Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
See my point?

No, it didn't.  The question as asked brought out the response I made on the first page.  The reason for that response is encapsulated above.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
I will give you some data TX, Go into a store, say Barnes and Nobel. Now walk over to the magazine rack. Place your hand on any magazine you care to choose and count the number of white,black and any other race models you see on the pages. Its really very simple. If you leave out the publications directed at only one group such as Jet for example you should be able to come to some understanding of this issue

I've done that.  And I didn't get the answer you suggest.  But even that proposal is based on a fallacy:  the law of small numbers.  If you take any small number of instances of anything, the distribution of things within it can be anything at all.  You only get a clear understanding of patterns when you do large surveys across a large number of instances, such as the newmodels.com study did.  I have yet to see any hard data from a large number of instances which refutes that data.

And why would Jet be excluded?  They provide opportunities for models just as any other publication does.  It's not fair to bias the sample by deliberately excluding data sources that go in a direction opposite to the conclusion you want us to reach.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
on your own without having someone else give you your opinion.

Nobody gives me my opinion.  I do my own research and base my opinion on what I have found, not on what someone tells me to find, and not by deliberately looking only in places that will back up my own biases, as you recommend.

TXPhotog wrote:

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
I will give you some data TX, Go into a store, say Barnes and Nobel. Now walk over to the magazine rack. Place your hand on any magazine you care to choose and count the number of white,black and any other race models you see on the pages. Its really very simple. If you leave out the publications directed at only one group such as Jet for example you should be able to come to some understanding of this issue

I've done that.  And I didn't get the answer you suggest.  But even that proposal is based on a fallacy:  the law of small numbers.  If you take any small number of instances of anything, the distribution of things within it can be anything at all.  You only get a clear understanding of patterns when you do large surveys across a large number of instances, such as the newmodels.com study did.  I have yet to see any hard data from a large number of instances which refutes that data.

And why would Jet be excluded?  They provide opportunities for models just as any other publication does.  It's not fair to bias the sample by deliberately excluding data sources that go in a direction opposite to the conclusion you want us to reach.


Nobody gives me my opinion.  I do my own research and base it on what I have found, not on what someone tells me to find, and not by deliberately looking only in places that will back up my own biases, as you recommend.

Well I would leave out jet in this instance as they only use models of color. Most other publications use a variet. That is the question here in my opinion. The number of white versus any other type of skin. A large magazine rack should and does cover the area very well. You can decide that it is not enough for you but that is just being blind. So as I said look for yourself and gain your own view. Its really easy enough if you open your eyes and decide to see.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
Well I would leave out jet in this instance as they only use models of color. Most other publications use a variet. That is the question here in my opinion. The number of white versus any other type of skin. A large magazine rack should and does cover the area very well. You can decide that it is not enough for you but that is just being blind. So as I said look for yourself and gain your own view. Its really easy enough if you open your eyes and decide to see.

What part of "I already did that" didn't you understand?

And what part of "leaving out instances that don't fit your bias so you can cook the statistics" didn't you understand?  Jet, King, Smooth, Ebony and all the others, plus the Hispanic-oriented part of the market, are all on the racks.  But you would have us ignore the opportunity they represent because they don't fit with your preconceptions of the market.

The market is what it is.   All of it.  Not just the pieces you want to complain about.  And it is not what you claim it is, as the newmodels.com study points out in detail, and as my own observations of magazine racks confirms.

Alana Skye wrote:
ebony, jet, and king etc. are exclusively minority mags for the most part. I think Haydn is referring to the lack of balance in fashion and beauty mags that in the mainstream.

I'm quite sure he is.  But again, that cooks the books.  The assertion is that there is less opportunity for models "of color".  Opportunity comes in many places, and to deliberately exclude a primary source of that opportunity from the data, and then complain about lack of opportunity, is less than intellectually honest.

And, again, he's wrong about the opportunities in the more mainstream media.  I fully understand he wants to believe it, but it isn't true.

(I will add that "fashion and beauty magazines" are more oriented towards caucasian than African models.  But they are only a small subset of what is on the magazine racks, and not what he cited.)

