i don't know about anybody else but i feel the film is more compelling and more evocative than the stills.It seems to open up the world that is being proposed here in a more accomplished way and the vision in the film is more interesting.
Any thoughts...

Hello SHOWstudio, I just popped in here for the first time in ages and noticed the ‘Boned’ project had been updated. Seeing the final edit of stills from the shoot after following some of the live coverage online is brilliant! But the accompanying text seems so brief (pun not intended) as to be at least misleading if not actually inaccurate?

This is just the first three lines: “In their comprehensive history of underwear, dress historians C. Willet and P. Cunnington noted ‘man has never used provocative underclothing; its plain prose has been singular in contrast to the poetic allurements worn by women. Unlike women’s underwear, men’s undergarments have always been utilitarian, chosen for their sanitary and protective qualities. As a result, men’s underwear has not been considered with the same attention as women’s.”

But according to wiki (although alternative theories of the origin of the codpiece exist), it was “an important item of European clothing in the 15th and 16th centuries. At first, the codpiece was entirely a practical matter of modesty. Men's hose (leg coverings) were typically very snug on the legs and open at the crotch, with the genitalia simply hanging loose under the doublet. As changing fashions led to shorter doublets, the codpiece was created to cover the crotch. As time passed, codpieces were shaped to emphasize the male genitalia and eventually often became padded and bizarrely shaped. They also often doubled as pockets, handy carrying places for a variety of items such as coins and snuff. In the latter half of Queen Elizabeth I's reign, the codpiece and doublet merged into the "peascod" doublet, and the codpiece faded from fashion.”

This is hardly a plain, unprovocative garment.

So, while it’s obvious from the styling (with one possible exception) and style of imagery that it wouldn’t have been appropriate for Nick Knight’s magazine shoot, it does seem odd that it should have been ignored in the text. Which raises some interesting questions – is the codpiece a fashion taboo? If so why, when it’s now evidently acceptable to tastefully depict erections à la Mapplethorpe? And why hasn’t this project elicited more discussion (or have I just not spotted it yet)?

Actually, I found some images that probably illustrate why the codpiece is such a no-no, but I’m not sure if I should post them…

Great Post ...f : lux!....and indeed why hasn't it ! ...? :):):)

f:lux.....

I'm posting an interesting article about Angelo Bronzenoze, a Medici painter who was obcessed with the codpiece and curious enough had his own insight and interpretation/ meaning... about the codpiece and the wearer....using fish as a kind of language about the wearer....naturally he was doomed never to sell his paintings but interesting reading nevertheless ...:):)!

'' Although Bronzenoze exhibited an excellent technique in his early years, his fixation with fish soon proved his undoing. He insisted that the then-popular "language of flowers" could be applied to fish, which could be used make the also-then-popular codpiece convey a flirtatious innuendo in his paintings.

For example, to Bronzenoze the basic cod carried the symbolic message, "I'm a predatory bottom-feeder, baby," while the mackerelpiece indicated the more subtle, "Long and limber with lots of silver." The grouperpiece indicated a penchant for multiple partners, while the solepiece represented fidelity, and the remorapiece a touch of dependency. The damselfishpiece indicated homosexuality, the sardinepiece modesty and the carppiece sensitivity to criticism. The eel was not shown at all, for obvious reasons, and the blowfish only as a prank.

One curious double meaning was Bronzenoze's use of the squidpiece. Worn intact it suggested that the bearer was unusually well endowed; yet it was also the mark of the court eunuch when it was worn without the tentacles.

Unable to sell any of his unusual paintings, and scorned by the art world, Bronzenoze eked out a miserable living as a fishmonger's assistant until one day, overcome with despair, he threw himself into a barrel of imported barracuda and perished. ''
--------------------------

the insertion into the film of the oddly kitsch but nevertheless poetic rose shots adds a odd camp 1950s sexuality which benefits the overall proposal. It takes me into a scenario that the photographs somehow don't attain.
I agree with maria n about transporting one to a sense of a different time.