Coco from Houston wrote:
okay but that still doesn't justify them as a "model". I put the quotes bcuz the model lines are starting to look burry to me now.

I guess everyone goals are different which makes certain pictures appropriate?

Seems like if they're posing in front of a camera, they're at least a model for those few moments, no? Problem is usually not the model, but the photographer. Most GWCs couldn't shoot an artistic nude if it punched them on the nose. Angles, focus, lighting are all extremely important in the nude...in fact more important than in any other photo because if the photo is clothed and it fails, it's just another boring snapshsot...but if it's nude and bad, it turns into tasteless bunk.

Coco from Houston wrote:
Why is it when some girls take off their clothes and take a picture they think they're all of a sudden a "model"???

Part of it is, everybody's got to start somewhere. I think it's important to remember that MM is not just for Pros, but ametuers and hobbyist as well. It's good for people to network, and in-experienced models can find work with in-experienced photographers. If they both wish to make good art (or try to, anyways) then everybody is happy. The problems becomes if either asks for big money that they haven't reached a level of deserving.....

ericphotonyc wrote:
mod·el     P   Pronunciation Key  (mdl)
n.
A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.
(skips a bunch of other definitions)
One that serves as the subject for an artist, especially a person employed to pose for a painter, sculptor, or photographer.

By definition, they are models, just like you are a model.  Now just because you are a model doesn't mean you are a good  model, or a beautiful model or an interesting model, but hell, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

One nice thing about websites like MM is that it is democratic.  Everyone gets their voice.  Everyone can post their work for the world to see.  The more people taking pictures, the more pictures there are in the world.  If people are having fun making pictures, isn't that the point?

The nude figure has had its place in art ever since there has been art.  Look at Reuben's paintings.  I don't think his models would make  the cover of Maxim.  In 100 years, where would  you rather have your likeness, on the cover of Maxim or hanging in the Met, Louvre, Prado, etc?

*SLOW CLAP*

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY.. !!

The fat guy holding a big mac on a billboard is a MODEL.. So these narrow minded definitions urke me..

The girl on the cover of some porn video is a MODEL..

I laugh when I hear people say something that has NO sexual connotation is PORN.. some people think anything with a nipple showing is tasteless and pornographic..

I too wonder how many museums they have taken the time to visit.. Most are FREE..

I have said since the first time I visited Rome that I wanted my work to eventually be seen the way I saw the paintings and scultures I saw there.. 90% of them were nude.. Go figure.. 

I could care less about a Maxim or Stuff or whatever other magazine most of the "models" here think is something to be proud of.. Most of those images are forgotten before the next issues comes out.. Exactly why they have a new girl every month..

luv2bfitt wrote:
I think it's important to remember that MM is not just for Pros, but ametuers and hobbyist as well.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most MM members are amateurs, hobbyists, and part timers.  It's no surprise that the work of amateurs isn't going to be as good as that of a pro, but it has nothing to do with whether the models are wearing clothes.

The original post sounds like just another rant against nude modeling as if only sleazy women would do it whereas modeling for pictures meant to sell something is somehow more legitimate, constructive, and moral.  It's not enough that they don't want to model nude themselves, but they have to criticize those who do in order to elevate themselves.  It's just an attempt to put down everyone who models for or shoots fetish, pinup, glamour, art, or porn.

If an internet model wants to earn a living income, she will almost certainly have to be prepared to take her clothes off and learn to ignore the pious self-righteous busy bodies who persecute them for it.

Coco from Houston wrote:
Why is it when some girls take off their clothes and take a picture they think they're all of a sudden a "model"???

     I've seen my fair share of nude pics (on this site) and most of them are not sexy or classy AT ALL.

Please, someone help me understand!!!!

Coco from Houston wrote:
Okay since beauty is in the eye of the beholder then what makes an artful nude not raunchy looking or porn???

Nothing really huh?

I guess the OP wants us all to help her understand how it is that she comes to lay her judgments on who's a model and who's not or what's raunchy and what's not.  Since it's all so clear to the OP (e.g., "not sexy or classy AT ALL"), maybe a little reflection on her part would allow her to clarify how it is she comes to these judgments. "Most" of the "nude pics (on this site) ..."are not sexy" - wow, that's a pretty high bar she sets for the rest of us. Oh, that was "not sexy" "AT ALL" (her emphasis).

