Another Assault on Little Girls
The most recent issue of Vogue Paris (or should I say l'issue de janvier/fé vrier?) struck a nerve when it hit newsstands, upsetting the very readers who count on the magazine to be provocative. They're guaranteed it. Vogue Paris's editor in chief, Carine Roitfeld, once told a British journalist that she tries to include "something every month that is—how you say?—not politically correct. A little bit at the limit. Sex, nudity, a bit rock'n'roll, a sense of humour."
Wait, I should clarify: Roitfeld is French Vogue's former editor. Within a few weeks of the December issue's release, Roitfeld announced that she was leaving the magazine. Some commentators speculate that the Cadeaux, or, for English speakers, "Gifts," photo spread went too far, even for French Vogue. What, in this unfailingly erotic publication, could be so troubling that it would arouse rumors such as that one?
In "Cadeaux," the models are very slim—but that's nothing new. Nor is it earth-shattering that they wear too much makeup or that there is something suggestive in the picture of the model inexplicably holding a toothbrush in her mouth. Aren't such photos de rigueur for Vogue? It couldn't be the opulence of the props or that the stiletto-wearing models recline on animal skins. Nor should their blank (yet at the same time, somehow, hostile) expressions raise eyebrows. Non, c'est vrai, all of that is to be expected.
So what could be so bad that it could possibly have cost Roitfeld her job?
I suppose the fact that the models are no older than six or seven years old might have something to do with it.
Wait, a minute, though. Are fans of the December issue correct when they say that those of us who find some of these images disturbing are just dirty-minded ourselves? The girls, after all, aren't naked or engaged in sexual acts. What's wrong with a game of dress-up? Don't all little girls love to raid their mommies' closets and put on high heels and silky slips from time to time? Could I be—how you say?—prudish or naïf to find the pictures unsettling?
The Romantic poet William Wordsworth is known for having written poems idealizing the innocence of childhood. His "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood" explores the damage to "delight and liberty, the simple creed of childhood" as children glimpse and then engage in the adult world.
That poem came to my mind a few years ago when my older daughter moved out of size 6X clothes. Suddenly instead of the lollipops, ladybugs, and butterflies that had adorned the shirts and dresses on the racks in the little girls' department, I found myself in a land of low-riding, "distressed" blue jeans and where skulls leered at me from the fronts of T-shirts. They were clothes that seemed suitable for young adults experimenting with an edgy new look or for Jennifer Beals's character in Flashdance. They didn't, however, feel appropriate for my daughter's first day of kindergarten. I retreated online to Hanna Andersson and L. L. Bean—the latter a name so often seen on my kids' clothes that, once or twice, one of my kids was called by that name. I liked the way these companies viewed children as children. The models in their catalogs smiled brightly. They were pictured on swing sets or skiing or jumping rope. Not to get all poetic on you, but they seemed to embrace Wordsworth's notion of childhood's creed. The children were happy, and they were free.
To add a comment you need to be a registered user or Christianity Today subscriber.
or
or
Bless These Hands That Instagram My Food
Don't Tell Emily Post: Guests Are Paying For Weddings Now
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 28 comments
See all comments
Les Nordman
Iain wrote: "'Your alarm bells rang true: they just rang for the fire raging in England of several decades ago, not of a fire raging in Queen Victoria's England.' Sorry Les, if you don't think this was an issue in Victorian England you realy are very unaware of the the major issues there were with the white slave trade and child prostitution in that era." Iain, thank you for clarifying the issue. "Cadeaux" presents us with a complex, interlocking set of problems: what people do in real life and what people do in art. "Cadeaux" is horrible both levels: on the level of life and on the level of art. First, on the level of life, the artists and publishers actually exploited real little girls in order to sell their magazines. That is wrong. That is evil. Second, "Cadeaux" is horrible on the level of art because it says that artists can legitimately seuxally exploit little girls as art and such exploitation can remain good art. No, it cannot. It is bad art. It is evil. Third, in 2011, in today's culture, the article writer perceived correctly "Cadeaux's" problems. In my previous post, I was speaking to the poster (either Barbara or Robin Forrester, I am not sure which) about the problem she correctly perceived in the England of Elizabeth II. I do not