Jay Dezelic wrote:
There seems to be a lot of expectations...

Odd - Unusual - Cultish - Mainstream - It all depends, and it all falls under the same condition.  Regardless of style there is only one expectation.  Modeling serves the singular purpose to whom it is being directed, delivering the emulation factor.

Doesn't matter if it's odd or unusual, the underlying component is making the viewer say, "I want to be like him / her."  If the image doesn't speak to that it has failed.  That's what defines the difference between a modeling image and a POP (plain 'ol picture).

ravens laughter wrote:
Are you looking to be an inspiration or looking to be a hanger?

Commercial models seek to let the clothing speak, to let the designer have their say. In commercial work the model is the background piece on which the primary object is displayed. The model is not the point... This is why commercial clients seek models who are reletively mundane.

Art photography is allowed to be more liberal in its use of muse simply because in art photography the model is the point. The model is not background... They are the story that is being played. We wonder about her angst and his pining.. The clothes that they wear or don't rarely even get noticed.

Commercial photography simply seeks to out you with what ever product the model is with, art tries to put you in the model.

Well said.

area291 wrote:

Odd - Unusual - Cultish - Mainstream - It all depends, and it all falls under the same condition.  Regardless of style there is only one expectation.  Modeling serves the singular purpose to whom it is being directed, delivering the emulation factor.

Doesn't matter if it's odd or unusual, the underlying component is making the viewer say, "I want to be like him / her."  If the image doesn't speak to that it has failed.  That's what defines the difference between a modeling image and a POP (plain 'ol picture).

I have seen a lot of compelling images that don't make me want to be like the model in the shot.  I think there is more to it than that.  I think that a successful image has to conjure up some feeling of desire or association with a pleasant mood of the viewer, but not necessarily identify with how the person wants to be perceived.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what to think of all those guys who read Playboy

Jay Dezelic wrote:
There seems to be a lot of expectations in mainstream modeling to follow certain norms.  Yet the goal for most is to offer something different from the norm in order to stand out.

I'm not sure what "most" you are talking about.  A commercial model who "stands out" gets far less work than one who does not.  "Generic good looks" is the most common description of a successful commercial model.  To work regularly they need to be able to play one or more of the standard "types":  business woman, young mother, executive, dad . . .

That's what commercial print modeling is all about. Not looking "odd" or "standing out".

"Commercial fashion" is a little different, but the most often heard term is "aspirational".  Counter-culture "odd" isn't "aspirational" from the standpoint of a fashion merchandiser.

TXPhotog wrote:

I'm not sure what "most" you are talking about.  A commercial model who "stands out" gets far less work than one who does not.  "Generic good looks" is the most common description of a successful commercial model.  To work regularly they need to be able to play one or more of the standard "types":  business woman, young mother, executive, dad . . .

That's what commercial print modeling is all about. Not looking "odd" or "standing out".

"Commercial fashion" is a little different, but the most often heard term is "aspirational".  Counter-culture "odd" isn't "aspirational" from the standpoint of a fashion merchandiser.

What does "aspirational" have to do with odd?  There are some models who have made careers on the edge of commonplace fashion and art.  I agree that the vast majority of modeling assignments goes to the generic and common looks.  - That's obvious. Center of the market gets most of the business.  That's not what I am asking here.  You might find that models with odd looks are more aspirational than models with generic looks on the basis that they have to work harder to find their market niche.

There is a gray edge here.  My question is based on knowing whether it is a fine edge or broad edge.  You might argue for instance that there is absolutely no work anywhere for models that do not have a generic look.  Or on the other hand, you might advise certain markets have more latitude and interest in unique looks.  With your deep industry experience, I expect more from you on this one TXPhotog.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
There is a gray edge here.  My question is based on knowing whether it is a fine edge or broad edge.  You might argue for instance that there is absolutely no work anywhere for models that do not have a generic look.  Or on the other hand, you might advise certain markets have more latitude and interest in unique looks.  With your deep industry experience, I expect more from you on this one TXPhotog.

