W Redefines "Fashion Victim" in Furry Photo Spread
We may not always like W’s fashion spreads, but we do appreciate that they don’t just pose the models in front of a gray fabric backdrop and call it a day. The resulting photos are challenging and striking, and they always have a point of view.
All of which, sadly, is the best we can muster for “Into the Woods,” August. It challenged us, all right—challenged us not to throw the whole issue across the room. It wasn’t just the photos that looked like a child’s birthday party gone horribly wrong:
No, what really got to us was the stream of photos of model Doutzen Kroes wearing exotic furs while posed as if dead. Is implied violence with an added hint of nudity what passes for edgy?
Good job, W! Nothing makes us crave a Gucci badger fur coat like seeing it on the victim of a crime! And nothing says high fashion like a dead woman wearing dead animals!
Didn't they steal this from an episode of America's Next Top Model? I could swear I saw a "death" photo shoot last season. The only thing original is the fur. Oh, wait. Fur in a fashion magazine?! Groundbreaking!
Posted by: Kristina | July 23, 2007 at 01:09 PM
The ginormous bows perched on the models' heads make me think they were supposed to look like gifts. Dead, fur covered (with the exception of the pink-bow gift girl who is sans everything but boots and bow) gift girls. I'm not really into this concept.
Posted by: erin | July 23, 2007 at 02:36 PM
The bows also remind me a little of those aidsbanners... I'm wondering what message they want to bring across.
Posted by: Daisy | July 23, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Have you guys ever heard of the sex subculture called "Furries" (I think that's what it's called)? It's people who are sexually aroused by donning a cartoon-ish furry costume and then having sex with someone, or a person who likes to have sex with the furry costumed person. It's a strong subculture; they even have conventions. Anyhoo, I believe the folks at W are trying to dovetail many things here- Furries being one thing- along with CSI and perhaps a little Lolita thrown in. In my opinion, it just amounts to way too much stuff and it's not edgy; it's silly.
Sorry about my lack of italics for W, CSI and Lolita-- I'm kind of a moron with computers!
Posted by: T-Bone | July 23, 2007 at 04:29 PM
Possibly the most disturbing images I've seen in quite some time! What the eff were they thinking?
Posted by: Sarah | July 24, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I have mixed feelings about responding to stuff like this, given that the very intention of the creators is to raise ire and ride the concommitant wave for free publicity. Yes, this WAS done by ANTM, whose marketing/writing team must have been in paroxysms of glee when women's groups rose to the bait like so many fish [without bicycles] and blew the thing up.
The idea of staying silent while shit like this gets doesn;t appeal either though. Bit stymied I gotta say.
Posted by: Emily | July 24, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Is it supposed to be Goldilocks? Whatever, it's repulsive.
Posted by: Monica | July 25, 2007 at 07:51 AM
Yeah, I was incredibly conflicted about this spread. I love the contrast of the saturated colors and neutral tones but no amount of styling can really make up for such a disturbing theme. It's just creepy and trying too hard.
Posted by: The Mag Hag | July 30, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Yeah, I was incredibly conflicted about this spread. I love the contrast of the saturated colors and neutral tones but no amount of styling can really make up for such a disturbing theme. It's just creepy and trying too hard.
Posted by: The Mag Hag | July 30, 2007 at 01:26 PM
btw, love your site. I've added you to my "Mag Junkies" links :)
Posted by: The Mag Hag | July 30, 2007 at 01:58 PM
When I saw this, I thought, 'the bear is getting her back for killing his buddies and wearing them as a coat.'
Posted by: Elaine Vigneault | July 30, 2007 at 02:25 PM
This is the most retaded thing I have ever seen. Violence against women is not sexy. I thought womens rights were created for a reason? Apparently not, women should still be submissive and act beautiful even when probably gang raped and left for dead. As for the anally and vaginally electrocuted animals this poor example of a female is wearing, makes me want to vomit. I cant believe people allow this garbage to still go on. Heartless and ignorant.
Posted by: Maria Vella | July 30, 2007 at 04:16 PM
About the only possible positive spin I can put on it is that they were going for "Furs you would be caught dead in". (As in "I wouldn't be caught dead wearing that") If so, they missed. This looks more like something PETA would come up with, maybe with each photo matched to a picture of the carcass of whatever animal those furs came off of.
Posted by: rvman | July 31, 2007 at 02:07 PM
That description of the furry fandom is completely wrong. This is a good description of what "furry" is: http://www.anthrocon.org/about-furry
The furries in those pictures as much a nasty caricature of typical furries as those models are of typical women.
Posted by: Rachel | August 02, 2007 at 03:41 PM
this is disturbing on soo many levels.
-the little teddy bears, plus the big bows give the impression she is supposed to be childlike- innocent, yet sexualized- reminiscent of child-porn.
-not to mention the bows, especially the bigger ones, make her look like shes some wrapped present- a toy to play with, an object waiting to be had and unwrapped
-the nude frilly underwear just looks like rape to me: its nude, and the material is all mushed up and weird, looking like she was brutally attacked in that spot; thats what i see
-the furs might be going for that animalistic look- she's not fully human, she's an animal- primal
-umm one of the pictures doesnt even have a fur. she's just nude. not even the rape-panties. whats the point?
-be wary of people in bear costume?
Posted by: thestorysofar | November 08, 2007 at 11:41 AM