London Dungeons and the 1968 Oliver! musical as a kid. Whatever the reasons, there's definitely a sense of romanticism that we attach to these parts of history (weird, considering what they actually entail).

Below: Oliver Reed as Bill Sykes in the 1968 Oliver! musical


Anyway, although I wasn't expecting to find out much new - it has been more than 120 years since the murders after all - the documentary's focus on the journalism aspect of the case was particularly fascinating.

Eight years before Lord Northcliffe had set up the Daily Mail and discovered the profits of sensational tabloid style news - along with the uttering of his immortal phrase, "Get me a murder a day!" - it was in fact the editor of the Daily Star (no, not that one) who began to reap the benefits of 'bloody' news.

In 1888, the ability to read was no longer just the privilege of the upper classes in Britain; what with education and tax reforms (the latter making newspapers cheaper and more readily available), literacy was rapidly on the rise. With a growing population of working class readers, journalism was changing, and needed to satisfy the interests of its expanding readerships.

The birth of 'New Journalism', saw a shift towards simplified, to-the-point language, alongside dramatic and/or human interest stories with sensational headlines; essentially, what we now call tabloid journalism.

Around the same time, the fledgling Daily Star picked up - seemingly by chance - on the murder of a young woman, and found that the gritty details of her death boosted their sales. When they linked her death to another murder (commonly regarded as being totally inaccurate and unrelated), bingo! They sold more.

The paper had successfully kick-started a serial killer 'panic'. The question nowadays when looking to the whole debacle, is whether this early coverage unwittingly spurred on the Ripper.

Fast forward to the five gruesome killings that followed (all widely believed to be the work of one man - Jack the Ripper) and the newspapers were full of accusations.

Drawing parallels with today's tabloids that often attribute society's 'ills' to minority groups, the coverage of Jack the Ripper at first stated, entirely on speculation, that he was a Jew, as no English man could be "capable" of such a gruesome crime.

Below: grim image of the Ripper's first victim

This was followed by the 'toff': another great figure of hate masterminded by the editors (the toff being the enemy, because the readers, like the victims of the Ripper, were vastly from the lower classes), and lastly the popularised image of a high society doctor, complete with hat and brief case.

The key aspect however, in the level of notoriety that the Jack the Ripper killings have achieved, is all down to the name: a perfect mix of normality (the very name 'Jack') and brutality. A headline writer's wet dream you might say.

How the name came about, says even more about the influence of the press in cementing the Ripper's status forever more. The name 'Jack the Ripper' was first used in the "Dear Boss" letter, which was sent conveniently to the Central News Agency, and signed off politely with, "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper".


It was none other than a journalist who is said to have written the hoax; the perfect way to drum up more interest - and profit - in the story. Convincing evidence revealed in the documentary points to one particular hack, and a letter suggests that the corporation knew fully well that it was his doing.

As presenter Kelvin Mackenzie (former editor of The Sun) points out, this man would have inevitably been protected - and more possibly, instructed - by higher powers to write the letter. The ultimate person, he says, who has the power to do so, is the editor. Takes one to know one...

Putting aside the questionable aspects to this documentary (at one stage, some sort of scientist man demonstrates where precisely, one of the victims was cut, by drawing on a woman lying on the operating table in her bra. Not sure that was necessary, but hey - it's channel Five), it's interesting to see where the serial killer phenomena really all kicked off.

The irony of Mackenzie discussing the underhand tactics employed by the newspapers to create a stir surrounding the killings is quite funny when you consider that The Daily Star was basically the 19th century equivalent to The Sun.

Add to that Mackenzie's own shady past (he alienated a generation of Liverpudlian Sun readers over the false reporting of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, which blamed Liverpool fans and included allegations of fans stealing from/urinating over the dead bodies) and it's easy to see that he belongs to the same "drama before accuracy" school of thought.

Below: Mackenzie. A quick Google search brings you to his Wikipedia page which contains the message: "the neutrality of this article is disputed". Tee hee, more irony...

Whether it's down to the romanticism of Victorian East London, or the brilliantly catchy 'Jack the Ripper' name daubed with the killings (and arguably, without this 'catchy' tag, the murders would have been confined to a forgotten chapter of history) more than a century later, the presence of the case is still plain to see, in everything from new conspiracy theories, to Jack the Ripper tours.

