Naked Women in Life Magazine (Dec, 1948)
I’m pretty amazed this got printed. I doubt it would have 10 years later.
GIRLS WADING, with sunlight playing on leaves and water, was posed by Photographer Yvonne Gregory at a private lake in Norfolk, England, and was shown in September in the 39th Annual Exhibition of the London Salon of Photography.
I’ed think getting a decent shot going at speed would be impossible...
Life got away with this right until the (first) end, actually. As long as there was a “good” excuse – science, social science, serious art – they could ignore the complaints. “Shown at a serious photographic exhibition” would have been an excellent excuse.
Life once ran an article on women’s elastic-topped stockings that seemed to have no purpose but to show pretty girls with their skirts hitched up.
Comment by Charlene — August 2, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Now we know why Ike is smiling on the cover.
Comment by Tim — August 2, 2010 @ 9:47 am
I don’t know if I’d want to do any more than wade in that opaque water.
Comment by Rick Auricchio — August 2, 2010 @ 11:06 am
In the late ’60′s to early 70′s Life ran an article about pornography. Yes, there were pictures.
However at that time there was also woodstock, the summer of love, and Altemont outside of SFO.
There were many groovy pictures taken during that groovy era!
Comment by Kosher Ham — August 2, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Kosher Ham: As to Life running pictures of pornography? Only kinda
Comment by Firebrand38 — August 2, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Firebrand38: Heh, the article on Matisse that follows that article in Life (well, after the congressional ethics article – which is a funny juxtaposition itself!) has more “nudity” in it that than the pr0n article…
Humans really need to get over themselves…
Comment by Andrew L. Ayers — August 2, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
Andrew L. Ayers: The most annoying thing about American society to me is the streak of Puritanism that runs through it. The idea that someone, somewhere is having a good time and that they need to stop it right now.
Comment by Firebrand38 — August 2, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
I think it was in the very first issue of life in 1935 or 6 that they ran an article on the wonder substance, Celophane, and showed a pic of a cutie wearing it.
Comment by dergutie — August 2, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
I’ve been looking through the Life archive in Google Books. Especially in the 1930′s and 1940′s, they did a lot of “leg art” photography, as well as pics of attractive coeds and actresses in revealing poses. A lot of ads of the time (stockings, corsets, etc.) could be considered risque. It was a different time, and attitudes were different.
Comment by Bob — August 2, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
dergutie: Nope, I searched the first issue and nothing on Cellophane
All isn’t lost however…I think I found what you remembered as a “Cellophane dress” was actually this. from January 11, 1937. And yeah, I’d say that was risque’.
Comment by Firebrand38 — August 2, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
Firebrand38: “The most annoying thing about American society to me is the streak of Puritanism that runs through it. The idea that someone, somewhere is having a good time and that they need to stop it right now.”
FB, we may not agree on everything, but I agree with you on that!
Comment by Andrew L. Ayers — August 2, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
Terry Pratchett had a good take on the difference between ‘art’ and pornography. “There’s a urn in the picture. it’s art.”
Comment by Arglebarglefarglegleep — August 5, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
Arg: So, true art has to be urned?
Comment by Toronto — August 5, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
If I recall, it seemed like LOOK magazine almost always had at least one or two nudes in nearly every issue during the late 60′s
Comment by Timmay — August 8, 2010 @ 11:06 am