The Kids Are(n't) Alright - Fashionista - Fashion Designers, Models, Shopping, Style

kate hudson bazaar shoot.jpg This picture landed in my inbox because of the Bally bag Kate Hudson’s holding - which is cute - but I’m writing about it because of the kid.

It’s from the set of a shoot for Harper’s Bazaar (I swear we’re not trying to belabor our Bazaar feelings; it just keeps coming up) in which she’s modeling not just the latest fashion, but also her five-year-old son, Ryder.

The kid looks adorable, but it’s jarring to see him voluntarily put in front of the camera when so many people - famous people - complain about media attention toward their children. It’s something we touched on last year when Natalia Vodianova dragged her entire clan into the pages of Vogue and something we thought about again when Angela Lindvall posed with her kids in British Vogue and then gave her son a starring role in her Gap ad.

Is it okay because it’s a controlled environment, unlike the paparazzi on the sidewalk? Because they’re still kids either way, and they’re not the ones choosing to model, their parents just happen to be really, really pretty. Are we nuts? Or would you, too, prefer your fashion editorials without a side of child?

posted by sparksflyy

Oct 09, 2009 1:14PM

how many kids across america are forced everyday to take olan mills pictures against their will because their parents want them to?

it's not that much different, just better photographers and better pictures.

posted by Nacho

Oct 09, 2009 1:17PM

Eh, I don't find it to be a big deal. Probably because Kate's never been a big paparazzi-avoider / hater in the first place. She's always seemed very civil with photogs on the street, and just goes about her way, never trying to hide herself or Ryder from photos. We all know who he is, so why not do a cute shot in an editorial spread? You have to assume that if Ryder was uncomfortable and didn't want to do it, he'd have made it clear to his mom. Other celebs, the Leo DiCaprio's shielding themselves from view of any & all photogs, don't expect to see this type of thing from them. These two remind me of Sarah Jessica and James Wilke: just going about their business, whether you're photographing them or not.....not a whole lot to hide. I can't imagine that Ryder will be traumatized by this in the future.

posted by guest

Oct 09, 2009 1:48PM

I think that Kate's dress is a little inappropriate to be standing with her kid in.
I mean, if this wasn't a fashion shoot, Kate could easily be the girl working the corner in this outfit. You don't bring your kids with you for that.

Other than that, as long as the kid wants too, I don't see a huge problem.

Oct 09, 2009 1:54PM

@ Nacho

I would beg to differ:

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/40632/kate-hudson-wants-paparazzi-law-to-protect-celebrity-kids

Kate Hudson is just a big hypocrite in general. Good job, Britt!

Oct 09, 2009 2:08PM

I think there's a difference between paparazzi-snapped photos of celeb kids, and magazine-commissioned photos. It's night and day -- one is authorized, one isn't. One is paying you, the other is making money off you.

For Ryder, it's probably fun getting to work with his mom for a day. And vice versa. As long as he wants to do it and Kate Hudson isn't forcing him, I don't see the big deal.

Oct 09, 2009 2:26PM

@sparksflyy: I'm sorry did your parents sell those photos to national magazines that everyone could see. No? Then it's not the same thing.

Oct 09, 2009 2:53PM

Nice detective work, guest! In light of that, even more interesting, huh?

Oct 09, 2009 3:30PM

#4, with all due respect, I don't see how that article is relevant.

A celebrity *can* feel both a)that paps are agressive/dangerous, etc. and shouldn't be allowed to photograph children, as well as b) that it's okay to let her child participate with her in a professional photo session. The two are not competing views.

That's like saying that celebrities who dislike paparazzi are hypocrites for then posing for mags -- "What, they don't like paps photographing them, then they go and pose for Vogue?? The nerve!" Apples and oranges, people.

Oct 09, 2009 7:02PM

i agree with #5 he's probably enjoying working with his mom. i don't really think kate, natalia, etc. are exploiting their kids to make money (ie: Gosselins) i think they just want to show off how cute their kids are. Maybe I'm unjustly giving them the benefit of the doubt. Selling the first photographs of their child to magazines (ie: shiloh, suri or whoever) IS exploitation. But having a photoshoot with a well-respected photographer to appear in a magazine, accompanied by an article, to me just doesn't seem bad at all.

i agree with 8 too, i mean how many celebrities pose for magazines but avoid paparazzi themselves? i think celebrities just feel exploited by paps and they don't want to subject their kids to it (plus paps can probably be scary to little kids), not that they don't want any photographs of their kids taken at all. if they wanted no one to ever see their kids, they'd have to do like MJ and make them wear masks. That, or not let them out of the house. I mean I understand that there is a bit of hypocrisy at first glance, but to me it seems more like a glorified family portrait, just more public.

posted by etoilee8

Oct 11, 2009 1:13PM

I don't know if I agree, Sparksfly. The line between "well respected photographer" and exploitation is pretty fine. I mean why do celebrities do magazine shoots in the first place? Certainly not for the good of their health! It's free publicity. If you're so upset about your children being in front of the camera, you won't want to blend those lines.

Also, I'm sick of every one picking on the Gosselins. Yeah, they act ridiculous but when it comes down to it, having eight kids will never be easy on a normal person's salary (meaning anything under six figures). Feeding and clothing eight hungry mouths will always be a struggle and if you get a leg up from having a tv show, no one should judge you for that.

posted by kte

Oct 12, 2009 2:25PM

When did it become bad parenting to put a picture of your child in a magazine? What about all the parents that put their kids photos on facebook and blogs?