The cover image was accompanied by a series of photos inside the magazine – notably this one:
Writer Bethany McLean writes:
“She’s also been willing to take risks to stay relevant, no easy task in a world where female stars are widely believed to have an expiration date.”
A few points of note: Lopez is 48 years old with an estimated worth of $300 million earned through an incredible career in movies, music, television and investment properties. Lopez has been dating former Yankee 3rd baseman (who signed the largest contract in baseball – $252 million – in 2000) for over a year. She’s been pushing the boundaries her entire career – let’s not forget her Versace dress from the 2000 Grammy Awards.
With the Harvey Weinstein scandal still unfolding, the image seems incredibly tone deaf (of course, the image was shot and included in the spread months before to accommodate a print editorial calendar). On the other hand, fashion photography has always been provocative. And in an age where “stars” become famous without exhibiting any skill whatsoever, why shouldn’t Lopez be able to daringly pose in the third decade of her storied career?
Without the context in the article, the image feels cheap. It’s not that her buttocks is exposed, it’s that Rodriguez is pulling up her dress. But after reading the piece, I feel more strongly that Lopez is fully in control of her image. She’s staring directly into the camera. The photo represents many things: a provocation, a statement of relevance, complicity, as well as a big “F-U” against ageism.
But as with any image, whether the audience at large will understand the nuance without the context is the question. What do you think?