I got to go now and look at the OP's images so I can set my standards on what sexy nudes should look like.  I'm sure I'll learn a lot ...

Michael Longeneker wrote:
Do you want the people who don't meet your standards to just go away? Focus on your own goals and let others do the same.

Right on!...the world would be a better place if this were the first commandment!!

Ransom J wrote:
The same reason why some girls seem to think that because they took a shot of them in their prom dress they are a fashion model now.  Or because they have a tight crop of their face then they've got decent headshots, or because they have on a pic of them smiling in their K-Mart jumpsuit that they're commercial models.

Hahaha lol thats true!


please dont get it twisted, I am not a nude pic hater at all. I am just stating that I need to think twice about the person who takes 'soft porn pics' & claims to be (or want to be) a professional model. That is what's making the "model" lines blurry.

Coco from Houston wrote:

Hahaha lol thats true!


please dont get it twisted, I am not a nude pic hater at all. I am just stating that I need to think twice about the person who takes 'soft porn pics' & claims to be (or want to be) a professional model. That is what's making the "model" lines blurry.

A model gets paid to promote a product or look.  Last i checked, sex was a viable product.
If these girls are getting paid then they are models and it's not bluring the lines.

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of "soft porn" girls you run across are pulling in more money than all these TFP Fashion models that run rampant around here constantly updating a portfolio that yields no work.

Coco from Houston wrote:
Why is it when some girls take off their clothes and take a picture they think they're all of a sudden a "model"???

     I've seen my fair share of nude pics (on this site) and most of them are not sexy or classy AT ALL.

Please, someone help me understand!!!!

I'm curious, are you a "model"?

Coco from Houston wrote:
I am just stating that I need to think twice about the person who takes 'soft porn pics' & claims to be (or want to be) a professional model. That is what's making the "model" lines blurry.

This "thinking twice" process that you refer to is beyond me.  It's not clear at all what you're really getting at if you're not simply just making a value judgment about how what others are doing is so bad that it can't even be considering to be modeling.

Curt Burgess wrote:
This "thinking twice" process that you refer to is beyond me.  It's not clear at all what you're really getting at if you're not simply just making a value judgment about how what others are doing is so bad that it can't even be considering to be modeling.

Correct - she still wants to set some standard whereby art or artistic activities can be qualified.  Presumably the standard she wishes to set is some reflection of her life's experiences, standards she has been exposed to etc.  Hopefully she will realize that if she were able to create this "standard" of quality what she would really be creating would be a vacuum.  Art does not thrive in a vacuum.

The statement "I NEED to think twice about the person who takes soft porn pics and claims to be a professional model." is based on a really egocentric view of the world.  She doesn't NEED to think twice about them - she DOES think twice about them because for whatever reason what they are doing bothers her.  Psychologists might say that what they are doing "threatens" her which causes a negative response.

"Thats whats making the model lines blurry."  Who needs the model lines clear?  Again this statement is nothing other than an expression that the model feels threatened.  Perhaps if we wanted to define the "lines" of what constitutes a "model" we could say they need to be signed with an agency (but then who would regulate which agencies qualified?) and making $X per year (but this would need to be qualified by local market or we could just say that only NY and LA qualify).  This is a silly concept that keeps getting pushed forward by those who feel they have done something but have insecurities about their status in the imaginary pecking order of the industry.

Photofurnace wrote:

Correct - she still wants to set some standard whereby art or artistic activities can be qualified.  Presumably the standard she wishes to set is some reflection of her life's experiences, standards she has been exposed to etc.  Hopefully she will realize that if she were able to create this "standard" of quality what she would really be creating would be a vacuum.  Art does not thrive in a vacuum.

The statement "I NEED to think twice about the person who takes soft porn pics and claims to be a professional model." is based on a really egocentric view of the world.  She doesn't NEED to think twice about them - she DOES think twice about them because for whatever reason what they are doing bothers her.  Psychologists might say that what they are doing "threatens" her which causes a negative response.

"Thats whats making the model lines blurry."  Who needs the model lines clear?  Again this statement is nothing other than an expression that the model feels threatened.  Perhaps if we wanted to define the "lines" of what constitutes a "model" we could say they need to be signed with an agency (but then who would regulate which agencies qualified?) and making $X per year (but this would need to be qualified by local market or we could just say that only NY and LA qualify).  This is a silly concept that keeps getting pushed forward by those who feel they have done something but have insecurities about their status in the imaginary pecking order of the industry.