TXPhotog wrote:

I'm quite sure he is.  But again, that cooks the books.  The assertion is that there is less opportunity for models "of color".  Opportunity comes in many places, and to deliberately exclude a primary source of that opportunity from the data, and then complain about lack of opportunity, is less than intellectually honest.

And, again, he's wrong about the opportunities in the more mainstream media.  I fully understand he wants to believe it, but it isn't true.

(I will add that "fashion and beauty magazines" are more oriented towards caucasian than African models.  But they are only a small subset of what is on the magazine racks, and not what he cited.)

You should go look at a magazine rack today and then come back and we can contiue the thought. I dont think it is me who is being intellectually honest here. Any data is skewed to or for the person or organization who is gathering it for whatever reason. I am speaking about the fashion ondustry mags, which is what I thought we were all talking about,but you can go across the rack and pick a subject and tell me what you see. Now Texas might not have large book stores but try online. There is another thread here that is about all the industry mags so you need not go to far TX.
I left out Jet etc as they are only for people of color or directed at that market in their scope. Most other magazines dont limit their field so I left them out of my view. But you can include them if you wish and get the count.

J n X Photography wrote:
but you live in SC, you should plenty of opportunities to shoot black people.  Ask yourself why you haven't shot any black girls?

i'm sure this person meant to say photograph.
--------------

it is my responsibility to image those the client has chosen to extend their product or service message.  that's really how the world turns.  it's not my place to question that decision, or to even think about it for that matter.

it would seem people entering this business would have a better understanding that models are primarily utilized as messengers, not just something used for creating pictures.

--face reality

FemmeArt wrote:
Do photographers discriminate against black models?

OK, I'm going to make some generalizations, which are sure to get me in trouble, but hey -- it's the way I see it.

I think to the extent that the black community is under-represented in mainstream media, it's because vocal members of the black community tend to exert pressure on its members to not participate in mainstream cultural activities. We've all known the smart black students who get called uncle toms -- ridiculed because they do well in school. Black guys that date white chicks are yelled at by black women because they are dating outside of their race.

In SO many ways, we are still a segregated society. Go to any church on Sunday. It's either a black church, or a white church -- it's VERY rare to see an integrated church with a good mix of different races. Why?

When I try to be objective and look at the state of racism in America today, I see a group of whites who are still strongly racist -- typically whites with relatively low income and not much education. But when I look at the black population, I see what I perceive to be racism cutting across a broader spectrum of the community. 

You can't have it both ways -- if you insist on having your own sub-culture, and don't want to participate in the general culture, you can't complain about your lack of presence in the general culture at the same time.

I just don't get why we have to have "white stuff" and "black stuff." Why can't we just have OUR stuff? I think as long as we insist on considering color and race in our decisions about culture and institutions, we will continue to have racism in America.

But to answer your question: as a photographer, I've shot a lot of black, asian, and hispanic models. Personally, I don't give a rats ass what color you are, as long as you do something interesting in front of my camera. When it comes to news and editorial work, again, I shoot whoever steps in front of my camera and does something newsworthy. It wouldn't occur to me to do anything different one way or the other if you were white, black or anything else. In terms of commercial work, I shoot whatever the client puts in front of my camera.

Paul

TXPhotog wrote:

No, it didn't.  The question as asked brought out the response I made on the first page.  The reason for that response is encapsulated above.

So you just decided to start writing about this subject because you had nothing else to do and it just happened to fit right in on this thread? oK...next.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
You should go look at a magazine rack today and then come back and we can contiue the thought.

Have YOU looked at the magazine rack today?  Honestly?  All of it?  If not, don't tell me how often I have to look.  I do it quite enough, thank you.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
I dont think it is me who is being intellectually honest here.

I agree, but I'm surprised to see you admit it.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
Any data is skewed to or for the person or organization who is gathering it for whatever reason.

So what is the reason for the "skewing" in the newmodels.com study, and what direction is it skewed?  How do you know?

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
I am speaking about the fashion ondustry mags, which is what I thought we were all talking about,

So "Jet" is suddenly a fashion industry magazine?  When did that happen?  Maybe you're right, I need to check out the mag racks again.

