Kristen McMenamy for Vogue Italia August 2010 by Steven Meisel

agreed. as a gulf coast resident, this is insensitive and tacky. although it is very pretty, mcnamy looks dead in some of the images and people forget that there are folks who really did die during the explosion. and also i dont want to see tarred feathers, the gulf coast ecology is completely ruined because of this disaster. no steven miesel editorial can make people forget that the economy and environment of these states is in shambles, that people will never be able to put their lives back together.

You don't think there's a juxtaposition between her coughing and the suffering of the animals? I think that this is both artistic and it raises awareness.

agreed. as a gulf coast resident, this is insensitive and tacky. although it is very pretty, mcnamy looks dead in some of the images and people forget that there are folks who really did die during the explosion. and also i dont want to see tarred feathers, the gulf coast ecology is completely ruined because of this disaster. no steven miesel editorial can make people forget that the economy and environment of these states is in shambles, that people will never be able to put their lives back together.

It isn't trying to advertise fashion using the terrible incident at all. Rather it's commenting on the disgusting-ness of the whole thing.
If this kind of disaster had affected humans (like Meisel portrays in this series), we would perhaps realise the disasters we are creating through our own actions everyday. The affect this disaster has on the girls shown in the pictures is meant to liken the effect of our everyday actions on the environment and the creatures living in it – for whom we usually pay no heed.
In a sense, it comments (with sarcasm and irony) on our detachment and uncaring nature for the consequences of our actions – on not just ourselves but more importantly on the earth as a whole.

All this is captured with dramatic beauty and high-gloss fashion thrown into the mix. Meisel is a such a genius.
And Vogue Italia have such guts releasing something as groundbreaking and provocative as this – they use fashion as a means for more than just looking good (though that is always fun too, of course) or materialism .

Though your initial reaction of "this is so wrong" totally sums up the response Meisel/Vogue Italia were perhaps aiming for, in order to make us do a double take, to give this more than a few seconds thought.
The initial reaction of those that say this is disgusting, or disturbing, or horrible – that is what we should be feeling about the topic at hand; that is the whole point, no?

I agree, it's wrong. But they get attention.
Actually I think it's only natural that fashion magazines are influenced by what happens in the world. But when they try to make it look beautiful, then it doesn't feel right.

Why do fashion and social commentary have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't this be both? Of course there's always going to be a fine line between social commentary and basic exploitation for sales when it comes to something as resonating and heartbreaking as the oil spill but the way I see it is, are people really going to be rushing out to buy any of the clothing featured in this editorial? Or are they going to sit back and be upset, disgusted or any of the other words people are using to express their dislike over this shoot, by the real life devastation.

It isn't trying to advertise fashion using the terrible incident at all. Rather it's commenting on the disgusting-ness of the whole thing.
If this kind of disaster had affected humans (like Meisel portrays in this series), we would perhaps realise the disasters we are creating through our own actions everyday. The affect this disaster has on the girls shown in the pictures is meant to liken the effect of our everyday actions on the environment and the creatures living in it – for whom we usually pay no heed.
In a sense, it comments (with sarcasm and irony) on our detachment and uncaring nature for the consequences of our actions – on not just ourselves but more importantly on the earth as a whole.

All this is captured with dramatic beauty and high-gloss fashion thrown into the mix. Meisel is a such a genius.
And Vogue Italia have such guts releasing something as groundbreaking and provocative as this – they use fashion as a means for more than just looking good (though that is always fun too, of course) or materialism .

Though your initial reaction of "this is so wrong" totally sums up the response Meisel/Vogue Italia were perhaps aiming for, in order to make us do a double take, to give this more than a few seconds thought.
The initial reaction of those that say this is disgusting, or disturbing, or horrible – that is what we should be feeling about the topic at hand; that is the whole point, no?

Why do fashion and social commentary have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't this be both? Of course there's always going to be a fine line between social commentary and basic exploitation for sales when it comes to something as resonating and heartbreaking as the oil spill but the way I see it is, are people really going to be rushing out to buy any of the clothing featured in this editorial? Or are they going to sit back and be upset, disgusted or any of the other words people are using to express their dislike over this shoot, by the real life devastation.

What do you want her to be in? Garbage bags? Normal clothes? Do you have a problem with the fashion or the idea?

What do you want her to be in? Garbage bags? Normal clothes? Do you have a problem with the fashion or the idea?