Sean Lennon and his girlfriend, Kemp Muhl, have “recreated” the Lennon/Ono shot that’s seared in the memories of baby-boomers (of which I’m one of the youngest). The pic will appear in Purple magazine, which I’d never heard of ’til now. Naturally, since naked girl skin was involved, the HuffPo was all over it (h/t aagblog’s twitter):
But wait! That’s not quite how my befuddled middle-aged mind remembers the original Rolling Stone cover. Ah, yes, this is more like it:
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. Sean Lennon and Kemp Muhl come across as more detached, cool, and posed. The colors and lighting in their photo underscore that impression. Also, Sean totally needs to get a shave! Dude, you look scruffy, not sexy.
Or am I totally off base? Dissenting interpretations welcome!
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
The remake is inane. It looks more like an ad for Abercrombie than the iconic shot. The gap between their abdomens makes it more sexual than intimate, and the fact that his fly looks unzipped exacerbates that.
You’re so right about the Abercrombie aesthetic. I hadn’t noticed the unzipped fly. The positioning of her foot draws attention to the, um, topography of his pants, again in a much less subtle vein than the original.
I agree. I think if they didn’t want it to appear titillating, they should have re-created the original pose more exactly.If you couldn’t see so much of her breasts, it wouldn’t feel so sexual as opposed to the intimacy of the original.
Exactly! She’s arranged so we can *see* her, not so he could *feel* her.
You are completely on base, sg. These photos are miles apart.
Carla, it’s marvelous to hear from you. I hope Henry is OK; she’s been quiet of late. The dog days are not kind to cats.
Actually, Sean and Kemp are miles apart, dontcha think?
You’re right on target, Sungold. I would add that because the John and Yoko photo was published after John was assassinated, it was all the more moving, even spiritual.
Yes, the young ‘uns might not remember that, so many thanks for adding the context. I was a senior in high school that December 1980, and I remember I was in the school library when the news came in. I’m a few years too young to remember JFK’s assassination (though my eight-week-old self watched all the coverage on TV) but I remember Lennon’s death vividly.
I remember being both scandalized and puzzled and aware that I was very, very young (17) when the original photo came out. The recreation just makes me sigh in curmudgeonly fatigue.
In one of the books in the “Regeneration” series by Pat Barker, one of the main characters mentions that he loves being fully dressed while having sex with–make that more “enacting sex on”–a completely naked partner, either male or female, because it’s so fulfillingly sadistic. I think that’s one thing in the recreation that wasn’t really present in the original.
Holly, I was 17 too – and I was also puzzled by it. I remember also thinking that 40 was way too young to die, but it still seemed old to me.
I don’t really see any sadism in the Sean and Kemp picture, but there’s a static, almost lifeless quality to it that’s creepy in the way that I find many dolls creepy. And I definitely take your point about clothing versus nakedness and power.