denigrate the poster for her insight, I congratulate her on it. At the same time, I wanted to to tell the poster that when she observed the painting on the restaurant wall, she perceived the problems of an age later than, and of a culture different than, that of the painting. Very likely the painting she saw did not show the problems of the England of Victoria. I then tried to illustrate the differences of time and culture with the (apparently) correct behaviors of the Roman Catholic artist Bouguereau in France who lived across the Channel from Victoria's England. In your post, Iain, you very forcefully (and correctly, I believe) laid out some of the awful problems that plagued Victorian England. I will search out the sources you cited and will read them with great interest. The painting the previous poster saw on her restaurant's wall in Central England may not have presented those problems. Just as Dr. Wissman wrote: "Such images as 'Rest in Harvest' or 'Child at Bath' (1886; Plate 40) set off alarm bells in the late twentieth century, with our awareness of child abuse in its many forms. It is important when looking at these pictures and others by Bouguereau, his contemporaries, and precursors back to antiquity--in which children, nude or clothed, are depicted in what to our eyes are provocative poses and situations--that we remember we are looking at art, a complex system of symbols and conventions that only rarely reflects life as it is lived. . . . " Wissman wrote that Victorian Englishmen (and -women) responded differently to such art than we do today. That said, did horrible things occur in Victoria's England? Yes. At the same time, across the Channel in France, did horrible things happen, in art and in life, at the same time as M. Bouguereau endeavoured through his decades of work to do the right thing? Yes. But I don't want us to comfuse the three times and cultures. So, Iain, the situation "Cadeaux" presents us with is complex. Some people are doing horrible things to little children in real life. Some people are doing good things to little children in real life. Some artists are doing horrible things in their art while still claiming respectability and demanding acceptance. Other artists are doing good in their art. Some art customers see art made in the present and correctly perceive present problems in the present art. Other art customers see art made in the past and project today's problems into the past. The past had its own problems, both in life and in art. I posted because I don't want us to confuse the problems. As the dad of a prima ballerina, Mila Izotova, I am well ...
p
the other thing is having worked in fashion before becoming a christian i have been exposed to rumours of editors preying on models, 60 year men finding 14-16 year old models.. it is the SAME thing, i'm sorry. the whole industry is from the pit, I am glad i am on my way out.
Iain
'Your alarm bells rang true: they just rang for the fire raging in England of several decades ago, not of a fire raging in Queen Victoria's England.' Sorry Les, if you don't think this was an issue in Victorian England you realy are very unaware of the the major issues there were with the white slave trade and child prostitution in that era. The British Parliament was corrupt enough to have numerous members who wanted to lower the age of consent from 12 to 10 years so that they could legally rape ever younger girls. That they were prevented from doing so was in large part due to the work of WT Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette and the leadership of the Salvation Army who fought to see the age of consent raised to it's current 16 years. Do a search on The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon for more infor on the subject. Unfortunately the same issues of child prostitution are still being swept under the carpet. See this Wednesday's issue of 'The Times' (of London) for an up to date UK expose. As a dad of 17 and 5 year old daughters, I am well aware of (and involved in) the battle to keep them protected without their being naive. Sometimes it just needs enough people going in to complain to the stockists, especially if they are major chains. Raise your voices where they can have maximum financial impact as well as here. Good article.
Doreen Ashley
And to think I was enjoying climbing trees when I was 6 or 7! I'm glad this article brought this to light, but I wish the author would have researched the Forever 21 maternity line a little more thoroughly. Forever 21 is not solely a teen clothing line, but have loads of customers in their 20's, 30's, and up. They have cheap, fashionable clothing, and when my husband and I decide to have kids you can guarantee I'll be buying maternity clothes from them. Fashionable maternity clothes are hard to find so Forever 21 is filling that niche and I think it's great! Let's choose our battles wisely.
amy
GREAT piece. Sometimes I breathe a sigh of relief that I'm not raising girls.
