Looknsee Photography wrote:
At best, tattoos are a distraction.  What fashion designer wants the viewers to be looking at the tattoos & not the clothing?

That's a really good point. I don't know that a model covered in tattoos fits that application well...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
At best, tattoos are a distraction.  What fashion designer wants the viewers to be looking at the tattoos & not the clothing?

Respectfully, I disagree.  But that shows how we view tattoos.  I rarely notice most of them, with the exception of those covered in colorful ones.  My friend has a tattoo that I didn't completely notice until almost a year after she got it.    And some of these designers should welcome a "distraction" from the crap they send down the runway.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:

Respectfully, I disagree.  But that shows how we view tattoos.  I rarely notice most of them, with the exception of those covered in colorful ones.  My friend has a tattoo that I didn't completely notice until almost a year after she got it.    And some of these designers should welcome a "distraction" from the crap they send down the runway.

I'd agree with you if the model only had one or two little tattoos, but when a good portion of the model's body is covered in ink, I can see where it would be a distraction from the viewpoint of a designer.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree.  But that shows how we view tattoos.  I rarely notice most of them, with the exception of those covered in colorful ones.  My friend has a tattoo that I didn't completely notice until almost a year after she got it.    And some of these designers should welcome a "distraction" from the crap they send down the runway.

I guess my "art" (for what it's worth) is based upon my powers of observation.  I'd notice a visible tattoo like I'd notice a coffee stain on an otherwise white blouse.

As a photographer, I generally refuse to photograph a tattoo, and I don't think I'm alone in that.  Maybe I'm behind the time, or maybe I'm just stubbornly refusing to be "trendy".

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree.  But that shows how we view tattoos.  I rarely notice most of them, with the exception of those covered in colorful ones.  My friend has a tattoo that I didn't completely notice until almost a year after she got it.    And some of these designers should welcome a "distraction" from the crap they send down the runway.

Demo wrote:
I'd agree with you if the model only had one or two little tattoos, but when a good portion of the model's body is covered in ink, I can see where it would be a distraction from the viewpoint of a designer.

That's what I'm saying.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I guess my "art" (for what it's worth) is based upon my powers of observation.  I'd notice a visible tattoo like I'd notice a coffee stain on an otherwise white blouse.

As a photographer, I generally refuse to photograph a tattoo, and I don't think I'm alone in that.  Maybe I'm behind the time, or maybe I'm just stubbornly refusing to be "trendy".

I have nothing against tattoos (I've had many many hours of work done myself), and I think in certain types of photography they look fantastic, but I don't see much of a place for them in high fashion.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

I guess my "art" (for what it's worth) is based upon my powers of observation.  I'd notice a visible tattoo like I'd notice a coffee stain on an otherwise white blouse.

As a photographer, I generally refuse to photograph a tattoo, and I don't think I'm alone in that.  Maybe I'm behind the time, or maybe I'm just stubbornly refusing to be "trendy".

Jesus Mary and Joseph.  No one attacked your "trendiness".  No one said you were alone.  I respectfully disagreed with you.  I'm pretty sure I was stating an opinion up there.

Laudanum wrote:
There are many models with tattoos out there. There are even a few beautiful female porn stars with full sleeves, one in particular is Janine http://www.myspace.com/realjanine I think if you are going to be a model with a lot of tattoos you have to be exceptionally beautiful to get to the top. Not, that I don't think other women with tattoos are beautiful, but as long as the main stream people are sticking with the "typical" model then you really have to get your face out there and push for it. Luckily "The Suicide Girls" have been getting well known, there are many Suicide Girls who are heavily tattooed, all shapes and sizes too. It all depends on what is pushed. There are a few fetish models, who have the same color hair I do, but are not heavily tatooed, one is Angela Ryan http://www.myspace.com/angelaryan she's gorgeous and not your "typical" model. I've noticed Lithium Picnic doesn't go for your "average" look, they have disctinct tastes and a good variety of photos. One model named Masuimi Max is another gorgeous model http://www.myspace.com/masuimi_max  (I think you have to be her friend to view her profile)

There are a million places you can model since tattoos aren't much of an obstacle in modeling in the general sense. I think the OP was talking about high fashion, though...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
At best, tattoos are a distraction.  What fashion designer wants the viewers to be looking at the tattoos & not the clothing?

They cover the models in a lot of silly stuff...paint their faces...etc. that distract or compliment the clothing depending on your opinion...tattoos could certainly compliment certain styles...

Looknsee Photography wrote:

I guess my "art" (for what it's worth) is based upon my powers of observation.  I'd notice a visible tattoo like I'd notice a coffee stain on an otherwise white blouse.

As a photographer, I generally refuse to photograph a tattoo, and I don't think I'm alone in that.  Maybe I'm behind the time, or maybe I'm just stubbornly refusing to be "trendy".

Trendy isn't the only reason people get tattoos...my wife is an artist and designed all her own...to her she is her own work of art...if tattoos are done right they can be beautiful and artistic! We love them...if a model has tattoos she automatically gets extra credit points when we are deciding whether we will shoot with her.

