|
Forums >
General Industry >
What (or who) defines beauty....?
Since I started working with models a few years ago, I've learned on numerous occasions that the concept of "beauty" is often based on socialization and images that the popular media/culture bombard on us daily. Some of the best models I've ever worked with includes those that are Rubenesque, Tattooed/Pierced, Under 5'0"....qualities that the mainstream big timers reject. And it goes without saying that some (not all) of the "superbabes" out there have attitudes that make them goat ugly. I guess in the end, the question really is quite silly actually. Hopefully photographers define their own sense of what or who is beautiful instead of participating in some kind of "groupthink" and run with that. You'd think that was obvious, but sometimes I doubt it. Especially since if you're shooting on anything other than your own concepts, beliefs, experiences and yes, sense of beauty, everything you have created is a lie. Mar 03 06 11:53 pm Link each person themselves defines what beauty is to them some may like them tall, skinny, blonde some may like them shorter, bustier..etc. If your talking about the fashion industry then the "image" of beauty hasnt really changed ALL that much since the heroin chic days. Also when a gorgeous model is gorgeous but you say when she opens her mouth shes "goat ugly" I dont think thats what matters in the world of modeling because nobody cares what the model has to say. Mar 03 06 11:58 pm Link SarahSVET wrote: Yes...I'll concede that but I'll never buy into it. Mar 04 06 12:01 am Link Beauty has what I consider to be a loose definition, but no one will argue the fact that: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...  Mar 04 06 12:02 am Link Christopher N. wrote: Perhaps this is why web modeling has grown in popularity. The definition of beauty is much more varied on sites such as this one compared to the "real" world of modeling. I believe that over time the mainstream population will become more open minded about what is desirable physically. This is not to say I think that classic aesthetics will be rejected but I do believe the evolution of our society in this way may change the direction of commercialism. Mar 04 06 12:21 am Link Kristin Anne wrote: We can always hope. The rise of alternative modelling via the internet is an encouraging sign, but you temper that with the sheer power of external influences like the media/marketing blitz behind some of our "Winter Olympians" or the REAL reason a sizable male audience was checking out "Dancing with the Stars." Mar 04 06 12:25 am Link In the context of photography, I reserve the word beautiful for a few women I find to be really physically stunning. To pass the word around promiscuously diminishes it's value. Sorry, but not everyone is physically beautiful. It's a rarity which is why we value it so highly. Does my definition of beauty vary from that of others? Of course, but I don't believe it varies that much. The models who successfully market their looks have broad appeal which is why they are valuable and successful at getting the public's attention. Height, body shape, complexion, bone structure, all matter. Is it culturally influenced? Of course, it is. And so is rebelling against it. My camera doesn't shoot inner beauty. I'm not shooting the model's attitude. I'm shooting the expression she is projecting in response to my requests. She could be the bitch from hell and it wouldn't matter. And what you know about a supermodel's attitude doesn't come from her pictures. It comes from the press. -Dave Mar 04 06 08:02 am Link Christopher N. wrote: I've always been told the beholder. Anyone else hear that or is that an old wives tale? Mar 04 06 08:12 am Link If your shooting professionally ... the buyer of the image dictates beauty. If your shooting for your book or just for fun .... you define beauty. Mar 04 06 08:16 am Link area291 wrote: Christopher N. wrote: I've always been told the beholder. Anyone else hear that or is that an old wives tale? Sounds like Communist propaganda to me. Mar 04 06 08:27 am Link 50% biology 50% culture Mar 04 06 08:30 am Link Sounds like Communist propaganda to me. LOL....that's a new one. Mar 04 06 02:38 pm Link My favorite saying of all time is .. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".. I believe that everone is entitled to what they think is beauty.. I know for myself I think some people are beautiful but another will not think the same.. Also for me attitude takes beauty to a whole different level. Personally I can look at someone and think they are absolutly beautiful then I met them and there attitude stinks.. That is very unattractive and it makes that person unattractive to me. But again I believe "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Mar 04 06 02:47 pm Link Dave Krueger wrote: Whereas I became a photographer precisely with the goal of photographing inner beauty (in the moments where it manifests itself outwardly). That is why I am primarily a portrait photographer, but always an emotive photographer. I am interested in, as Melvin likes to say, "the story beneath the skin." (Though in the case of some of my tattooed girls, the story is actually on it!) It is who people are that intrigues me. It is their moments of truth or delight or wonder that I want to capture. That is what I am about. That is what animates people. That is what makes them beautiful to me. Mar 04 06 03:24 pm Link Ah, but beauty is in the genes of the beholder, not they eye... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h … cation=rss Science has proven what I have long guessed, which is that the arguments about beauty; that it is different for everyone or that we are socialized in to figuring out what is beautiful; are are false. If you take a photo of anyone, the majority of people will find the same amount of attraction to it (following gender lines). There will be the small percentage of people who don't agree with the overall consensus, but as in anything genetic there are aberrations... Mar 04 06 03:35 pm Link "And who could question the logic of seeking out the most genetically lucky women in the country and heaping yet more rewards upon them? That's the American way." Okay, now that's funny. Mar 04 06 03:42 pm Link Immanuel Kant defined "beauty" very well in his "Critique of Judgement." This question has been asked, considered, discussed and argued by the best minds of the the last twenty centuries. If you're really interested, go read some philosophy. -Don Mar 04 06 03:43 pm Link James Jackson wrote: you stole my reply..... Mar 04 06 04:59 pm Link My good old friend Jack......Jack Daniels......... Mar 04 06 05:02 pm Link Charles Morris wrote: Exactly... Mar 04 06 05:04 pm Link Sita Mae Edwards wrote: Dave Krueger wrote: Whereas I became a photographer precisely with the goal of photographing inner beauty (in the moments where it manifests itself outwardly). That is why I am primarily a portrait photographer, but always an emotive photographer. I am interested in, as Melvin likes to say, "the story beneath the skin." (Though in the case of some of my tattooed girls, the story is actually on it!) It is who people are that intrigues me. It is their moments of truth or delight or wonder that I want to capture. That is what I am about. That is what animates people. That is what makes them beautiful to me. Ah, you make a good point and certainly show that there are other perspectives. I read a book many years ago about portraiture. I've forgotten most of the detail, but I remember how much I was impressed at the amount of skill required to do it well. I think the Kmart brand of work has trivialized it. I don't have the skill for portraiture and am not sure I have enough years left to master it, even if I were to accept the challenge. Mar 04 06 05:50 pm Link James Jackson wrote: I heard similar claims. In fact, there's evidence that even liberals and conservatives can attribute their leanings to genes to some degree. Man's propensity for religious believe is another area that I've read about as well. Mar 04 06 06:27 pm Link "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." Miss Piggy Mar 04 06 06:37 pm Link Dave Krueger wrote: Neither really. If you look at the proportions of beauty they've never changed...they're usually based on the ratios and not on the exact measurements...that is why even now in today's socially health conscious society large "rubenesque" women are still beautiful if they are of the same ratio sizes as skinnier women. I think that the "skinny is beautiful" bias is a complete myth... No poll or informal consultation of men or women I've ever met has said that larger women can't be beautiful. I think the skinny model requirements are much more about interchangeability and consistency than they are about "beauty" Mar 04 06 06:39 pm Link |
