James Jackson wrote:

Here's the thing Jacinta... DigitalSwede is sorta right.

Art isn't done for the money...and I can understand being an artist model if you want to do it for the art of it, but then, at times you'll sacrifice money for the art.

If you're just doing it for the money of it, then, well, you're not an artist...you're just another model.

hmm, well i jguess there's nothing wrong with being "just" a model. but nope, if you're telling me i'm not an artist i might as well off myself now..not too be melodramatic (well, maybe too be just a TAD dramatic) but being an artist is only the sole important occupation of my life, bar phiolosophising

At any rate, you have me pegged all wrong. in my utopian vewrision of reality that exists only in my headspace, art is done for free for the sheer joy and meaning and purpose of it. not for the sake of money for prasie.

we haven't quite reached that stage in our evolution where we don't need to pay for the fundamntals of life to exist yet though. more's the pity. anyway, i won't go into a diatribe about that now. that would bore most people i'm sure.

peace

Jacinta Lee wrote:

sorry, what was that?

when did i say tfp art nudes were a good thing, or was that directed at someone else?

They could be helpful. What if you're showing your portfolio to French Vogue?

In all serious, it would be nice if people would just stop being so hung up on nudity. People have clothes on, or they don't. And you know what? Often times, it's sexier, and more of a turn on when they do have clothes on. So people should probably stop being willing to take pictures with clothes on.

If people weren't so hung up on it, nude photos wouldn't be such a big deal. And any time I talk to someone female about a portrait, the first thing they say wouldn't be, "I won't do anything nude." Without even any mention or hinting of anything related to nudity.

Now I'm off, to go and walk around my house naked for a little while.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:
Umm. Did someone say there was anything wrong with art nude?

heh, trust me, many people have told me quite blatantly that there's a hell of a lot wrong with art nudes. people who do art nudes,. being at nude at all, EVER. and even THINKING about being nude at all.

lol, we must be ashamed of our nakedness ;P didn't any one tell you?

ps curse you for stealling my tagname cinnamon

Jacinta Lee wrote:

hmm, well i jguess there's nothing wrong with being "just" a model. but nope, if you're telling me i'm not an artist i might as well off myself now..not too be melodramatic (well, maybe too be just a TAD dramatic) but being an artist is only the sole important occupation of my life, bar phiolosophising

At any rate, you have me pegged all wrong. in my utopian vewrision of reality that exists only in my headspace, art is done for free for the sheer joy and meaning and purpose of it. not for the sake of money for prasie.

we haven't quite reached that stage in our evolution where we don't need to pay for the fundamntals of life to exist yet though. more's the pity. anyway, i won't go into a diatribe about that now. that would bore most people i'm sure.

peace

I'm not trying to peg you down at all Jacinta.  I think you're a really great model, and a really open and honest person around here.  I wouldn't classify you as any particular type even if someone asked me to.

What I'm saying is that you might want to reconsider your policies.  I understand the "we all gotta eat" mentality, because I share it...I rarely do stuff for free.  However, there's also the times when sharing leads to greater wealth, and not asking for money you get money anyway.

I'm not saying you need to work for free, but I'm saying your policy shouldn't depend on the state of your clothing or lack thereof, just should depend on whether you believe in the project or not.

I've had models and other artists approach me with projects that intrigued me so much that I was happy to jump at the chance to even pay a little bit towards time/rental fees/wardrobe costs to get the idea from the drawing board in to my camera lens.

I've also had projects proposed and models approach that, honestly, I wouldn't shoot without money.

For an artist it's more about how much you believe in something, not whether you have to eat today or not.

Kelly Kooper wrote:
Had some problems Jacinta? A lot of (ignorant) people aren't accepting of nude work at all, most can't define the difference between artistic and erotic. Your art nudes are beautiful, cleverly posed and just stunning to view. I don't see erotica in them but everyone looks at photos with a different perspective (and if their head is in the gutter already....) Keep working in what you love and be proud of it - if i were you, I would be!

ah, i'm fine thanks. i just go into rant mode on occasion. a thousand apologies^^

i do love art nudes, especially drawing
oh, and just by the by, i\'d LOVE To draw that fat dude! fat ppl are soo fun to draw, have you tried to draw skinny people, they're fucking hard!! ribs are evil...so are saggy skin and wrinkles tho...hmm.

actually, drawing "ugly" people is much more interesting from an artistic view. more diversity for one.

don't get me wrong. i LOVE prettiness. i can be shallow and vapid with the best of them (not that i'm really proud of it) but drawing pretty, gorgeous specimens of humanity can be A) kinda depressing and b) not as amusing as drawing people that look just plain odd and funky. ok, i'll stop writing now before you all figure out how strange i am. nite nite.

I'm not trying to peg you down at all Jacinta.  I think you're a really great model, and a really open and honest person around here.  I wouldn't classify you as any particular type even if someone asked me to.

ah, thanks for clarifying mate. in turn, i don't actually model for gross amounts of profit anyway, although a token sum is DEFINATELY appreciated. i'll do a great art project for the sake of being a part of it anyday over being paid to do a crap assignment. regardless of whether that means i have zero dollars or not

it is suckful that many great photographers out there (anbd many great models) aren't in a position to offer up their art/ servises or talent for free.

ideally i want a crappy job that i don't like that pays enough so i can do my modelling and artwork and writing without having to worry about whether or not it'll make me aenough money to keep me off the streets. ideally.

at any rate, i really must go backt o melb and brissie etc so i can start modelling again. i miss it ;/

Jacinta Lee wrote:
Nudity is not a bad thing. can i just say that?
we were born nude and there is no shame in it

of course tacky photos can be taken, they're all on the web

nudity should not equate to tacky, showing bits off...ergh

rather it should be natural.

when a model actually WANTS to use her body as a piece of art, that's okay.