No, that's not what you were referring to, or you wouldn't have specified excluding a magazine that would have been excluded anyway based on content.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
Now Texas might not have large book stores but try online.

Last time I was in a Barnes and Noble it was in New York City, in the fashion district.  Two weeks ago.  But I'm comforatble that the local stores carry a representative sample of what is on the market.  Hell, I can even get Italian Vogue here off the rack.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
I left out Jet etc as they are only for people of color or directed at that market in their scope. Most other magazines dont limit their field so I left them out of my view. But you can include them if you wish and get the count.

Why thank you very much.  You now admit that they should be included if the count is to be accurate.

Again, I HAVE DONE THAT.  I AM VERY MUCH AWARE - far more than you are - OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO MODELS BY RACE.

You continue to tell me to do it again, simply because you don't like the answer.  Sorry, doesn't wash.

Alana Skye wrote:
Do you mean they are geared towards white women? I can see that.. but it doesnt make it right or acceptable because people of all races LOVE fashion/beauty mags. They fly off the shelf because EVERYONE buys them, not just white women. Most mags are bought on news stands not through subscription. So as far as pertaining to beauty and fashion a balance should be in order. A woman color shouldnt just only the most opportunities in the men's mag market.

Yeah but for the most part its white women spending those green dollars in Macy's,Saks,Nieman's etc. The only real color is green. And who has the paint.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
So you just decided to start writing about this subject because you had nothing else to do and it just happened to fit right in on this thread? oK...next.

No, I "decided to finish it" because of your challenge, not because of any need brought about by the original question.  Let's try being honest, shall we?

TXPhotog wrote:

No, I "decided to finish it" because of your challenge, not because of any need brought about by the original question.  Let's try being honest, shall we?

shall we?

Alana Skye wrote:
They fly off the shelf because EVERYONE buys them, not just white women. Most mags are bought on news stands not through subscription. So as far as pertaining to beauty and fashion a balance should be in order.

I haven't seen any recent data on it, but it used to be (not all that long ago) true that a magazine with a picture of a black woman on the cover sold far less well than one with a white woman.  That's sales data - and that's what companies pay attention to.

But you are referring to editorial decisions in magazines, which is a vanishingly small percentage of the opportunities available to models of any color.  I just put the last two issues of W and Vogue on the scales.  Together they come to 11 pounds.  And only a couple of ounces of that is editorial content.  By far the vast majority of jobs (and a much greater proportion of the money) available to models is for advertising, which is not subject to editorial decision-making. 

These things are run by market forces, and it is the market that decides what group to look to for inspiration in purchasing decisions.  Granted, the editorial decisions to some degree influence that market, but they by no means create it nor control it.

When people come to understand those few facts we can have a much more rational discussion of this.

Hadyn Lassiter wrote:
shall we?

That would be lovely.  You can start by not insisting that I must do something because you don't like the answer.  Continue by honestly discussing what is on the market, and not what you are afraid is there, based on real data.  Further continue by discussing the REAL factors which may have influenced the newmodels study, not just some flippant remark that all studies are biased.

It is not honest to simply assume, without knowledge and research, that things are as you want them to be, or as would confirm your personal biases.  Neither is it honest to insist that only data which confirms your biases (you assume) must be included in any investigation of them.

Alana Skye wrote:
Bang, culture is not conscous created to separate one group from the other. It develops through one groups experience and then EVOLVES. the black church was developed through slavery and was maintained because that was a place that they were allowed to fellowship. That is simply a traditon passed down - not a conscious effort to exclude someone - and its not a subculture. Christianity is the dominate religion so its impossible to be a sub culture. There are MANY  churches that are integrated- especially mega churches. AND the culture of MANY minority groups have been celebrated on a mainstream scale so i dont know what you mean as far as that point. The whole Uncle tom thing has nothing to do with the art world. That issue lies within academia.

Oh Alana. You're about to catch me in rare form this morning with this comment. First word of advice, please use the quote feature so that you can be "heard" in response to the individuals that you are responding to. Like Hayden, TX, myself, etc. Typos are fine we know what you mean.

