JAY carreon wrote:

First of all, neither Pamela Anderson nor Paris Hilton are "Supermodels" - they are "minor celebrities"!  Have you seen either of them on a major, nationally broadcast campaign for a the likes of Prada or Versace lately?  There was a moment in "fashion time" when "scandalous women" were considered all-the-rage - but like anything in fashion, that has already passed.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Yet somehow mysteriosly both Pammy and Paris have become household names > Outside the fashion world Giselle has not ....You see a lot more photos of Pammy adn Paris in the media than you do of Giselle

Garry k wrote:

Yet somehow mysteriosly both Pammy and Paris have become household names > Outside the fashion world Giselle has not ....You see a lot more photos of Pammy adn Paris in the media than you do of Giselle

Doesnt say much, I know household names that fit the both of them too.....doorknob for one......

R. Olson (RO) wrote:

Doesnt say much, I know household names that fit the both of them too.....doorknob for one......

Thats not very nice ....

Platinum Fire wrote:
To take it a step further, how many models, especially females, on MM would do pornographic modelling for the right price ?

You mean - how many people here are so desperate for an immediate pay-off in cash that they would put the torch to their long-term goals as mainstream models by doing spreadshots or having sex on camera?

Even models who do work that still falls within the realm of fashion get dropped from being in the running for major ad campaigns for appearing in certain kinds of imagery. 

There is the case of Josie Maran who was being considered for the "face" of one of the cosmetics companies - but then was taken out of the running because she posed for those infamous Terry Richardson pics.  This didn't end her career because the work she did with him was still considered "fashion" - but she did lose out on the money she would have been paid for that cosmetics contract.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against erotica.  But certain "career tracks" within the fashion industry require that you refrain from appearing in certain types of images.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Mikel Featherston wrote:

I'd not call that question a step further at all. Sounds like a fishing expedition.

Absolutely this is fishing!  Hopefully, no one here will swallow (pun intended) hook-line-and-sinker!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Adams Photography wrote:
It seems to help most people. It makes them more popular.

Popular in the sense that it gives the public something to laugh and sneer at.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

You mean - how many people here are so desperate for an immediate pay-off in cash that they would put the torch to their long-term goals as mainstream models by doing spreadshots or having sex on camera?

Even models who do work that still falls within the realm of fashion get dropped from being in the running for major ad campaigns for appearing in certain kinds of imagery. 

There is the case of Josie Maran who was being considered for the "face" of one of the cosmetics companies - but then was taken out of the running because she posed for those infamous Terry Richardson pics.  This didn't end her career because the work she did with him was still considered "fashion" - but she did lose out on the money she would have been paid for that cosmetics contract.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against erotica.  But certain "career tracks" within the fashion industry require that you refrain from appearing in certain types of images.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Good point about Josie ,but I am wondering if a "bigger' supermodel might have more clout ?

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
It might help popularity but no one would hire for fashion anymore and she would probably have to try acting or do more adult work.

Right on target!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Rules were made to be broken.  Someone will do it.  The moral authorities will be outraged.  More money than God has will be made.  It has to be the right person to do it.  Someone who will exhibit none of the inward shame everyone seems to carry.  Goddamn, we're all born with the same parts.  Why is everyone so freakin' weirded out by it.

Because not everyone is a has a liberal attitude towards sex & sexuality, that's why.  There is room in this world for "prudes" too!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Howard Morton wrote:
I would caution a model to think long and hard before doing this kind of work.  Remember that it's not the photographer, but the *client* who you must be acceptable to.  The "worst case" scenario was of of course Marilyn Chambers, whose appearance in Behind the Green Door killed her modeling career.

With respect to the supermodel aspect: keep in mind that no one is paying Paris Hilton to do any modeling that I'm aware of.  She's one of those annoying "celebs" the media so loves to lionize.  While she's quite attractive, were I the advertising director of a large corporation, I'd reject her out of hand as a model.  Too many people would find her antics on tape to be troubling, and I wouldn't want to lose those sales.

The truth of the matter is this: a model's time in the sun is short enough as it is, and lord knows there's more than enough competition.  Why do anything that would cause any artistic director/photographer/advertising director to look at someone else?

Just a thought....

Right and right on target!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Garry k wrote:

Yet somehow mysteriosly both Pammy and Paris have become household names > Outside the fashion world Giselle has not ....You see a lot more photos of Pammy adn Paris in the media than you do of Giselle

I NEVER said they weren't household names.  You mean that they are commonly and widely known in the popular culture.  And you are wrong - they are simply objects of derision.  Lint, fleas and "dirty rubbers" are commonly and widely known too - but would you want to be called any of those?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

R. Olson (RO) wrote:

Doesnt say much, I know household names that fit the both of them too.....doorknob for one......

