BCI Photo wrote:
Yes.

You often stick it to your boyfriend mentally? What are you, a sadist? lol

Lmao, we always argue about photography and well art in general. He swears he knows everything ever since he got into this art program.. "Well  If I were you I'd lower the aperture" grrrr

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Modeling is a form of expression, certainly artistic expression.  However you have to remember that the model, to the large extent, is not the artist, he/she is the subject.

So, whether it is a commercial photograph or an artistic nude, it is certainly art.  However, you do have to realize that in most cases, the photographer is the artistic engine and the model is a participant as the subject.  That, by no means suggests that the final what is being done is not art.

So to answer your question, modeling is clearly a form of artistic expression.

Good answer *applauds Aavian*... I guess different models have different skill levels so for some models

jade83 wrote:
Hey, there's also the point that the model is not only the subject, but something of an artistic muse in the venture.

But in what art other than photography does the model's participation even get recognized?

A model may be a muse for a painter, a sculptor, a musician (there's some beautiful pieces based on envisioning a nude woman on a sunny day), a chef, and in all of those arts the artist is the only one even considered to be doing anything artistic.  Why in photography do we all of a sudden have this need to put more value on the model?

jade83 wrote:
Hey, there's also the point that the model is not only the subject, but something of an artistic muse in the venture.

James Jackson wrote:
But in what art other than photography does the model's participation even get recognized?

A model may be a muse for a painter, a sculptor, a musician (there's some beautiful pieces based on envisioning a nude woman on a sunny day), a chef, and in all of those arts the artist is the only one even considered to be doing anything artistic.  Why in photography do we all of a sudden have this need to put more value on the model?

There's more emphasis placed on the model in photographer as opposed to other creative media, because the model is often recognizable.

James Jackson wrote:
But in what art other than photography does the model's participation even get recognized?

Film.  Dance.  Theater.  Some painting, sculpture, drawing,  etc.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Film.  Dance.  Theater.  Some painting, sculpture, drawing,  etc.

Well; in film, dance, and theater, there aren't "models" there are actors and dancers, who are the recognized artists...and the oft unrecognized artist in those situations is the choreographer or writer...

I've yet to see a painting where someone said "Oh my, that is an amazing model" and the same with sculpture or drawing, yet how many times have you seen someone comment on a really good photograph something along the lines of "that model is great."  In most arts where a model poses, it is recognized that the artist has so much input in to the final look of the model that the model's efforts are really not as important as the artist's, yet in photography that input on the part of the artist is hardly ever recognized.

12 year old Bobby takes a photo of any of the models in my portfolio, the model will not look as good as when I take the photo (unless Bobby is exceptionally gifted as an artist).

Bill from the shop takes a photo of some stunning metal work, and you can see the metal work, but I shoot the same metal work, I'll be able to make it look better.

Good photographers are capable of changing the appearance of something just as much as a good artist in any other medium.

James Jackson wrote:

Well; in film, dance, and theater, there aren't "models" there are actors and dancers, who are the recognized artists...and the oft unrecognized artist in those situations is the choreographer or writer...

Acting, modeling, and dancing are very closely related.  Their functions are essentially the same: to carry out the physical actions as directed by the artist, whether that person is a director, choreographer, photographer, painter, etc.  So why aren't models also recognized artists?

James Jackson wrote:
I've yet to see a painting where someone said "Oh my, that is an amazing model" and the same with sculpture or drawing, yet how many times have you seen someone comment on a really good photograph something along the lines of "that model is great."  In most arts where a model poses, it is recognized that the artist has so much input in to the final look of the model that the model's efforts are really not as important as the artist's, yet in photography that input on the part of the artist is hardly ever recognized.

I certainly wouldn't say that the work of the photographer in photography is "hardy ever recognized."  But, as stated above, because the degree of abstraction in photography is less than it is in sculpture, painting, etc., the model's work is more critical in photography.

James Jackson wrote:

Well; in film, dance, and theater, there aren't "models" there are actors and dancers, who are the recognized artists...and the oft unrecognized artist in those situations is the choreographer or writer...

I've yet to see a painting where someone said "Oh my, that is an amazing model" and the same with sculpture or drawing, yet how many times have you seen someone comment on a really good photograph something along the lines of "that model is great."  In most arts where a model poses, it is recognized that the artist has so much input in to the final look of the model that the model's efforts are really not as important as the artist's, yet in photography that input on the part of the artist is hardly ever recognized.

12 year old Bobby takes a photo of any of the models in my portfolio, the model will not look as good as when I take the photo (unless Bobby is exceptionally gifted as an artist).

Bill from the shop takes a photo of some stunning metal work, and you can see the metal work, but I shoot the same metal work, I'll be able to make it look better.

Good photographers are capable of changing the appearance of something just as much as a good artist in any other medium.

well, Whistler's Mother is a piece of art based on the model is it not? as well as the Last Supper....

Brian Diaz wrote:
Acting, modeling, and dancing are very closely related.  Their functions are essentially the same: to carry out the physical actions as directed by the artist, whether that person is a director, choreographer, photographer, painter, etc.  So why aren't models also recognized artists?

I disagree completely.  Modeling is a completely separate skill set from acting or dancing.  Even acting and dancing aren't closely related enough that a good actor can easily move to being a good dancer.

There is a skill to modeling, there are "good" models and it *is* more than just their looks that makes them a good model, but I can't think of an example where modeling requires an artistic vision or artistic ability.

Now that's not to say that models *can't* have artistic vision or ability...there *are* models who are artists in their own right, but their artistry is quite separate from their modeling.

Shyly is a great example of a model who has artistic vision, and who could be considered an artist in her own right when she organizes a shoot...however I would say she crosses the line from "model" to "art director" when she is the one who comes up with the concept and design and organizes the shoot.