My experience is somewhat limited commercially so its not a vast wealth of years and years, however, I'd say for the most part theres a market for everything. Shoot what you like and then do the work to FIND your market. Experiment with every style you can till you find one that you love and can be sucessful with. Hopefully they're the same.

I think building a name and your location also play a part in this. what's considered shocking and offensive in Kentuky or Oklahoma (no offense to either) may be considered mundane and played out in NyC, Philly or LA.

Just try to remember that as much as the fashion industry executives want to try and be as conservative and boring as possible, it IS generally the goth, punk and dare i say in some cases Marilyn Manson's of the world that inspire the designers themselves. Manson did have a five page spread in Vogue a month or two ago... a few years back that very thought would seem ridiculous.

If you cant find a trend you like, start one. Just be true to yourself.

Jeff Cohn
X-pose.net (ultra rightwing conservative pureism at its finest)

Sirensong wrote:
GOD FORBID.!!

Mainstream all the way for me....o_0

yeah i can see that, you strike me as the quiet girl in the corner that really doesnt want to stand out at all. you really should come out of your shell.

lol

Jeff Cohn::X-Pose.net:: wrote:
yeah i can see that, you strike me as the quiet girl in the corner that really doesnt want to stand out at all. you really should come out of your shell.

lol

What ARE you trying to imply young man?!
*hands on hips*

Jay Dezelic wrote:
What does "aspirational" have to do with odd?

That's an easy one.  They are polar opposites.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
There are some models who have made careers on the edge of commonplace fashion and art.

Are we still discussing commercial modeling?  It has virtually nothing to do with either the edge of fashion or art.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I agree that the vast majority of modeling assignments goes to the generic and common looks.  - That's obvious. Center of the market gets most of the business.  That's not what I am asking here.  You might find that models with odd looks are more aspirational than models with generic looks on the basis that they have to work harder to find their market niche.

No, I would not find that.  "Aspirational" is a term of art frequently used by casting directors when describing the models they want for a job.  It has nothing at all to do with "odd", and in fact, to the degree that someone is "odd" they are not "aspirational".

Jay Dezelic wrote:
There is a gray edge here.  My question is based on knowing whether it is a fine edge or broad edge.  You might argue for instance that there is absolutely no work anywhere for models that do not have a generic look.

Why would I do that?  It's not true.  But "odd" necessarily exists only on the fringes of the mainstream market, almost by definition.  A particular "odd" look might be requested two or three times a year in a large market city; once a decade in a smaller one.  That's not to say there is "no market" - just not enough market for an agency to bother with.

To give you a specific example, in the well over 5,000 commercial modeling jobs that I have worked, I haven't seen one single request for long-haired androgynous male models in their 30s.  Not to say it can't happen, just that it doesn't happen hardly ever.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
There seems to be a lot of expectations in mainstream modeling to follow certain norms.  Yet the goal for most is to offer something different from the norm in order to stand out.  Some of the categories of photography and modeling on MM that once were considered odd (like Goth or bondage) are now common.

As a model, I try to offer an unusual look.  I like odd and unusual.  But some people have a low tolerance to things that are too unusual.  So I figure that if you offend only 10% of the people out there, than it's probably not too odd. 

What do you think?  Do you experiment with unusual looks to differentiate yourself in the markets.  Where do you draw the line and why?

I make images that please me.  If the public buys them fine, if not I still enjoy them.

ravens laughter wrote:
Art photography is allowed to be more liberal in its use of muse simply because in art photography the model is the point. The model is not background... They are the story that is being played. We wonder about her angst and his pining.. The clothes that they wear or don't rarely even get noticed.

Commercial photography simply seeks to out you with what ever product the model is with, art tries to put you in the model.

Amen !  I second that, and the one whoever said that if something is too odd to be sold, it's too odd

I know by first hand that oddity will make money only when I'll be death.
(sooner!)