Not to mention "slut" and "bimbo".

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Garry k wrote:

Good point about Josie ,but I am wondering if a "bigger' supermodel might have more clout ?

And what about Mr Richardson ?- seems to me that  he is walking a fine line between fashion and porn ( ie photos  of models performing oral sex on him ) Is he helping or hurting these models and their opportunitis in the fashion world

retphoto wrote:

Try Tracy Lords...who made her first Pornn movie at the tender age of 15(yeah she used a fake id). she's a Regular now on the Sci-fi Channel produced shows...

Also look up Georgina Spelvin, which is used by female actresses to avoid using theri real name in blue films...

I don't get your point - are you saying that Traci Lords is a "Supermodel"?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

That Look Photo wrote:
porn never killed anyone !

We're talking about careers, not people being "killed".  Stick to the subject.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

I don't get your point - are you saying that Traci Lords is a "Supermodel"?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Yeh I do'nt know what you are talking about either .....

Garry k wrote:
And what about Mr Richardson ?- seems to me that  he is walking a fine line between fashion and porn ( ie photos  of llamas performing oral sex on him ) Is he helping or hurting these llamas and their opportunitis in the fashion world

Yes - I've already gone over that in an earlier posting.  But here it is again:

"There is the case of Josie Maran who was being considered for the "face" of one of the cosmetics companies - but then was taken out of the running because she posed for those infamous Terry Richardson pics.  This didn't end her career because the work she did with him was still considered "fashion" - but she did lose out on the money she would have been paid for that cosmetics contract."

There is a good question as to whether the other girls who appear in Mr. Richardson's more explicit personal work are actual llamas in the sense that they are signed with agencies.  They might just be regular "party girls" with no intention whatsoever of becoming successful mainstream llamas. 

I really can't imagine any agency with a weighty reputation in the industry would allow any of their girls to appear in that sort of imagery - Mr. Richardson's status in the fashion industry notwithstanding.  But then again - there could be a surprise in there for anyone who knows where to look.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Garry k wrote:

Yeh I do'nt know what you are talking about either .....

Garry, please don't be obtuse.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Tony Culture Photoz wrote:
Paris can do no wrong. She is  too wealthy. People won't ostracize her, unless she ends up with a bad drug addiction, and even then, she can return if she kicks that.

Of course people won't ostracize her!  We all need a good car-crash to rubberneck to once in a while. 

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Garry k wrote:
Would doing porn ( ie an explicit home video ) kill the FASHION  career of a Supermodel -( lets pick on Giselle for this  one )

Up until a couple of years ago the  conventional thinking was that a foray into porn would kill the fame ( and commercial opportunities ) available to a celebrity - but then along came both Pammy and  Paris's sextapes ..After the shock waves died down both ladies seem to have become more popular than ever. adn in the mainstream market ( whats the latest - they are thinking of casting Paris as Mother THeresa ?)

SO my question is - If a hardcore home video sex tape of  Giselle were released - would Victorias Secret ( or any other fashion house ) still feature her .......

( I am not asking how many male photogs would add the Giselle sex tape to their collection )

Attracts more attention from the public but turns off clients that try to uphold a little class.

Garry k wrote:

Thats not very nice ....

But then, neither are you for trying to mislead people who don't know any better with your lurid innuendo's about the fashion and modeling industries. 

This may sound strange coming from me but, "Better for him to be thrown in the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than he mislead one of these little one's".  Yes - there it is, the Devil quoting scripture!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Rafael  Alvarez wrote:

Attracts more attention from the public but turns off clients that try to uphold a little class.

Rafael - you have hit the nail on the head: with a cruise missile no less!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

Yes - I've already gone over that in an earlier posting.  But here it is again:

"There is the case of Josie Maran who was being considered for the "face" of one of the cosmetics companies - but then was taken out of the running because she posed for those infamous Terry Richardson pics.  This didn't end her career because the work she did with him was still considered "fashion" - but she did lose out on the money she would have been paid for that cosmetics contract."

There is a good question as to whether the other girls who appear in Mr. Richardson's more explicit personal work are actual models in the sense that they are signed with agencies.  They might just be regular "party girls". 

I really can't imaging any agency with a weighty reputation in the industry would allow any of their girls to appear in that sort of imagery - Mr. Richardson's status in the fashion industry notwithstanding.  But then again - there could be a surprise in there for anyone who knows where to look.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Which leads me to the  subject of Stephen Meisel ,Madonna and Naomi Campbell

Meisel has become ( arguably ) the most influential fashion photographer n America today (ie given hsi relationship with Vogue )
Madonna - well though she is past her prime years as a singer it has been quite a run ie 20 plus years
And Miss Naomi  C- has been at the top as a Supermodel for over over 15years

So what do they all have in common ( probably several things but ....)