BlackWatch wrote:
Trendy isn't the only reason people get tattoos...my wife is an artist and designed all her own...to her she is her own work of art...if tattoos are done right they can be beautiful and artistic! We love them...if a model has tattoos she automatically gets extra credit points when we are deciding whether we will shoot with her.

I guess that's why horse trading works -- at its center is a difference of opinion.

So, what's to stop you & your wife's tastes from changing?  Or more to the point, isn't it likely that the tattoo's will last longer than your current tastes?  I mean, I don't look at (or like) the photographs I made say five or ten years ago.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Jesus Mary and Joseph.  No one attacked your "trendiness".  No one said you were alone.  I respectfully disagreed with you.  I'm pretty sure I was stating an opinion up there.

Oooo -- touchy!  I wasn't intending to be defensive or disrespectful -- I though I was stating my opinion, too.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
So, what's to stop you & your wife's tastes from changing?  Or more to the point, isn't it likely that the tattoo's will last longer than your current tastes?  I mean, I don't look at (or like) the photographs I made say five or ten years ago.

Symbolism is often at play when it comes to tattoos, and deeply held convictions or beliefs that are expressed through symbology often stand the test of time fairly well.

Then again, there's that guy I saw on the Santa Monica pier with a dinner plate-sized close up of just a woman's spread crotch on his back.  I periodically wonder if he's as excited about that design now as he was ten years ago when I was standing in line behind him.

Depends on the person.

Demo wrote:
There are a million places you can model since tattoos aren't much of an obstacle in modeling in the general sense. I think the OP was talking about high fashion, though...

Yes, I was talking about high fashion. I model for a lot of companies, websites, and magazines, but it is usually because of my tattoos and my "look" not despite them. High fashion is a completely different world though. I was just curious what people's opinions were on this.

And I tend to think that someone covered in tattoos is maybe a bit less distracting than just a few scattered. Just my opinion.

Demo wrote:

There are a million places you can model since tattoos aren't much of an obstacle in modeling in the general sense. I think the OP was talking about high fashion, though...

I saw the fashion part, but kind of looked passed it. I meant in general. Come to think of it I don't think I've seen tattooed models for high fashion. Do you think it would be a good thing?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

I guess that's why horse trading works -- at its center is a difference of opinion.

So, what's to stop you & your wife's tastes from changing?  Or more to the point, isn't it likely that the tattoo's will last longer than your current tastes?  I mean, I don't look at (or like) the photographs I made say five or ten years ago.

Nothing in life is a zero risk endeavor...

Hal Yarbrough wrote:
Tatoos are fine as long as whoever is using the images agrees that they are acceptable.  When I print a catalog, I have "noticable" totoos removed.  As a publisher and retailer of womens aparrel, the emphasis must be on the product, not distracting tatoos.  Again, tatoos are fine as long as they are approriate for the purpose of the shoot.

Respectfully Submitted,
Hal Yarbrough
Owner, Publisher & Photographer
Dare2wear Swimwear Company [/quote

amen

Looknsee Photography wrote:
At best, tattoos are a distraction.  What fashion designer wants the viewers to be looking at the tattoos & not the clothing?

EXACTLY!

This is why they don't use super star models, because they distract from the clothing.

Is it Y&K (or another designer team!) that draws fake tattoos on their models upper arm before the go on the runway for NY Fashion Week.

Or why you see enough models in the big shows with smaller tattoos... or angel wings tattooed on their backs.

That is also why there is no thing called "Omahyra Mota", it's an urban legend.

That's also why Jean Paul Gaultier has entire fashionshows with his model HEAVILY modded... ooppss... I may have been delirious when I saw that and it was simply an alcohol/nyquil induced dream sequence.

Funny thing to... it's hard to find a stylist or MUA backstage that is NOT tattooed...

How'bout dem distractions...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I guess my "art" (for what it's worth) is based upon my powers of observation.  I'd notice a visible tattoo like I'd notice a coffee stain on an otherwise white blouse.

Yeah... I have the same power of observation and everytime I see a top model on the runway for a major designer... I too notice it... a lot.

UdoR wrote:
That is also why there is no thing called "Omahyra Mota", it's an urban legend.

http://fashionwatch.com/2003/spring2003 … index.html

I wouldn't really call that heavily tattooed though.
For modeling though, yes.

Cristina Ashley wrote:
http://fashionwatch.com/2003/spring2003/omahyragarcia/index.html

I wouldn't really call that heavily tattooed though.
For modeling though, yes.

I  shot her as recent as 12 weeks ago... and she has more now... wait til next week... the article will be then almost four years old... 

UdoR wrote:

I  shot her as recent as 12 weeks ago... and she has more now... the article is almost four years old... wait til next week...

mmm sexy.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Oooo -- touchy!  I wasn't intending to be defensive or disrespectful -- I though I was stating my opinion, too.

Kisses love. No one's touchy but you. That was frustration you were sensing. And maybe a bit smirking.

UdoR wrote:

I  shot her as recent as 12 weeks ago... and she has more now... wait til next week... the article will be then almost four years old... 

Good example. But she kind of started out edgier anyway. I have never seen her done anything really girly or soft. I guess it is just a pidgeon hole...