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I think that a successful image has to conjure up some feeling of desire or association with a pleasant mood of the viewer, but not necessarily identify with how the person wants to be perceived.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what to think of all those guys who read Playboy

You somewhat substantiated my point.  It goes to how individuals view imaging and males and females have very different perceptions (for the most part).  Females tend to  attach emotion to "I want to be like her, I want my man to be like him" while men ususally, and it sums up your Playboy analogy, view imaging like that as "I want to do her." Playboy imaging can conjure up both.  The Coors Twins is clearly directed to the male beer buying population which goes without explanation.

The predominance of model imaging is advertising based and the predominance of advertising is directed toward the empowered female (or those seeking empowerment).  Women are less likely to grab the "odd" and men have no reason to if that means reducing the chance to seek out women less likely to accept it. 

There is however, a place for oddity acceptable to both, that which is associated with being "clever."  Otherwise, odd just for the sake of being odd has about as much of an effect as...well, think about anything out of place and ask if it makes any sense.

area291 wrote:
There is however, a place for oddity acceptable to both, that which is associated with being "clever."  Otherwise, odd just for the sake of being odd has about as much of an effect as...well, think about anything out of place and ask if it makes any sense.

Let me add to this.

"Odd" (or "different") typically becomes accepted if one of two things is true:

1.  The odd trait is embraced by one or more "opinion leaders" (say, for instance, the "cool kids" at school, or a movie star).  Then others pick it up to emulate them, to take on some of the cachet which has just accrued to that particular type of "odd".

2.  When the sheer artistry of presentation of the "odd" attribute so overwhelms the viewer that he is able to look past what may otherwise be offensive and see beauty in an unexpected place.

Failing one of those two things, "odd" is generally perceived as "odd".

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
I'm 5'7" and only weigh about 95 lbs...they don't even make bras small enough for me...I'm pretty freaking odd, but I still get to work with people like Tito Trelles and James Graham. It's all about finding your niche if you ask me. I could never be in Maxim or Playboy, but I make a much better art model than Pamela Anderson.

Jeez!!! I'm 95 pounds as well and I am 4'11"!!!!

Raine Gould wrote:
The only true market for alternative looks i've seen in mainstream advertising and media thus far is 'Suicide Girls'.

Sigh.

I guess I need to stop using the term "mainstream".  It's taken on a whole new meaning.

TXPhotog wrote:
"Odd" (or "different") typically becomes accepted if one of two things is true:

1.  The odd trait is embraced by one or more "opinion leaders" (say, for instance, the "cool kids" at school, or a movie star).  Then others pick it up to emulate them, to take on some of the cachet which has just accrued to that particular type of "odd".

2.  When the sheer artistry of presentation of the "odd" attribute so overwhelms the viewer that he is able to look past what may otherwise be offensive and see beauty in an unexpected place.

Failing one of those two things, "odd" is generally perceived as "odd".

Absolutely positively perfectly put, TX.  I go for number two, and have set out to do so from the beginning.  Badly done or even mediocre quality oddity won't work, because there's nothing to draw the viewer in, nothing to hook into, nothing to connect to.  It's easy to reject the oddity wholesale. 

But if you do it really well, you create the space for people to think again.  That's why someone like Mapplethorpe wasn't just ignored out of hand - his photographs were really well done, and really beautifully printed.  A gorgeously done photograph of something disturbing or disgusting or offensive or just plain old odd will allow people to pause and at least consider it.  If they end up rejecting it anyway, they will at least have thought about why before doing so.

That's why I've been so meticulous about seeking out and working with the best art photographers I can.  There's plenty of atrocious fat girl glamour and porn out there.  That's easy enough to dismiss.  But a really well done photograph of a fat woman, that will at least sometimes encourage someone to linger past the initial, "Holy crap!" reaction.

Anyway.  I'm not a commercial model, so my comments apply only in an art setting.  But I'd like to see you do more of that, Jay, so maybe they'll be useful.