The editors-in-chief, Huben Hubenov and Slav Anastasov, wrote in an email:

First of all, we would like to say we are happy that our shoot provoked an international discussion, at some scale.

It is also important to say, that we do NOT support violence of ANY kind, and this is NOT a shoot glamorizing, or encouraging, or
supporting violence against women. We believe that images such as ours can be seen from various angles, and we think that exactly that is what is beautiful about fashion and photography in general – that anybody can understand it their own way,and fill it with their own meaning. Where some see a brutal wound, others see a skilful (sic) work of an artist, or an exquisite face of a beautiful girl.

OK we get it, you’re artists. Art and photography have a long history of provocation and titillation, and I definitely think the world has gone way too PC about some things. But here’s where they start to piss me off a little bit:

That being said, we do understand why some accuse us of promoting, in a way, violence, but we do not agree with that, and we think that it is very narrow-minded way of looking at the photographs.

And after all, isn’t it true that we see brutally wounded people all the time, in real life – on television, in the news, in movies, videogames, magazines and websites, and they are all very different, but alike in one thing: some are real, some are not. And fashion photography is an imitation of real life, sometimes realistic, sometimes delicate, other times grotesque, or shocking.

When you’re watching a violent TV show or war coverage on CNN there’s context; in this editorial there’s none. There’s no text and no background imagery in this shoot to give the slightest hint as to what the photographer is thinking. All I see are damaged women with blank expressions and a black background.

The editors conclude with two questions:

1. How would you perceive those photographs, if they were accompanying an campaign against domestic violence? Would you still think of them as disgusting or you would praise them as brave and thought-provoking? Worth the think, isn’t it?

Nope, I’d still think it was disgusting that someone did that to women, but I’d respect the message. Because in that example, there IS a message.

2. What would you say if those where bespoken men, carefully groomed, but still, terribly injured? Probably nothing, and quite frankly that’s a bit sexist.

I’d still wonder what sort of a sadist worked them over. But the reality is that three times as many women as men are murdered by their partners, according to the Domestic Violence Resource Center. And if the editors were truly trying to keep gender out of it, why DIDN’T they include a few guys? I may get accused of being too concrete, obtuse, prudish, and even yes, narrow-minded, but the bottom line is when, I open up a fashion magazine I want to see beauty, fantasy and escape.

What say you, Internet?