apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I must be a little slow tonight, but I don't understand where you want us to submit the pictures? In the comments...?

poor kitty looks freaked out

My brain isn't working either...what's the deal?

Sorry about that. I mistakenly took out the html for the submission form. It's back in now.

;-)

It works!

Am I the only person slightly uncomfortable with that first photo??

does anyone know where the chair and ottoman are from that are in the top picture?

That's one flexible kid! Or is that a tiny yoga master?

i don't really get it either. :\

The Chair and Ottoman are the part of the Calin series from Ligne Roset. I have this pair as well as a corner piece and they are amazing.

thank you, poisonhypnotique!
I agree- that initial photo make me cringe.

I found the first picture a little disturbing too, but it makes a lot more sense in context - check out the rest of that body of Edwards' work. It mellows it out a bit.

yeah, that first pic did weird me out a bit.

It weirds me out that you all are weirded out by a kid stretching. What. The. Heck.

agree with the ones that find the first pic strange.
but AT has changed from a year or so ago when i first started tuning in--not all positive, like the house tours and a few other things.
which by the way---where is Matt and plant therapy?

Yea, I don't get the big deal about the first pic either. All I see are a bunch of comments about it being weird and strange without saying why. I don't get it, sorry. Maybe I'm missing something here.

I don't really mind the first picture but my first thought was that I hope that there are no pedophiles on AT.

I don't get what's wrong with the first photo?!!!Actually ,I like the first photo ,this chair seems very comfortable and fit perfectly in a bedroom.

If the other children were staring at her, or if it were the same image but in the middle of Wall St. or a biker bar then I would say it is creepy, but she is in the comfort of her own home, safe and surrounded by family. Are we getting to a place where even hanging out in panties at one's own place triggers perversion? :(

agreed, that first picture is creepy. I don't think parents should be freely posting photos of their children in their underwear on the internet! What difference is the context of the photo? I don't think pedophiles care that about the intent of the photo, only the subject matter, which in this case, is disturbing. If this was a child model on a poster at A&F rather than someone's kid at home in that photo, everyone would see the problem but since someone's parent willingly posted it on the interent for everyone to see, it is ok?

In response to H.B's comment....in the first photo we have a CHILD striking a vey suggestive pose. Is it soft-core child pornography...probably not. But I still find it a little inappropriate. That's why I find it a little weird and strange on Apartment Therapy.

Good lord people...the girl is stretching and/or practicing yoga or a cheerleading pose. Get over yourselves!!!

I can appreciate that some people might not find that photo awkward, but I don't think that justifies the implication that those women here who do find the photo inappropriate must all be pedophiles. I suspect (?) most of us are mothers of daughters.
I hardly want my daughter to have to cover every inch of her body in a floral 'little house on the prairie' dress in the name of modesty, but at the same time, this photo is disturbing to me. There is (in my opinion) a great difference between 'feeling comfortable in one's own home', and having what appears to be a nine year old girl in her underwear striking such a pose 12 inches in front of her older brother. It would make me uncomfortable for my daughter, and my son, because I suspect should he look up from that magazine, the image may be uncomfortable for him too.
Would those users suggesting that people who don't appreciate the photo must be pedophiles really still be defending the photo if the view the photo displayed here on the website was the exact same view that brother would see when he looks up from his magazine?
I suspect that most users would not be so quick to judge others as pedophiles then. Or at least, I hope, it would be universally recognized as inappropriate.

Aside from the girl stretching, I have to ask myself what makes this something I ought to pay attention to. It's mundane. That's appealing to anybody? Then there's the girl... not stretching - posing. Nonchalantly, but still, she's showing how limber she is while standing on top of some sort of artsy stepstool or something wearing a midriff thing and gymnastics panties (or possibly a bathing suit, indoors, not next to a pool or anything). The pedophilial aspects only partially occur to me, but only because the picture is so boring otherwise. Maybe I just don't know anything about art, eh? What's the point of it? Or the other pictures for that matter. I'm not sure what there is there that's utterly fascinating as a subject. Stretchy 9-year-old who may or may not be wearing lipstick, middle child expressing aspirations greater than her boring typical siblings. It's not like she's working a pole.

What is with this pedophilia kick? The kid is stretching and wearing a lot more than many people do at the beach - in her own home. It boggles my mind that the lack of clothing a person stretching is somehow sexualized.

If you want to keep pedophiles away from your children, educate yourself and them about what actions by another person are inappropriate and what to do if they are. If someone has a fetish, they will get turned on by it, no matter what. Finger-pointing at a photo that has nothing to do with sexualizing children isn't going to help save children from predators; education and support is.

It's funny how distracting the stretching girl can be. The littler girl who is actually making eye-contact with the camera lens is wearing a little see-through dress, and the way she's sitting. Innocence! It's just innocence! Right? It's not improper if she doesn't realize it is. She's holding what appears to be an apple and she's grumpy.

The boy doesn't see and doesn't hear. What is he reading? What is he listening to? The painting and the pillow match each other, and the stretchy girl's outfit and the boy's shirt. His pants are white. All strangely significant, of what. How long did she have to stretch like that for this shoot? Why aren't they outside playing?

Juliescript - I think it's because the photographer is commanding $1000/$1800 for a composition of what is only superficially some boring suburban children hanging around at home. Who wants to buy this?

Well said Monica!
If you have taken yoga or gymnastics or dance, you will know that there is nothing suggestive about her pose.

Why her brother would feel uncomfortable is beyond me. It isn't uncommon to find someone in my house lounging in our underwear, especially in summer when it's hot- my dad or little brother (16) sitting on the couch on a Saturday morning in their undies... or me doing my hair on the floor of the living room in bra and undies. After seeing everyone's reactions, I asked my brother if he feels uncomfortable and he laughed, saying no, we are family... but not to do it when his friends come over ;-). Maybe it's because I grew up in a transplanted European household, but it seems that people are getting prudish and you can't even be semi-naked in your own house without people freaking out.

So little girl in the pic- Do your poses in your undies, like no one is watching!

I too don't understand why anyone would want to pay $1800 for a print of someone else's kids just hanging out at home. If they were in an interesting setting or something perhaps, but otherwise I just don't find anything striking/unique enough about this shot to command a pricetag like that.

One of these days, there's going to be a post of a white on white painting.

And we will fight about it.

You may all ask yourselves why you think this scene was arranged to look like a few ordinary children doing whatever in the comforts of home, and which one is supposed to be Katherine.

I think if you thought that this was perverted as soon as you look at this there is something wrong with you. Gimme a break. These are some of the dumbest comments ever.