The "Black Church". Hmm... How many black african christians do you suppose there were during the time of the slave trade that brought our ancestors here in the first place? Which is why this discussion is really being had by the way. See, if we weren't here for those reasons this conversation would have an entirley different tone. But since you mentioned  "The Black Church", I have you ask you this question. If christianity was not the "dominant religion" in Africa when our ancestors were brought to this country, but it was when they got here, and was then duly adopted, thus the formation of "The Black Church", then I think you know very well why little black children chose those white dolls in that experiment, and continue to do so now.

The dominance of a culture can do those things to a people. Remember "Jesus" is white isn't he? (Please be able to read between the lines on that). My point is this if your concern is about equal time on stage for an under represented people then it will always be that way until that under represented people are the over represented people.

It's kind of how christianity could come to find it's way into the "culture" of black americans to begin with. Make this logic applicable to your entire argument, and it should finally start to make sense. Think about it. We are the product of the culture we were inundated into.

Throughout all of your responses to all of these people you have never stated at what point to your satisfaction there would be enough "airtime" for minorities.

Is this about the fashion industry? Or being able to identify with someone who is modeling a pair of jeans that you really like? Is it about indivduals who have a lighter skin complexion through mixed race heritage somewhere down the line. What is this about? This society is not going to be able to exemplify waht you want it to exemplify. It will not. There will only ever be levels. No more. But for the sake of argument, if numbers is not what you are seeking (i.e. percentages), then I ask you one more time how then will it be determined that this goal has been achieved?

CICADA MOTION PICTURES wrote:

Oh Alana. You're about to catch me in rare form this morning with this comment. First word of advice, please use the quote feature so that you can be "heard" in response to the individuals that you are responding to. Like Hayden, TX, myself, etc. Typos are fine we know what you mean.

The "Black Church". Hmm... How many black african christians do you suppose there were during the time of the slave trade that brought our ancestors here in the first place? Which is why this discussion is really being had by the way. See, if we weren't here for those reasons this conversation would have an entirley different tone. But since you mentioned  "The Black Church", I have you ask you this question. If christianity was not the "dominant religion" in Africa when our ancestors were brought to this country, but it was when they got here, and was then duly adopted, thus the formation of "The Black Church", then I think you know very well why little black children chose those white dolls in that experiment, and continue to do so now.

The dominance of a culture can do those things to a people. Remember "Jesus" is white isn't he? (Please be able to read between the lines on that). My point is this if your concern is about equal time on stage for an under represented people then it will always be that way until that under represented people are the over represented people.

It's kind of how christianity could come to find it's way into the "culture" of black americans to begin with. Make this logic applicable to your entire argument, and it should finally start to make sense. Think about it. We are the product of the culture we were inundated into.

Throughout all of your responses to all of these people you have never stated at what point to your satisfaction there would be enough "airtime" for minorities.

Is this about the fashion industry? Or being able to identify with someone who is modeling a pair of jeans that you really like? Is it about indivduals who have a lighter skin complexion through mixed race heritage somewhere down the line. What is this about? This society is not going to be able to exemplify waht you want it to exemplify. It will not. There will only ever be levels. No more. But for the sake of argument, if numbers is not what you are seeking (i.e. percentages), then I ask you one more time how then will it be determined that this goal has been achieved?

as i stated in one of my manyposts its not just about the fashion industry, i stated before that this is one of the many facets in this society that diplays institutionalized racism. i then went on to say that does not mean it is deliberate in all cases. I then said, but because people heavily rely on visual media it does have a huge impact on minorities when representation is not visible.

FemmeArt wrote:
I'm a black photographer and model.  I can definitely tell you that it is much tougher for black models to find work.  I just wonder why that is?  Heck, even my portfolio speaks to this trend, but certainly not intentionally.

It's not that you are black... it's that you are a MALE model... check the fora, you'll find that there is just less demand for male models in general, has nothing to do with ethnicity, but probably with sexism.

Alana Skye wrote:

as i stated in one of my manyposts its not just about the fashion industry, i stated before that this is one of the many facets in this society that diplays institutionalized racism. i then went on to say that does not mean it is deliberate in all cases. I then said, but because people heavily rely on visual media it does have a huge impact on minorities when representation is not visible.

