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.......:

If you have a good model in front of you...you can say "model" and they will model right there...they will improvise. I have seen some amazing models move either with or without direction. Good models have an idea of where the light is...at least most of the time, or if the photographer makes them aware of it and they move in ways that look good to the camera. I love me some good models.

James Jackson wrote:

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.

Okay, now get an untrained model to stand there and see if they can get their legs and hands held that way...most people slump and do not know how to project good posture...and it will show, even if you don't photograph the upper body.

~Krista~ wrote:

Okay, now get an untrained model to stand there and see if they can get their legs and hands held that way...most people slump and do not know how to project good posture...and it will show, even if you don't photograph the upper body.

Standing properly is not art.  It is a skill.

James Jackson wrote:

Standing properly is not art.  It is a skill.

Which brings us to an entirely new topic....what is art, and what is skill...So, there can be skillful models that are without art, just like there can be skillful photographers without art, but don't they usually work together? Isn't skill itself somewhat of an art to learn?

James Jackson wrote:

Standing properly is not art.  It is a skill.

Emmm, artist are usually skilled. A skilled photographer is an artist. Art is an opinion, what do u have aside from that? The only thing you can go on is skill.

James Jackson wrote:

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

The final product of an actor's art is the film (okay, not in theater, but you know what I mean). 

I assume the photo you posted is supposed to show that models don't need artistic abilities to model.  Have you never watched a movie with a shot of an actor's feet?  Do they need artistic abilities to shoot those scenes?

~Krista~ wrote:
...So, there can be skillful models that are without art, just like there can be skillful photographers without art...

Photography in and of itself isn't inherently artistic any more than modeling is...however if the photographer *is* an artist, they can change what you see in to an image rather than just a recording.

Brian Diaz wrote:
The final product of an actor's art is the film (okay, not in theater, but you know what I mean). 

I assume the photo you posted is supposed to show that models don't need artistic abilities to model.  Have you never watched a movie with a shot of an actor's feet?  Do they need artistic abilities to shoot those scenes?

My first thought "Wiggle your big toe"

I love you Uma! you kill that bill.

James Jackson wrote:

Photography in and of itself isn't inherently artistic any more than modeling is...however if the photographer *is* an artist, they can change what you see in to an image rather than just a recording.

Okay so we're all agreed.

Some models are artists.  Some are not.
Some photographers are artists.  Some are not.
Some actors are artists.  Some are not.
Some dancers are artists.  Some are not.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Okay so we're all agreed.

Some models are artists.  Some are not.
Some photographers are artists.  Some are not.
Some actors are artists.  Some are not.
Some dancers are artists.  Some are not.

So I should tell my boyfriend that artistic merit depends on the model?? Are most models artist then?

Brian Diaz wrote:

Okay so we're all agreed.

Some models are artists.  Some are not.
Some photographers are artists.  Some are not.
Some actors are artists.  Some are not.
Some dancers are artists.  Some are not.

Brian...I love you!

Brian Diaz wrote:
...a movie with a shot of an actor's feet?  Do they need artistic abilities to shoot those scenes?

That is the cinematographer's contribution to the art of the movie, not the actor's...the actor needs artistic ability to be an actor in the first place though.

My point is, a model does not *need* to be artistic to model therefore a model is not necessarily an artist.

A photographer, by the same token, does not *need* to be artistic to be a photographer, so a photographer is not necessarily an artist either.

Many on both sides of the lens are not artists, but to be art one side or the other needs to be an artist.

Electra T wrote:
So I should tell my boyfriend that artistic merit depends on the model?? Are most models artist then?

You should discuss this with your boyfriend...I think you are the only one who can decide which percentage of models are artists...however, that is irrelevant. Even if only a small percentage of models are artists, if you want to be a model artist and that is your goal, you should pursue it with the intention of being an artist in mind.

That means you shouldn't expect to make very much money. But, it also means you aren't in danger of being sucked into modeling just for prurient reasons.

Electra T wrote:

So I should tell my boyfriend that artistic merit depends on the model?? Are most models artist then?

Not most of the one's I've worked with, though some are...those are the really special ones.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Some actors are artists.  Some are not.
Some dancers are artists.  Some are not.

I can't think of an example where an actor or a dancer wouldn't be an artist.

~Krista~ wrote:
You should discuss this with your boyfriend...I think you are the only one who can decide which percentage of models are artists...however, that is irrelevant. Even if only a small percentage of models are artists, if you want to be a model artist and that is your goal, you should pursue it with the intention of being an artist in mind.

That means you shouldn't expect to make very much money. But, it also means you aren't in danger of being sucked into modeling just for prurient reasons.

Well we were talking about modeling in general not just specific niches, you know? He seems to have a more respect for editorial work, i guess its easier to see the art in that. I want to do commercial work, but I have a great respect for artistic models like shyly, kaitlyn lara and the like. He just thinks commercial modeling specifically and modeling in general isn't an intellectually inclined occupation.

Electra T wrote:

Well we were talking about modeling in general not just specific niches, you know? He seems to have a more respect for editorial work, i guess its easier to see the art in that. I want to do commercial work, but I have a great respect for artistic models like shyly, kaitlyn lara and the like. He just thinks commercial modeling specifically and modeling in general isn't an intellectually inclined occupation.

Show him this thread.

James Jackson wrote:

I can't think of an example where an actor or a dancer wouldn't be an artist.

Have you seen Waterworld?

~Krista~ wrote:

Show him this thread.

Yup, I think i will.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Have you seen Waterworld?

lol

or House of Wax

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.

You are my hero

James Jackson wrote:

lol

or House of Wax

In 3D!  That was awesome.

(I went to a screening of that and Lou Reed was in the audience.)

Electra T wrote:

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.

No..there is something called Improvisational Theatre

images by elahi wrote:
No..there is something called Improvisational Theatre

Yah I know that and there is such a thing as modeling in front of a mirror.Or dancing free style?  Whats your point exactly? I'm not an idiot, I've done and heard of improv.The poster gave an example of needing these(choreographer,director and photog) ppl for artistic interpretation, thats what I'm going with.

By the way a lot of improv especially if its not for practice, but for performance isn't really improv at all.