As one editor in the documentary points out (his name escapes me), it is quite simply the most famous of all murders, because it has never been solved.

On that note, I shall leave you with some immature Jack the Ripper cartoon parodies. My particular favourite is Jack as a child.

Tuesday 9 February 2010

Fashion doc reveals seediness behind the glamour

Just as my arrival into the blog world has been spectacularly late, I am probably a bit slow on the old uptake with regards to the film I am about to discuss, but nevertheless I thought I'd get my two cents in. The film in question, is Picture Me, a video diary-type documentary following five years in the life of fashion model Sara Ziff.

Above: a fresh faced Sara Ziff

Over the course of filming, Ziff snuck her - now ex - boyfriend and film maker Ole Schell into fashion shows, shoots, and parties (often resulting in him being thrown out, and/or having his camera confiscated) in order to gain a unique insight into the ins and outs of the fashion industry, along the way exposing some gritty truths.

The various clips of footage clearly document Ziff's 'falling out of love' with the industry that she was once excited to be a part of. She appears to transform from a happy-go-lucky teenager, bemused at seeing her own image plastered up on billboards and amazed by $100,000 dollar cheques, to an exhausted and disillusioned young woman, keen to break free of the career that had her earning more than her father (a neuroscientist professor) by the age of 20.

On the surface, while it may all sound a little 'woe is me', the reality depicted is an insightful contrast between the rich and glamorous side of the fashion industry, versus the dark and seedy. While we all know deep down that dodgy deals and cocaine lurk in the shadows of fashion, it becomes more poignant to hear it first hand from the girls who are desensitised to this way of life.

Below: model Senna Cech, who reveals the seedy tactics employed by respected photographers

Fellow model Sena Cech talks to the camera matter of factly, about her experience with "a very famous" photographer, who asked her to take off her clothes during a casting. Nothing new about that, but the photographer then proceeds to take his clothes off, while his assistant says to Cech: "Sena — can you grab his cock and twist it real hard... He likes it when you squeeze it real hard and twist it."

Staring straight at the camera, Cech says, "I did it, but later I didn't feel good about it". Needless to say, she booked the job.

To her credit, Cech came to her senses and turned it down - she was never booked by that photographer again -, but it clearly demonstrates the dirty tactics and power struggle between photographers and their subjects. Here, these men use their credibility and influence in the fashion world to bribe young girls, in return for furthering their careers. What's shocking is that the film makes it clear that Cech's experience isn't a unique one.

Industry standards certainly seem to contribute to the problem; girls are discovered young, often plucked from small and remote towns, and taken to big foreign cities to model, where they are essentially left to fend for themselves, with no parent or guardian.

Below: Sena Cech. Do we take it for granted that a model hasn't felt pressured into nudity?

Ziff says: "It doesn't happen in front of anyone. It happens in the dark recesses. Pretty much every girl I have talked to has a story like it, but no one talks about it. It's all under the radar because people are embarrassed and because the people in the industry who are doing these things are much more powerful, and the model is totally disposable. She could be gone in two years."

A similar interview with a 16 year old model details her experience at a photo shoot in Paris, with "one of the world's top names" in photography. Inexperienced and unaccompanied by any guardian or parent, she leaves the studio to go to the bathroom and meets the photographer, who starts fiddling with her clothes, before suddenly putting his hand between her legs and sexually assaulting her.

The interview didn't make the final version of the film, as the day before the premiere, the girl changed her mind for fear of the repercussions.

Ziff tells the Guardian: "She has no experience of boys, she hasn't even been kissed. She was so shocked she just stood there and didn't say anything. He just looked at her and walked away and they did the rest of the shoot. And she never told anyone." She adds, "there is a lot of shame in telling a story like that, but it is really widespread.

Curious as to who these 'well known' photographers could be, a quick google search seemed to link controversial and sexually explicit photographer Terry Richardson with Sena Cech's story.

Above: Richardson's famous shot of glossy Maybelline model Josie Moran simulating fellatio with a cow's udder. Somewhere in this picture, she is apparently modelling for Italian fashion brand Sisley, although personally that's not coming through to me...

It seems that New York blog Jezebel posted a link to the Guardian article about Picture Me (the article details the aforementioned allegations made by Cech), alongside an image of Richardson receiving, ahem, 'manual stimulation'. Pretty clear what the blog is trying to suggest really, isn't it?

