When nudity is transgressive — and when it’s not

Sean Lennon and girlfriend, model Kemp Muhl, were photographed for a recent issue of French magazine Purple imitating the famous Rolling Stone cover of Sean’s parents, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. (The original and the imitation are after the jump — probably NSFW.)

I’ve always loved the John and Yoko photo. The original was transgressive, powerful, emotional in its reversal of gender roles — her clothed, him naked. It says so much about the vulnerability that comes with truly loving someone, and about forging an egalitarian relationship in a fucked-up world.

Here’s how photographer Annie Leibovitz describes the shoot:

“John took his clothes off in a few seconds, but Yoko was very reluctant. She said, ‘I’ll take my shirt off but not my pants.’ I was kinda disappointed, and I said, ‘Just leave everything on.’ We took one Polaroid, and the three of us knew it was profound right away.”

The re-interpreted version isn’t profound. It’s just porny. Something we’ve seen a thousand times before.

Sungold took the words right outta my mouth:

Funny how John’s boy-nipples weren’t even exposed. His pose
is more fetal than erotic. Remarkably Yoko Ono is shown as a sexual
creature without being reduced to a sexualized male fantasy. The
reversal of convention is so much more powerful than the capitulation
to cliche in the newer photo. John and Yoko’s photo is both more
intimate and more innocent.

That’s not to say Yoko was against the female body being photographed nude, or ashamed of her body. Here’s what Beatles-loving feminist Cara has to say about Yoko, nudity, and John and Yoko’s infamous full-frontal album cover:

Just look at it (obviously NSFW); there she is in all of her bare glory. Just like John standing beside her, she isn’t attempting to arouse the viewer. She’s not using her nakedness to express sexuality at all. And she looks equally as confident as he does. John once said that they purposely picked the least flattering photograph, and especially by today’s standards, Yoko would be considered downright unphotogenic by the mainstream. She has full pubic hair, some hints of cellulite on her thighs, a waist that is not particularly defined, and most shocking of all, large breasts that do not defy gravity, and an unremarkable yet undeniable bit of hang with nipples pointing downwards.

In other words, she looks like an average woman. Her body resembles the one that most of look at in the mirror more than the ones we see in magazines. It exists not for the pleasures of others, but for her.

(Emphasis mine.) I know Cara is writing about a different photo, but I think the sentiment probably applies to the Rolling Stone cover as well. In the imitation, the photo of Sean and Kemp, Kemp’s body is presented the way we always see the female body represented: for the pleasure of others. Which is why it is not actually an homage to the photo of his parents. It’s actually the exact opposite.

UPDATE: Read Cara’s take here.

Join the Conversation