No, the usual critic pays no attention to these details which make photography such exquisite art forms, they are merely interested on the assets on show.
Suicide Girls is a soft-core porn site where members pay to look at pictures of the models. The Suicide Girls upload professional and self-taken photographs onto their profiles where the members can look at the pictures and comment the models.
Suicide Girls is just another take on glamour modeling, only a version that is more Americanized with a 'Myspace' influence. The label "Suicide Girls" is given to disguise the fact that it is just a website with glamour modeling, attempting to justify the trashy industry that made Katie Price a household name.
Perhaps my view on the whole debate is more traditional. I like to think that the biggest selling point of the website should be kept private, or at least to imagination. I find it degrading and the words 'sell out' spring to mind. I'm not a feminist, and I don't share the views of a nun. I don't feel that girls should be covered up from head to toe, but perhaps the rebellion against Nineteenth century regulations where women weren't allowed to show their bodies has escalated to the point where it is now tasteless.
I feel that nudity is perfectly acceptable in art, as it is used in a different context to the cheap industry that is glamour modeling. Nudity can be conveyed is a tasteful way; for example the photo shoot for I-D magazine in which Daisy Lowe and William Cameron Jr. appear without clothing, yet the photographs are in good taste.
In conclusion, Suicide Girls is merely just a tacky Myspace cast-off, desperately trying to justify itself as cultured modeling. I appreciate that the concept is 'just good fun' to the models, I just hope that Suicide Girls evolves into something refined.