Jacinta is my new friend...  ;-)
However, nudity should be however way the people involved want.  Trash - Sure.  Fine Art - Sure.  Something for everyone.

DigitalSwede wrote:
when a model actually WANTS to use her body as a piece of art, that's okay.

So long as the model is paid because TFP nudes arent good I mean, afterall They should get paid something!

I was agreeing with your post for the most part until I read something along those lines in your port... Nice day mate!

Oh really?  Your quote: '...because TFP nudes aren't good..."  Well let me show you some nudes or topless/bottomless that I've shot on a FTP basis.  I think they're rather good myself.   And no, they should not get paid!   Prostitutes get paid...

;-)

But if a photographer wants to pay the model = go for it!  Whatever...  Who cares?

David Oscar Flores wrote:
Prostitutes get paid...

So...you expect your models to give you sexual favors for free? Last I checked Prostitutes don't get paid to stand around nude...

Jacinta Lee wrote:
Nudity is not a bad thing. can i just say that?
we were born nude and there is no shame in it

of course tacky photos can be taken, they're all on the web

nudity should not equate to tacky, showing bits off...ergh

rather it should be natural.

when a model actually WANTS to use her body as a piece of art, that's okay.

Also,

Your only an artist if you don't make money?????

James Jackson wrote:
Here's the thing Jacinta... DigitalSwede is sorta right.

Art isn't done for the money...and I can understand being an artist model if you want to do it for the art of it, but then, at times you'll sacrifice money for the art.

If you're just doing it for the money of it, then, well, you're not an artist...you're just another model.

Seems a lot of people make all these rules up. Don't really get it. I like to shoot nudes. I love the female form, I think it is the most beautiful creation. If I can get paid, to shoot what I love and make a living off of it. Then bring it on.


Also,
If you are looking for some Utopian society where you don't have to pay to enjoy life, there are still tribes living in South America, Africa and other places, even here on the street, where you dont have to pay, you just have to work. It really depends on how much you want to give away...

Jacinta Lee wrote:
we haven't quite reached that stage in our evolution where we don't need to pay for the fundamntals of life to exist yet though. more's the pity. anyway, i won't go into a diatribe about that now. that would bore most people i'm sure.

peace

Model Sarah wrote:

Robert Voltaire wrote:
Forget the money.  Getting paid to pose nude doesn't make it art.  It's nice if there is a budget and its for a major magazine, true, but 95% of the work here isn't.  Pose nude because you believe in the photographer.  Pose nude because you love being dressed the way you were born.  Pose nude because you want to challenge your limits.

Posing nude solely for money is not art.  That's selling out.

Precisely what I was trying to say, but much better worded.

Mayanlee wrote:
Jacinta, there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping your stand regarding nudity. I certainly share it; you just have to accept that others don't and that you can take both praise and recriminations for it. I found it's pretty useless to try to reform the way others think, and as a result, what they think of me. And, frankly, that was okay until it began to bring recriminations to someone close to me from others. I'm happy to fight my own battles but I'm not willing to be the cause of someone else's drama.

Naked and natural for the sake of art and not money...requires uncommon courage and belief in freedom of expression...especially in the existing environment of rightwing persecution that distorts the artist's motives and oppresses those who find joy in being creative.

I applaud your work Mayan...It will outlive us all... Hopefully future generations will continue to have the freedom to appreciate your vision...

James Jackson wrote:

Here's the thing Jacinta... DigitalSwede is sorta right.

Art isn't done for the money...and I can understand being an artist model if you want to do it for the art of it, but then, at times you'll sacrifice money for the art.

If you're just doing it for the money of it, then, well, you're not an artist...you're just another model.

No - it makes you a commercial artist.

When you walk through the world's art galleries and check out the paintings and sculptures that are considered the world's best - remember that it was only recently when people could afford to make art for art's sake.  Before the growth of the middle class, little art was made for art's sake - it was all work commissioned by rich people.  Artists like Leonardo and Michaelangelo lived on the commissions that rich patrons gave them to create art that they then took possession of. 

average people didn't have time to develop a talent in painting, sculpture or music as a hobby - that was for the rich.  If you had talent as a painter, you apprenticed to an established painter until you went out on your own.  And every little girl didn't want to be a model - they were too busy either being a scullery maid or if they were rich, developing talents that made them easier to marry off to some rich guy.   The only women who modeled for paintings were either the wives or daughters of rich guys, or prostitutes in between "gigs".

So why aren't models who are paid to pose for artistic photographers who sell their art work also considered commercial artists?

DigitalSwede wrote:

So long as the model is paid because TFP nudes arent good I mean, afterall They should get paid something!

I was agreeing with your post for the most part until I read something along those lines in your port... Nice day mate!

_Cinnamon_ wrote:

I know you're right. But why on earth would such a person be on MM?

they want to chase all of us away who don't see anything wrong with shooting nudes.  they want to enforce tjeir will upon us.  clean up the net, so their lazy asses can let their kids surf the net without any supervision...

PPRO Analyst wrote:
Nothing is "wrong" with nude art of ALL forms!  However the artist should respect the standards of the community and not force their art into public space.   

This issue of TFP should be between the artist and the model.  I often do TFP deals with additional payment due upon sale of the photos.  It is up to the model to decide what works for them.

I do not know how the community as a whole thinks so why should I assume anything? I guess people have a choice just like when they go to a magazine section of the bookstore. Some people are looking at car magazines and some people are looking at Playboy. They are all respecting one another. I have never seen two people fighting in Borders over who is right or who is wrong!