You ought to send the OP a bill.

Photofurnace wrote:
Presumably the standard she wishes to set is some reflection of her life's experiences, standards she has been exposed to etc.  ... based on a really egocentric view of the world.  ... Psychologists might say that what they are doing "threatens" her which causes a negative response.

This is a silly concept that keeps getting pushed forward by those who feel they have done something but have insecurities about their status in the imaginary pecking order of the industry.

I think this is an on-point analysis. What gets additionally problematic is when people don't have the self-reflective capability to see how they seem to others even when lots of feedback occurs following the original post.

Photofurnace wrote:

Correct - she still wants to set some standard whereby art or artistic activities can be qualified.  Presumably the standard she wishes to set is some reflection of her life's experiences, standards she has been exposed to etc.  Hopefully she will realize that if she were able to create this "standard" of quality what she would really be creating would be a vacuum.  Art does not thrive in a vacuum.

The statement "I NEED to think twice about the person who takes soft porn pics and claims to be a professional model." is based on a really egocentric view of the world.  She doesn't NEED to think twice about them - she DOES think twice about them because for whatever reason what they are doing bothers her.  Psychologists might say that what they are doing "threatens" her which causes a negative response.

"Thats whats making the model lines blurry."  Who needs the model lines clear?  Again this statement is nothing other than an expression that the model feels threatened.  Perhaps if we wanted to define the "lines" of what constitutes a "model" we could say they need to be signed with an agency (but then who would regulate which agencies qualified?) and making $X per year (but this would need to be qualified by local market or we could just say that only NY and LA qualify).  This is a silly concept that keeps getting pushed forward by those who feel they have done something but have insecurities about their status in the imaginary pecking order of the industry.

Sorry to ur panties in a bunch and that I don't agree with you. You have a great point if it was directed to someone who needs it. I'm very well secure with myself and I dont feel threatened by those who choose to take nude pics. I know a few people who have taken nude pics and that doesn't sway my confidence either way. I will still have assignments come my way as well as anyone else thats getting picked for a certain look.

Coco from Houston wrote:
Sorry to ur panties in a bunch and that I don't agree with you. You have a great point if it was directed to someone who needs it. I'm very well secure with myself and I dont feel threatened by those who choose to take nude pics. I know a few people who have taken nude pics and that doesn't sway my confidence either way. I will still have assignments come my way as well as anyone else thats getting picked for a certain look.

I find it deleriously ironic that you would accuse anyone else of having their panties in a bunch.

Coco from Houston wrote:

Hahaha lol thats true!


please dont get it twisted, I am not a nude pic hater at all. I am just stating that I need to think twice about the person who takes 'soft porn pics' & claims to be (or want to be) a professional model. That is what's making the "model" lines blurry.

Almost all of the famous fashion models have posed nude. Have you posed nude? If you have not, then how can you judge the models that do???

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
This sort of hypocritical boilerplate isn't even amusing anymore.  If you have such issue with so many of the images here, perhaps YOU don't belong here.

Exactly; if she can't care for, and feed her own demons at home she shouldn't be walking them in our park.

Paul

Coco from Houston wrote:
Why is it when some girls take off their clothes and take a picture they think they're all of a sudden a "model"???

     I've seen my fair share of nude pics (on this site) and most of them are not sexy or classy AT ALL.

Please, someone help me understand!!!!

I agree. It also seems to be the trap of girls with big booty's sticking it in the camera. classless.

Doug Olsen Photography wrote:

I agree. It also seems to be the trap of girls with big booty's sticking it in the camera. classless.

ouch!

...i promised myself i wasn't gonna go there...

Coco from Houston wrote:
Okay since beauty is in the eye of the beholder then what makes an artful nude not raunchy looking or porn???

Nothing really huh?

Are you kidding?

KM von Seidl wrote:
This is one of those threads where it would be good to be in the critique forum.

It would be beneficial, I think for the OP have a discussion that wasn't hampered by not being able to actually discuss actual photos from both her portfolio as well as others, who might have art nudes in their own ports.

I say this, having expected to see as well-rounded tasteful portfolio from the OP and while I did see a number of well-rounded photos, they were mainly of the OP's ass....which I wasn't quite expecting, given the opening tenor of the thread.