The mere act of modeling is not an art, and most models aren't performing an artistic exercise when modeling...

images by elahi wrote:
well, Whistler's Mother is a piece of art based on the model is it not? as well as the Last Supper....

Yes, but no one says "That Whistler's mother must have been an amazing model to allow Whistler to paint her like that" and no one says "Wow that Jesus is right on, that model is great"

James Jackson wrote:
Yes, but no one says "That Whistler's mother must have been an amazing model to allow Whistler to paint her like that" and no one says "Wow that Jesus is right on, that model is great"

execllent point...and why dont people critique the Last Supper As art? it was a historical depiction...historical fiction.....

Surely uou know the 12 people sitting were models LOL..you dont think that the actual 12 disciples were in the picture do you? LOL not to laugh but you do know that?

Gregory Garecki wrote:
Is acting art? Modeling is acting in front of the still picture camera.

I don't think so. I would say modeling is closer to dancing. You can act sitting completely still and just talk. Thats how most auditions for an actor are anyway.

Gregory Garecki wrote:
Is acting art? Modeling is acting in front of the still picture camera.

modeling does require some emoting and some accessing of inner emotions as well as the ability and technique to express those emotions at will...

a good and true model does function as an "Actor" of sorts

James Jackson wrote:
The mere act of modeling is not an art, and most models aren't performing an artistic exercise when modeling...

Would you agree with these statements?

"Dancers carry out the movements as directed by a choreographer.  The mere act of dancing is not an art, and most dancers aren't performing an artistic exercise when dancing."

Electra T wrote:
I don't think so. I would say modeling is closer to dancing. You can act sitting completely still and just talk. Thats how most auditions for an actor are anyway.

Acting is not about talking.  It's about emoting.

Some modeling is about movement.  Some is about emotion.  Some is about both.

Electra T wrote:

I don't think so. I would say modeling is closer to dancing. You can act sitting completely still and just talk. Thats how most auditions for an actor are anyway.

No. I don't think so. What about close ups? Dancers don't dance with their faces. ;-)

Shyly wrote:
Electra, I think the answer is as individual as the model and the photographer.  I am an art model exclusively, and I am often very involved in the development of an idea and bringing it to fruition.  Other times, I am more the clay that someone with a crystal clear vision is using to realize what is in his or her head.  I am on the creative end of things (enough to have gotten into photography as well, actually), and each collaboration is different.  There is no one right answer. 

If you want to be a creative model, then be one.  Develop ideas, present them to photographers, collaborate with them throughout the process of creation.

Shly, your words are always appreciated.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Would you agree with these statements?

"Dancers carry out the movements as directed by a choreographer.  The mere act of dancing is not an art, and most dancers aren't performing an artistic exercise when dancing."

well not all dancers create movement based on directions from a choreographer...you do have dancers who choreograph themselves and you do have Interpretive and Improvisational Dancers

Gregory Garecki wrote:

No. I don't think so. What about close ups? Dancers don't dance with their faces. ;-)

Actually they do. A good dancer uses her face as well. But what I mean is both dancers and actors accomplish getting emotion across through movement. While an actor can be paralyzed and still get there point across by simply speaking.

images by elahi wrote:

Brian Diaz wrote:
Would you agree with these statements?

"Dancers carry out the movements as directed by a choreographer.  The mere act of dancing is not an art, and most dancers aren't performing an artistic exercise when dancing."

well not all dancers create movement based on directions from a choreographer...you do have dancers who choreograph themselves and you do have Interpretive and Improvisational Dancers

And all dancers and actors must go through an artistic interpretation process of what the choreographer or writer directed.

Models *can* do this, but they don't always, and they don't have to.

James Jackson wrote:
And all dancers and actors must go through an artistic interpretation process of what the choreographer or writer directed.

Models *can* do this, but they don't always, and they don't have to.

still not one hundred percent true...if you have a dancer, right infront of you, and you say: "dance" ..they can dance right there...they can improvise.......:

Brian Diaz wrote:

Acting is not about talking.  It's about emoting.

Some modeling is about movement.  Some is about emotion.  Some is about both.

Ok emoting. Being a dancer your way of expressing emotion is moving your body. For a model its moving your body(i'm including face in the body). An actor needn't move to express anything. He or she can use her words things a dancer and a model can't.

James Jackson wrote:

And all dancers and actors must go through an artistic interpretation process of what the choreographer or writer directed.

Models *can* do this, but they don't always, and they don't have to.

Huh?  Why can't actors just go out and recite lines?  Oh--because the performance will be poor.

Why can't models skip the artistic interpretation of what the photographer or art director says to do?  Because the performance will be poor.

James Jackson wrote:
And all dancers and actors must go through an artistic interpretation process of what the choreographer or writer directed.

Models *can* do this, but they don't always, and they don't have to.

Really? I think that if the Dancer, actor or model is really great..the photog,director or choregrapher is just there to give direction.To lead them along. A photog is going to capture a great moment with a great model. A choreographer is goin to fine tune a great dancer to his needs. A director is going to give the actor a set up, and with the lines provide the actor will make the scene his own.

images by elahi wrote:
still not one hundred percent true...if you have a dancer, right infront of you, and you say: "dance" ..they can dance right there...they can improvise.......:

I wasn't saying they couldn't work independently of direction, I was trying to show the distinction between what a model does when being given direction and what an actor or dancer does when being given direction.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Huh?  Why can't actors just go out and recite lines?  Oh--because the performance will be poor.

Why can't models skip the artistic interpretation of what the photographer or art director says to do?  Because the performance will be poor.

But the final product of an actor's act *is* the performance.

The model *can* put all kinds of performance in to the modeling, and do something artistic, but it isn't required...a good photographer can still add his artistic interpretation of the scene and make the photograph good.