Ok. I know that. But since this institutional racism is permanently embedded in the society, when then will there be enough representation to satisfy you? That was the point of the examples I gave. When will there be terms satifying enough to quell debates like this? At what point will this no longer be an issue?

Alana Skye wrote:
as i stated in one of my manyposts its not just about the fashion industry, i stated before that this is one of the many facets in this society that diplays institutionalized racism. i then went on to say that does not mean it is deliberate in all cases. I then said, but because people heavily rely on visual media it does have a huge impact on minorities when representation is not visible.

I still maintain that "institutional racism" in 2006 is at LEAST 50% due to the black community choosing to be separate from the mainstream culture and institutions. It's not that mainstream culture and institutions are working to exclude minorities, it's that the minorities are choosing to not participate in the mainstream culture and instititions.

Further, I think it's fair to say that while there are plenty of bigotted, racist pockets of population left in America, the people who participate in the arts world are the least likely to racist.

Paul

Lighthouse Studios wrote:
I am not racist! I hate everyone equally!

Amen to that!

Belleza Imaging wrote:
I think the industry does discriminate... against shitty models & photographers. No matter what the business, the only color that matters is green. personal feelings don't matter, if you have the skills to fatten their pockets you'll always get work.

I really wish that were true. I really do. Have the skills? We are talking about standards not skills. If were it were really about skills I'd be in a carpentry mesage board or something discussing an occupational issue. we are talking about perception and how they can be distorted through false reality via tv, mags and what not. SEX does sell and that is why you have men's mags which is where alot of minorities find their "niche" because in order to be viewed as beautiful they have to be oversexed, slicked down with lingerie on (not that there is anything wrong with those type of photos). But it is not a coincidence that minorities saturate that particular market and that market only.

J n X Photography wrote:
but you live in SC, you should have plenty of opportunities to shoot black people.

that is the most racist thing I have ever heard

Mickle Design Werks wrote:
I'll answer the OP question.

Yes and No.

Are there people still intentionally discriminating against black models cause they are black? Not even close to the extent that this use to happen 15-25 years ago. African American culture set the trends and set the styles so it makes more sense to have them in certain areas of modeling. While racism still exists, it's not what's holding black models back.

However we are living in a Caucasian/Eurocentric culture and it’s foolish to not recognize that people are encouraged, in general, to value things that are European or Caucasian in origin or culture.

With that said, would it be a surprise that with the images that are created that the demand is greater for models with Eurocentric features? Note that I say features instead of race. Why?  Because the model can be of Hispanic, Asian, or African decent but their chances for success are greater if they look more Caucasian than of their own ethnicity.

Also, consider that the largest minority group are Hispanics so demographically speaking the demand for images of models of African decent is specific and unique unless that model has a look that can transcend stereotypes that will allow that model to secure work across a broad range of markets.

Given this background why would it be surprising that when photographers here work with model they tend to work with Caucasian models? Well I can speak for myself.  I’ve made efforts to contact black models that I want to work with; they seem to not want to work with me. To be fair there are black models that want to work with me but I don’t want to work with them.  These models in particular don’t have the look that fit my current projects I am not going to waste time shooting someone out of guilt for not having the heart to tell them I don’t want to shoot them no matter what race they are.

Hi Mickle!!

I dont think its involving guilt. When words like that are thrown around it makes me think you dont really understand. I acknowledge your point but it isnt that foolish when its enough non whites here in this country to the point where they can get exposure. And i think you know the requirements in order to "transcend" those stereotypes. And like isaid before, its not a coincidence that minorities only saturate one kind of model. I really dont believe that demand nonsense. You pretty much project your standards of beauty through your images. Not everyone is getting paid for their photography. And their are minorities that transcend stereotypes and racial lines that look indigenous -but there isnt enough of them that are visible! The whole world isnt eurocentric. It is the result of imperialism and colonialization, however, that does not take away our existence and our desire to partake in the fashion/beauty industry. And i think it is important to display all sorts of beauty! People just get caught up. I see what you are saying but it doesnt make it acceptable for people like me.