Mixed Messaging

As a creative-minded photographic artist interested in online activism, I appreciate seeing the advocacy images people come up with and share on social media. I even like to join in with my own on occasion. But sometimes, I have to shake my head at what I find online. Take the image below, which suffers from a disjointed tone. Ostensibly promoting topfreedom, it talks of equality, but seems to lack self-awareness. The fine print at bottom (a pretentious six lines of copyright for what effectively boils down to a composite of two stolen images) suggests a nudist or body-positive interpretation, but the choice of two impossibly beautiful models undermines its overall message (tip: it's possible to pick attractive models who are nevertheless not quite so out of the ordinary).

[description: a topless woman and a topless man's photos are compared side-by-side]
"Equality Means All Nipples Are Free"

At a glance, one would be forgiven for mistaking this image to be a simple piece of eye candy. And don't get me wrong, these two people look incredible (this would not be a bad advertisement for bisexuality, if not also for crippling self-consciousness and body image disorders). There's nothing wrong with admiring their chiseled physiques. Except that, again, the fine print employs typical nudist jargon to cast aspersions on those who would share the image for more superficial purposes. It's softcore porn masquerading as nudist advocacy, that tries to grasp legitimacy by condemning pornography. Amazingly, the post manages to alienate both of its potential audiences. Nudists will be annoyed by the amplification of unrealistic beauty standards, while porn hunters will be put off by the admonishment of their "sexualized" motives (although let's be honest - they don't give a shit). The only cause this banner flies for is skin-thirsty hypocrites hiding behind the purifying sheen of nudism.

The final squirt of whipped cream on top of this debacle of a wannabe topfreedom meme is the fact that the two photos are specifically pointed out to be of unknown origin, while the person who edited the piece together spends three lines advertising their name and social media links. I respect the creativity involved with pairing text and images together to get across an idea (in another life, I might have been a clever ad-man), but it's ironic in this case, not only in that the result is so lackluster as to cast shade on the author's desire to take credit for it, but that the meat of the post - the two photographs - remain uncredited. Granted, these sorts of images tend to get passed around a lot, and it can be difficult to find their source. Then again, an inquiry on Reddit could potentially yield an unexpectedly fruitful result. But I'd be surprised if the author went to any trouble at all to track them down. Despite the fact that a journey of this kind can be a lot of fun. (It's not much, but a literal 30 second search on Google turned up the name of actor Kellan Lutz - and that's a start).

Can we agree to try just a little bit harder next time?