Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Bring back Betty Page ... OMG she was something else!
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
I agree - Betty Page was super hot
Thardy
Veteran
Brought back she'd still be 88. LOL
Last edited:
bwcolor
Veteran
All values are false and artificial. It just so happens that the photos do not support your sense of things. Your remarks don't suit my sense of things. Life goes on.
BTW.. The photos look plastic. I'm not such a big digital fan.. but to make them look more digital.. well.. not my taste, but I can see it working in the advertising world..etc.
gavinlg
Veteran
Women as a rule have a higher percentage of proportionate body fat than men, and gain body fat during pregnancy. This is normal. It's not healthy to be overweight when not pregnant. I'm not saying woman should be waifs, I'm saying that being overweight shouldn't be celebrated for the purpose of political correctness.
I'm a poor young adolescent who earns very little and I still manage to eat very well by eating very basic (and that's in Austalia - cost of living much higher than US). People can hide behind all the excuses they want, but in the end they're just enabling themselves.
I showed these pictures to my 22 year old girlfriend, who barely ever wears any makeup at all. The first thing she pointed out was how good the makeup on the model was.
Otherwise I agree completely that good fashion photography blows this sort of thing out of the water for artistic value.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've never been comfortable with the indemic over use of the female form in advertising, be it their faces, bodies or whatever! Mutilating them in photoshop is just another stage within the advertising industry that exploits them I guess.
As I said , it's the message that young people are getting that bothers me the most. It never used to irk me as much as it does currently ... I'm not quite sure why that is?
tlitody
Well-known
Why do people keep refering to these images as photos and talk of the photographic aesthetic or fashion aesthetic. These images are not photography and they do not represent fashion as in clothing and make up. They are created in a virtual world in-between photography and fashion. They represent neither and as such are purely illusions. Anyone who can't grasp that is deluded and probably the exact gullible people they are targetted at. So which are you? The gullible or the ones who think it's alright to con people or the ones who see them for what they are. i.e. false represenations.
And its not OK to call them art unless it comes under the heading of fantasy art and that begs the question of what fantasy. Well I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. A fanatsy of the perfect woman and you can dress that up anyway you like but it comes back to self delusion.
And its not OK to call them art unless it comes under the heading of fantasy art and that begs the question of what fantasy. Well I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. A fanatsy of the perfect woman and you can dress that up anyway you like but it comes back to self delusion.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
The issue, I think, isn't really with fashion photography as much as with fashion itself. Regarding your point about scapegoating, lack of knowledge, and the content of your bookshelf - you're probably well aware of the letter sent by Alexandra Shulman (editor of the British edition of Vogue, who I think knows a bit of what fashion actually is) to major fashion designers in 2009, where she accused them of pushing thinner and thinner models and sending smaller and smaller samples.
Your point that "distorted body image should not be caused by healthy and fit models" is therefore a straw man argument as well, because in fact many models in fashion magazines aren't healthy and fit. If you try to argue the contrary by pointing out the 200-plus fashion magazines that you consider healthy and normal, you are making an error of circular reasoning. If I have on the one hand a statement by the editor of Vogue that there is a problem in the fashion industry, and yours that there isn't, I think I know whom to believe.
Thardy
Veteran
gavinlg
Veteran
I make decisions for myself, and I'm not biased by industry and political/social pressure in making those decisions.
Here is a fashion blog that keeps pace with current editorials:
http://fashiongonerogue.com/
Feel free to point out the suggested examples of ill-health that you refer to from this non-biased source of current editorials.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If you want to call yourself non-biased by the industry, quoting blogs that basically do nothing but reproduce industry output as the source for your frame of reference for what's normal and what isn't is stretching it.
Again, you're making up a straw man. If I can read in the Times that the editor of Vogue complains to fashion industry giants that they push models so emaciated that some of them actually have to be photoshopped fatter to look at least a bit natural, I think we don't really have to argue any more about whether there is a problem in the mainstream industry, and at that point it's bordering on pointlessness to ask for proof of models that aren't in good health.
Alpacaman
keen bean
I have no real input to give here, but I thought I might just say this thread has made for some interesting reading.
gavinlg
Veteran
All talk, no examples to illustrate your point. Find another fashion editorial coverage site if you like. I went through 5 pages on the link I posted and couldn't see one unhealthily underweight girl. Or are you saying I should rely on someone elses opinion rather than finding out for myself?
ps: "I read it in a newspaper so it must be true" doesn't really gel with me.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
www.viviensmodels.com.au/
Viviens is one of Australias top modeling agencies.
When you view a models profile, click the 'digitals' link and you can see unedited plain jane/no makeup shots of the models for casting.
I invite you to illustrate your point, based off unedited casting photos from a top modeling agency.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Yeah, but "I read it in a blog" does.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Amen...I have said that for some time now...maybe not those exact words but you know where I'm going with this...
gavinlg
Veteran
I didn't read anything, nor did I quote anyone elses opinion. I merely presented an unbiased (meaning not a pro-skinny or pro-fat) source for current international fashion editorials, and said show me the money.The beauty of this is that you can actually look at the models themselves and make your own judgement.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Amen...I have said that for some time now...maybe not those exact words but you know where I'm going with this...
The problem with this is that it's based off the common notion that one cannot possess both physical attractiveness AND intellectual attractiveness, when each of them is mutually attainable.
Think about it... Intellectuals in media are commonly portrayed as uptight, nerdy, geeky, unattractive etc etc, whilst physically attractive people are often portrayed as stupid, one dimensional, vain, dull and uninteresting. It's not actually truth, just social conditioning.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If that's what you mean by that you're unbiased, I don't think I'm biased either, at least I can't identify with being either "pro-skinny" or "pro-fat". The comment about the increasing pointlessness of this discussion still stands.
Regarding Vivien's models, either the selection of unedited models is quite small, or you have to hang around on the site for some time to get "digitals" links; either way I don't get them for most models. If you look for Sydney models over 175 cm and under 86/58/88, you get seven results. Where I do get a "digitals" link, they are mostly clothed in such a way that the actual physiognomy is masked; however, neither May Gil's body, nor Cassie Gardner's collarbones, nor Wawa's overall appearance strike me as as those of a person whose dietary practices I'd take as an example for myself.
I'm not qualified to state whether those are medically unhealthy or merely look aesthetically unpleasing to my own eye.
From what you posted earlier about your biography, it seems to me the main reason why you react in this rather angry fashion is that you've found in fashion an ideal of beauty that you can identify with and strive for in order to escape depression and feel comfortable in your own body; and at this point where someone raises faint criticism about whether what is presented in fashion is all that natural, the essential and natural character of this ideal of beauty comes under attack in your eyes, which must seem rather dangerous - so you move to defend it rather aggressively. However, if you step back for a minute, you'll find that I'm neither rabidly "pro-fat" (whatever that is supposed to mean), nor am I attacking your way of life of hanging up male fashion models, going to the gym and eating tuna and broccoli. The circumstance that I quote arguments from third parties, such as editors of leading fashion magazines, neither renders me incapable of forming an opinion of my own, nor does it render their arguments invalid or wrong.
That's it for me as far as this discussion is concerned; unless you have something substantial to say, I'll leave it at that.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
... well however one looks at it, thanks to a mix of model, makeup and photoshop the images that appear in the fashion section of the press present an image of feminine beauty that in unattainable by anyone. That in it's self is bizarre, and I would imagine pretty unhealthy for anyone that aspires to actually look like that.