CoCo, maybe you'd like to restart the convo in a place where images, actual images (not just yours), can be discussed!

If I'm not mistaken, your saying most of my pics in my MM port are of my ass? WOW 3 out of 12, I didn't know that was a majority. I need to go back to kindergarden *sigh*.

I don't want to put anyones pictures on here. I dont want to point the finger at anyone in particular that I do not know or did not ask to post. Thanks for the "idea" but I already thought of doing it, and I'd rather not.

It doesn't take a genius to figure what type of pics I'm refering to.

Coco from Houston wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, your saying most of my pics in my MM port are of my ass? WOW 3 out of 12, I didn't know that was a majority. I need to go back to kindergarden *sigh*.

The point is that you brought up an interesting issue in regards to nudes via a vis classiness.  I was pretty much most of the way through the thread before I actually checked your port.  And then I see some ass shots staring at me.  I was surprised.  What makes an ass shot better or worse than a nude? 

Coco from Houston wrote:
I don't want to put anyones pictures on here. I dont want to point the finger at anyone in particular that I do not know or did not ask to post. Thanks for the "idea" but I already thought of doing it, and I'd rather not.

It doesn't take a genius to figure what type of pics I'm refering to.

You wouldn't have to point a finger. You start the thread just like you did and everyone who participates leave's their port open to debate.

I have a nude in my portfolio.   What makes it or the model I took it of, any less classy or tastful than an barely covered ass shot?  I have no problem letting people discuss it, this IS supposedly a photography site after all.

Coco from Houston wrote:
Sorry to ur panties in a bunch and that I don't agree with you. You have a great point if it was directed to someone who needs it. I'm very well secure with myself and I dont feel threatened by those who choose to take nude pics. I know a few people who have taken nude pics and that doesn't sway my confidence either way. I will still have assignments come my way as well as anyone else thats getting picked for a certain look.

Sorry to dissappoint - my panties aren't bunched.  In fact I thought seriously about not posting what I wrote on the grounds that you can say whatever you like and certainly have the right to your opinion no matter how far it may differ from my own.  By that logic so can I and so I did.  Therein lies the root of my point though.  What other people do is their own business and while we personally have every right to judge (in our own minds) other's work based on our own criteria of what constitutes "tasteful" or "artistic" or "classy" it is incredibly presumptious to impose that personal bias on others.  To expect others to understand what is classless or tasteless in your mind is a bit far fetched.  This may have become more clear to you with the overwhelming response you recieved on this thread.

I specifically did not even mention the nude issue in my post.  To me the issue is not nudity but rather people imposing their self proclaimed moral or aesthetic superiority on issues of art and or consience.  You say you are not threatened by those who have nude pics taken of themselves.  Yet you are the one declared open season on them in this thread.  Ask yourself honestly - why do you care? 

I did not attack your marketability as a model, I did not suggest you should pose nude - your reply as such was a little misplaced.

ericphotonyc wrote:
mod·el     P   Pronunciation Key  (mdl)
n.
A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.
(skips a bunch of other definitions)
One that serves as the subject for an artist, especially a person employed to pose for a painter, sculptor, or photographer.

By definition, they are models, just like you are a model.  Now just because you are a model doesn't mean you are a good  model, or a beautiful model or an interesting model, but hell, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

One nice thing about websites like MM is that it is democratic.  Everyone gets their voice.  Everyone can post their work for the world to see.  The more people taking pictures, the more pictures there are in the world.  If people are having fun making pictures, isn't that the point?

The nude figure has had its place in art ever since there has been art.  Look at Reuben's paintings.  I don't think his models would make  the cover of Maxim.  In 100 years, where would  you rather have your likeness, on the cover of Maxim or hanging in the Met, Louvre, Prado, etc?

Extremely well said! I'm sure the debate will go on and on, but let's at least agree that the word, model, can either be a noun (e.g. I am a model) or a verb (e.g. She models for photographers). As I understand MM, and the reason I have paid to be part of it, is that there is room for both definitions here.

Coco from Houston wrote:
Why is it when some girls take off their clothes and take a picture they think they're all of a sudden a "model"???

     I've seen my fair share of nude pics (on this site) and most of them are not sexy or classy AT ALL.

Please, someone help me understand!!!!

You might as well ask this to..

Why is it when some people pick up a camera thay think they're all the sudden a photographer?

When someone "becomes" something is all a matter of perspective.