Except, maybe not, because in a further twist - and perhaps to cover their backs - Jezebel added a clarification, noting that Richardson's image was only used because of a comment he'd made in an interview with Hint Mag where he said: "It's not who you know, it's who you blow. I don't have a hole in my jeans for nothing."

The author of Jezebel's blog was an anonymous writer named Tatiana, who is rumoured to be none other than Sara Ziff.

Arguably, it is possible that Ziff - now said to be a student at Columbia University - would want to 'lift the lid' further than her film was able to do, by naming and shaming sordid photographers.

Below: Richardson with Daisy Lowe. Now that's just plain creepy.

Below: Richardson captures some of the world's most photographed models, blurring the lines between a 'fashion shoot' and soft porn

(Left to right): Eniko Mihalik, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Catherine McNeil, Abbey Lee Kershaw, Daisy Lowe, Gracie Carvalho, Marloes Horst, Lily Cole, Ana Beatriz Barros, Miranda Kerr, Georgina Stojiljkovic

Anyway, I digress, and of course it's only speculation that Richardson was the unnamed photographer in Cech's story. But it is a revealing insight to find out that top names in photography are abusing the silence of young, impressionable models.

Short of re-telling the entire film, I suppose the reason I felt compelled to write about it, was that it got me questioning certain aspects of the fashion industry which I don't usually consider.

Within the media, we are so used to hearing about the negative influences of fashion on normal girls i.e. the 'consumers', yet the pressures on the actual young models are often less documented.

The reality is, designers want the 'new' girl every season, and it would seem that young 'flesh' is highly desirable. In the belief that clothes look better on slim, androgynous frames, the catwalks therefore look to young gangly teenage models, whose bodies are not yet fully developed.

This very fact is attributed to the pressure to stay thin. Quite simply, 'older' models (so you're looking at 24 onwards) find themselves competing against younger, thinner girls, and thus find that they have to resort to unnatural measures in order to stay thin like them.

Above: Belarusian model Tanya D, known for her 'alien' looks is featured in Picture Me (then aged 16), where she describes feeling older than her years. She started modelling at 14, but praises the industry for being "a good school"

Another aspect of fashion that the film got me questioning, is the use of nudity. Fashion has always been sexually provocative, but I can't help but think that there has been a rise in sexually explicit material over the last few years, where full frontal nudity and/or sexually explicit shots have become even more common place in high fashion magazines and the mainstream media, than they were before.

Below: American Apparel (whose chief executive has been the subject of several sexual harassment cases) have become notorious for their use of young girls in overtly sexualised shots to advertise their products


The AA advert below was infamously banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Agency for being "seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years" (although it has to be pointed out, the model was 23)


Take the recent edition of Love magazine, which featured eight of the world's most in demand models - including Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell and Lara Stone - each stark naked on one of the 8 covers.

I can't help but wonder about each individual model's circumstances and reasons for agreeing to shoots such as this; whether they are fully comfortable with nudity and whether there is a sense of obligation to comply with a photographer's vision 'because every other successful model is doing it'.

Amongst the younger, less established models, is it a case of, "well if Kate and Naomi are doing it, I can't say no"? And with the seasoned pro's, is there pressure to keep up -and prove themselves still worthy - with the younger models of the moment?

Below: each of the Love magazine covers. A cheap use of nudity in order to cause a stir, or art?


Whatever your thoughts on the ethics of the industry, the film offers a unique perspective of the fashion world, and is definitely worth a watch.

And hey, with Spencer Tunick's latest nude installation at the Sydney Opera House successfully gathering over 5000 people willing to pose sans clothing, maybe nudity is no longer so 'shocking' to the masses anyway.


Saturday 30 January 2010

Little Intro

Hello. I'm Lucy and this is my blog, "The Journal of Lucy D". As the title would suggest - and as common with most blogs - I shall be using it as a journal to write about the things that interest me (and also probably the things that don't).

Incidentally, being the procrastinator that I am, I have timed starting a blog perfectly with my impending dissertation deadline -a fluke, I'm sure (I'll soon be graduating from a BA Hons Journalism course). Anything to get out of dissertation hell. But I will at least, be exercising my writing skills. So there.

I can't think of a suitable picture (or should that read interesting) to illustrate the above, so here is a picture of Debbie Harry instead, my all time favourite pop star, pictured with Iggy Pop - a lethal combo!