Les Nordman
Barbara wrote: "Thanks for highlighting this. It's not new of course. Some decades ago I went into a restaurant in Central England and as I ate my meal became aware (as a Child Protection specialist) of a copy of a painting on the wall. It was Victorian with a little girl of 6 or 7 in a beautiful frilly dress etc. Something about it disturbed me and rang a bell at the back of my mind. She was leaning with her elbow against a wall. Her feet were crossed at the ankles. She looked directly at the viewer in an uncomfortable way." Fronia E. Wissman wrote in her book "Bouguereau" (Pomegranate Artbooks, 1996): "Such images as 'Rest in Harvest' or 'Child at Bath' (1886; Plate 40) set off alarm bells in the late twentieth century, with our awareness of child abuse in its many forms. It is important when looking at these pictures and others by Bouguereau, his contemporaries, and precursors back to antiquity--in which children, nude or clothed, are depicted in what to our eyes are provocative poses and situations--that we remember we are looking at art, a complex system of symbols and conventions that only rarely reflects life as it is lived. In antiquities fat little babies painted on vases and in murals played at all sorts of grown-up games, from assisting at romantic assignations to forging iron or waging mock battles. Artists in the Renaissance revived the babies-as-adults theme, and the tradition continued. . . . "In Bouguereau's paintings the only element of interest is the figure, and when that figure is a seminaked child, whose direct gaze meets ours, we grow uneasy. But Bouguereau's intended audience did not. If they acknowledged the undercurrent of sexuality, either they repressed it and enjoyed the superb painting technique, or they admitted an appeal in a way perhaps more honest than our contemporary mores permit. Think of Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), who was able to photograph little girls in the nude only because the parents of the girls allowed him to do so. An appreciation of the fullness of childhood, which encompasses innocence and sexuality, informs both Dodgson's photographs and Bouguereaus's paintings." (p. 60 and 62) Barbara: it is good that, as a a Child Protection specialist, you saw the danger present several decades ago, of children made to look like prostitutes of the day. The painting you saw, however, came from Victorian England, a time when Englishmen and -women held a far different value system than the one promoted by both the prostitutes of several decades ago and by the odious Vogue article in question. Your alarm bells rang true: they just rang for the fire raging in England of several decades ago, not of a fire raging in Queen Victoria's England. I could be wrong, of course: not all artists were as principled as M. Bouguereau. What do you think?
pink human
I seem to recall a fall Chicos catalog with several images of a fairly young girl dressed up in make-up and jewelry, yet no one was outraged. The company sells womens clothing to the 35+ demographic, yet it chose to include this young girl in its catalog as a way to market its products. The girl has not appeared in catalogs since then, but I dont recall anyone saying that this company was robbing little girls of their innocence when the catalog appeared since the idea of dress up was more easily conveyed because of the product. But the little girl did NOT look like the typical dress-up child; rather, the girl was photographed as a high fashion model would bepicture perfect hair and make-up and not with any outlandish costuming or pretend posing. Vogue is actually late to the game.
anonymous
And also that picture, the magazine is not just saying that women have to be immaculate, look good, make more effort then men to dress up, be physical, sexual objects but now girls have to follow suit. Girls are not women, for goodness sake! And shouldn't be dressed up to look like it! Just leave them alone the way they are.
anonymous
I agree with Robyn 100%. The modelling agency does pick women who are so stick thin their figures resemble that of a girl's figure that you'd expect a 12 year old to have not a woman who is say 20+. Women are supposed to have curves, it's natural, it's healthy. But the modelling industry seems to want to portray child like features as being more attractive than a natural woman. It's like trying to attract men to little girls who haven't developed properly yet and I find that a bit sickening and wrong. Why can't girls just be allowed to be children instead of being turned into adults and be carefree and have fun, without added pressure and the responsibilty to turn into adults before they are ready? A 7 year old girl being curious about her mum's makeup and clothes and trying a bit on for fun and role play is a bit different to plastering a 7 year old top to toe in make up,and dressing them like a woman and making them pose and pout because we all know that woman in the media are portrayed as sex objects, they have to be attractive and bare some skin because that's all that matters is seduction. If a 12 year old boy is made to dress up as a man it still suggests trying to make children grow up too fast but not as bad as the girl being made to look like a woman and dressing her seductively because men aren't seen or portrayed as sex objects like women are. Also women have the choice of whether they want to do a sexy shoot or not, or promote their looks or whatever. A girl doesn't really have a choice, she doesn't have as much knowledge or awareness as a woman does of what she's portraying and what she's up against and usually they've been pressured into it by their parents. The parents make the decision to apply to the modelling agency for their child. I was also sickened by Katie Price plastering her 2 year old daughter in fake tan and false lashes recently and think Peter Andre had every right to be outraged by it. She's basically teaching her daughter to be insecure about her looks, that she can't be naturally beautiful and that she has to plaster herself in make up in order to be attractive. She's also teaching her that a female's only function is to look good for the boys/men and her only function is to please the opposite sex by trying to look immaculate all the time. Experimenting with say a bit of nail varnish or lipgloss when she's older is fine but going over the top with it and on someone who is only 2 years old is crossing the line in my opinion.
Jennifer Grant
Thanks for thoughtful comments. Mary - who posted just above - YES that is an exceptionally succinct response to the pictures and would have been a great post all by itself, without my longer one! (Thank you!)
*