Of course they all collaborated on Madonnas early 90s "Sex " book ,beautifully shot by Miesel and  featuring a lot of flesh on the part of Madonna , Campbell and others -very sexual in its themes but not hardcore

However rumor has it that Madonna had wished to take the book further ( into hardcore territory ) but had been persuaded to pull back as there were corporate concerns over the marketablity of such explicitness

What would have happened if the Madonna SEX book had gone  the hardcore route ?

Garry k wrote:
Which leads me to the  subject of Stephen Meisel ,Madonna and Naomi Campbell

Meisel has become ( arguably ) the most influential fashion photographer n America today (ie given hsi relationship with Vogue )
Madonna - well though she is past her prime years as a singer it has been quite a run ie 20 plus years
And Miss Naomi  C- has been at the top as a Supermodel for over over 15years

So what do they all have in common ( probably several things but ....)

Of course they all collaborated on Madonnas early 90s "Sex " book ,beautifully shot by Miesel and  featuring a lot of flesh on the part of Madonna , Campbell and others -very sexual in its themes but not hardcore

However rumor has it that Madonna had wished to take the book further ( into hardcore territory ) but had been persuaded to pull back as there were corporate concerns over the marketablity of such explicitness

What would have happened if the Madonna SEX book had gone  the hardcore route ?

Garry Garry Garry - you have already answered your own question!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

Garry Garry Garry - you have already answered your own question!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

But that was aound 12 years ago- before mainstream Americas acceptance of Porn ...Woul the book have bombed or would it have accelerated thsi acceptance?

Garry k wrote:
But that was aound 12 years ago- before mainstream Americas acceptance of Porn ...Woul the book have bombed or would it have accelerated thsi acceptance?

Since when did mainstream America start having an acceptance of pornography?  I must have missed it.
J.

Jason D. wrote:

Since when did mainstream America start having an acceptance of pornography?  I must have missed it.
J.

Well , Im sorry ...I dont know bout Tennessee

Truth is if you looked into Porn is a legal  multi billion dollar industry accessed by millions of  ( non incarcerated ) adults in the  USA via cable satellite , home DVD /video rentals ...adn printed materials

Garry k wrote:
Well , Im sorry ...I dont know bout Tennessee

Truth is if you looked into Porn is a legal  multi billion dollar industry accessed by millions of  ( non incarcerated ) adults in the  USA via cable satellite , home DVD /video rentals ...adn printed materials

Lots of stuff is legal but it's not mainstream.  If porn were accepted into the mainstream we'd be seeing it on Fox or CBS right now.  As it stands now, not even nudity(let alone porn) can be shown in the mainstream media.

Garry k wrote:

But that was aound 12 years ago- before mainstream Americas acceptance of Porn ...Woul the book have bombed or would it have accelerated thsi acceptance?

"I could be bound in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space where it not that I had bad dreams." - Shakespeare "Hamlet"

Garry - time to step out of your nutshell and into the light!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

"I could be bound in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space where it not that I had bad dreams." - Shakespeare "Hamlet"

Garry - time to step out of your nutshell and into the light!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Im not saying that I lean one way or the other with respect to answering  the original question but given that Pam , Paris ( and  speaking of Paris also   the  former Miss France) all went hardcore and apparantly gained popularity -I think the question is a fair one to pose re Supermodels

Andrea Barnett wrote:
you know what would be a terrible career destroying event??

if someone caught a supermodel doing major drugs... likkkke COKE!

AHHH. please. no news is bad news. Kate Moss's career has only gotten bigger sincer her big taboo.

Yeah Imagine that - A supermodel doing coke ... OH MY GOD

Garry k wrote:

Im not saying that I lean one way or the other with respect to answering  the original question but given that Pam , Paris ( and  speaking of Paris also   the  former Miss France) all went hardcore and apparantly gained popularity -I think the question is a fair one to pose re Supermodels

Garry - the problem is that the answer to your o.p. and original question is so obvious, that it couldn't be anything other than a rhetorical question.

And - no, Pam and Paris did NOT "go hardcore" technically speaking.  "Personal" tapes of themselves in private and intimate moments having sex with their significant others were "unearthed" - and whether this was intentional or not is still open to discovery.  Neither girl has signed with Vivid nor Wicked Pictures as "contract girls" doing hardcore films on a regular basis as far as I know.

Are you alright, Garry?  You're a little bit wobbly in the logic and facts departments there.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Andrea Barnett wrote:
you know what would be a terrible career destroying event??

if someone caught a supermodel doing major drugs... likkkke COKE!

AHHH. please. no news is bad news. Kate Moss's career has only gotten bigger sincer her big taboo.

Excuse me Andrea - but we're not talking about drug use here, rather "appearing in porn".

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER