Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: wolfnowl on August 19, 2012, 01:20:02 am

Title: My Body... Finally.
Post by: wolfnowl on August 19, 2012, 01:20:02 am
Brilliant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7_6RB_ERGU

Mike.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Schewe on August 19, 2012, 02:59:33 am
well DOH...not what I would call "Brilliant", it's what I would call obvious...would have been "Brilliant" 30-40 years ago...now? Not so much...
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 19, 2012, 05:36:01 am
I agree with SCHEWE?

Absolutely, and three points come to mind:

a. magazines exist to make money as do the cosmetics and the clothing industries;

b. paying attention to the woman speaking at 5.08 to 5.11 tells you all you need to know: we want escape from the grimness of reality and the mundane;

c. the reasons why good professional models are valuable is proven in the results of not using them, as demonstrated by the video.

It's a tough world for humans, female or male. Does the guy exist who has never wished himself with a different body, never faced a physically challenging situation where he just knows that a better physique would have resulted in a far better outcome for him? Given two people with the same job abilities, my guess would be that the more attractive one will get the job. It happens in photography as anywhere else. As a species, we like beauty; it's not something advertising invented, it's something advertising exploits.

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Bryan Conner on August 19, 2012, 07:10:44 am
I think the people that are considered by society to be the most attractive owe a lot to us fat, 'ugly' people...without us, they would not exist.  I also remind myself of two important advantages to being fat:  1. We never get kidnapped because we are too difficult to hide and too expensive to feed.  2.  Fat people don't wrinkle.  Our skin is stretched too tight.  ;D
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RFPhotography on August 19, 2012, 07:20:39 am
While beauty may not be something advertising invented and while it may be something advertising exploits, you've apparently missed the entire point Rob.  There are many forms of beauty and what advertising is doing is telling us that there is only one form of beauty and if you don't conform you're not beautiful.  

I do agree that this isn't overly brilliant in concept; however.  It's basically a riff on Dove's 'Campaign for Real Beauty' which has been going on for nearly 10 years.  
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 19, 2012, 01:06:28 pm
While beauty may not be something advertising invented and while it may be something advertising exploits, you've apparently missed the entire point Rob.  There are many forms of beauty and what advertising is doing is telling us that there is only one form of beauty and if you don't conform you're not beautiful.   I do agree that this isn't overly brilliant in concept; however.  It's basically a riff on Dove's 'Campaign for Real Beauty' which has been going on for nearly 10 years.  

Lost my reply again. Another damned glitch with using the ‘space provided’!

“you've apparently missed the entire point Rob.  There are many forms of beauty and what advertising is doing is telling us that there is only one form of beauty and if you don't conform you're not beautiful.”

No, I haven’t missed the simple point at all. The video uses ‘plain’ women in an attempt at proving a point but succeeds in proving the opposite: visible beauty is all about surface. However intelligent, witty, loveable or otherwise those ‘plain’ models/women were, none of that comes through with the sound off (which is where the temptation leads one) and advertising is all about the visible...

I am perfectly aware that a beautiful mind makes a better companion in some circumstances than does a dim but beautiful exterior. The two are different things, certainly not mutually exclusive. If you get lucky, you find both in the same package, but don’t hold your breath too long: it’s damned rare to find anyone truly beautiful walking the street, in the supermarket, on the train or anywhere else. Such people can make a lot of money because they are a rare species.

There are indeed many forms of beauty, and even a brief foray into the world of model agency websites will show that what’s considered beautiful lives within a very wide gamut. The advertising/fashion/movie industries certainly do not give me the impression that there is but a single idea or ideal of beauty, the folks within are far from clones, the one of the other. Try doing a casting and you’ll discover that pretty damned quickly, especially when it’s your purpose to find girls of a 'similar type’ to suit a client’s desires.

The situation also exists in reverse: models are often assumed to be nothing more than ‘dumb blondes’, a prejudice usually based on the sound principle of not actually knowing any of them. I’ve known and worked with many; if anything, they are far more aware and worldly-wise than mere ‘civilians’ ever are. It’s all nonsense and a broad generalization and does no service to anyone, pretty, beautiful, plain or downright ugly. Taking a plain person and putting that person into the silly situations shown in the video is cruelty and a form of exploitation, whether or not the women realise what’s happened to them or not; at least, that's how I see it.

Horses for courses applies as much to people as to horses.

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 19, 2012, 02:09:24 pm
... Horses for courses applies as much to people as to horses...

Not to mention that some horses are better looking than some people, although the latter might even resemble the former occasionally ;D

P.S. Glib... I know ;)
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RFPhotography on August 20, 2012, 08:04:03 am
You're obfuscating, Rob.  And not doing it very well at all.

Your pontificating response effectively proved my point.  I wasn't saying anything about intelligence.  And yes I'm more than well aware that agencies will have a wide variety of people available for different client needs.  But the one who's hired to do a plus sized fashion shoot isn't going to be festooned on the covers of Vogue and Cosmo.  The one who's hired to portray a housewife in a commercial isn't going to be the next Chanel girl. 

Your viewpoint is so completely superficial that you're either unable to unwilling to recognise that you're simply proving my point.  I 'see' very beautiful people on a regular basis.  Yes, in the supermarket and on the train.  Implying that all such people should be or want to be supermodels is yet another example of that superficiality. 

But back to the intelligence comment for a moment.  I worked with a woman in Trinidad who was truly beautiful and a successful model.  She was also completing her PhD in molecular biology and using modeling as a means of paying for her education. 

That a casting call for a certain 'type' or 'look' brings out all manner of people who don't fit that 'look' or 'type' is immaterial.  It merely illustrates that they or their agents either can't read or are deluded enough to think they can convince the client that they can or do fit the desired type or look or that the client really wants them and not what was asked for.  But, again, that's just more unsuccessful obfuscation on your part.

Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 20, 2012, 09:49:57 am
Bob, I surrender. There's absolutely no value in my conversing with someone who refuses to see the point.

Fare thee well.

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RFPhotography on August 20, 2012, 09:52:31 am
I see the point you're trying to make, Rob.  I simply don't agree with it and find it more than mildly objectionable. 
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Justan on August 20, 2012, 10:49:45 am
Brilliant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7_6RB_ERGU

Mike.

It’s a sad commentary that self-image issues are still prominent in the 21st century. Corporations use people’s self-image insecurity to make billions of $$ beyond count. The make-up industry, the designer clothing industry, the handbag industry, the feminine hygiene industry, the underwear industry, the newsprint industry, movies and cable TV industries; the plastic surgery and diet industries. The list goes on and on. These groups have essentially packaged an ideal form of women and rams it down their throats to “encourage” them meet that perception. Women get bombarded with pressure about this from the time they are first introduced to society until they die.

In turn, a video such as the one we’ve seen is rare enough that some will reasonably call it a great presentation about some who resist this overwhelming pile of BS that is the packaging for the ideal woman.

Women have far more pressure than men about this kind of thing. All guys need by way of things are  jeans, a Euro car, bags made by Saddleback leather, and of course some believe that dangling a big telephoto lens from their camera doesn’t hurt their perception of being attractive. In contrast, women are abused by nearly everyone around them to live up to a fantasy.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Justan on August 20, 2012, 01:47:27 pm
Quote
Thankfully the penis extension worn around the neck by the sad and clueless has little correlation with dysmorphia, anorexia, phobia, depression, self harm...

Not sure that is more than marginally true. There is a fairly direct relationship between consumerism and depression, and it’s many –ia and –ion flavors. The promotion of consumerism is in most ways done to exploit perceived insecurities and contrived needs.

Ddysmorphia is different kind of issue.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 20, 2012, 05:43:59 pm
I wonder if many of the folks taking up these anti-beauty attitudes have had girl children?

It has been my observation that bringing up one girl and one boy teaches a hell of a lot about the realities of sex and sexual development in children. I really don’t care what theoreticians might or might not claim to the contrary, it was very apparent from the very earliest moments that, beyond the obvious physique, boy and girl children are different animals. Little girls grow up wanting to be little girls playing at being their mamas; from raiding the shoe rack to playing with makeup, it’s in the genes, as is almost everything else in life, including art whether with brush, pencil, clay or camera. It has bugger all to do with tv and advertising. Our kids saw hardly any tv at all. Sure, Vogue, ‘Bazaar, Nova, Playboy were in the house, just lying about, but nobody other than myself and sometimes my wife gave a damn or looked at them. Wait! My mother-in-law used to be interested; she’d guess – very accurately – which of the pictures in Playboy would be the ones I liked.

The idea of looking ‘pretty’ comes from within. Some have the luck to grow into beautiful people and others lose their early charm and go the other way. Why is it such a popular idea here to imagine that people are so pathetic that their only ambition in life is to be someone else out of the movies or the tv screen? I find it amazing to read that there is something wrong with women (or men) wanting to look as good as they can look; if makeup, clothes etc, help people feel that they have made the most of themselves, then good for them! Anyway, I don’t know about the States, but during the war there were very few tv sets in the UK and no channels running that I’m aware of, at least I never saw any. And commercial tv and its ads didn’t happen in the UK until much later during the 50s at the earliest. So, from where did the people of the war years and all the centuries prior to that get their crazy ideas of wanting to look good? The moon? The sun? No, it was always there as part of civilization. Ask the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans and all the rest of them which channels they watched, which commercials ruined their lives, which magazines corrupted their youth with dreams of beauty... it’s just being human. If you can’t cut it, then too bad, but don’t try to ruin it for those who can get something out of it.

There’s all this bitching about the evil empires of advertising, clothing and the cosmetic industries and the money they make (sometimes – they can, and also some do, go bust); these industries give us, photographers, out best jobs; they provide production and selling work for millions and the money they make filters through into the world at large. Are there still people here who believe that Mr Big or whatever takes it all into his arms and buries it in some vault somewhere? No, it gets spent, invested and generally spread around to the greater good. Most rich folks I’ve met don’t sit on their money, they invest it. (One such said to me: money in the bank’s a stinking fish.) And that investment means work for somebody else. To be selfish about it: I prefer to see folks looking good, and I like them to smell good, too.

You know what I think? I think that taking a negative stance about women looking good, their trying to look good, is about as misogynistic as attitudes can get, but, perversely, it comes disguised as love for women.

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RFPhotography on August 20, 2012, 06:52:30 pm
Again, Rob, you're missing the point entirely.  Say that you're not, it doesn't matter.  You are.  You're so far out in left field wrt the point that the video is making and that others in this discussion are making that you're out of the park. 
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: kencameron on August 20, 2012, 07:18:32 pm
There are many forms of beauty and what advertising is doing is telling us that there is only one form of beauty and if you don't conform you're not beautiful.  

I think I may be about to join Rob outside the park.

Part of the problem here is the use of the term "beauty" to cover too much of what is admirable or excellent or pleasing about people. Scientific research into beauty looks at what we actually consider pleasing about other people's appearance and doesn't support the notion that there are many forms of it. Of course there are some cross-cultural variations, particularly around proportions of body fat, but qualities like symmetry and smoothness tend to rate highly with almost all of us. If you don't possess these qualities then you are, in a precise sense, not beautiful, and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Of course, this approach doesn't cast any light on how people feel about the range of qualities that come under the heading of "inner beauty" or on the ultimate importance of "inner" and "outer" beauty. To get at what are essentially qualities of character rather than appearance, you would have to ask an entirely different set of questions, and scientists have also done that. Generosity and courage tend to rate highly across cultures. The challenging question in this territory is whether there is any statistical correlation between inner and outer beauty. Are "beautiful people" statistically kinder or braver? Maybe life is kinder to them and that nourishes their inner beauty. Of course, there would be heaps of exceptions.

Inner beauty, of course, doesn't sell most products - maybe some - I could see it selling something like superannuation - something involving deferred rather than immediate gratification. I think it is a little bit naive to demonize the advertising industry because we don't agree with our culture's relative valuations of appearance and inner beauty. I certainly think we over-value the former but that is "our" problem and not to be blamed on "them". Wisdom about such things is something we all have to achieve as individuals and is never gifted by a culture.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 20, 2012, 07:36:52 pm
Brilliant...

I usually refrain from clicking on links where the poster does not give a clue what it is about. But, given the subsequent discussion, I did.

Big mistake!

Spoiled my day and seems like I will be scarred and haunted by ugliness for the rest of the week. There should be some warning before watching such videos. Where is the Film Rating Committee when you need one? How about "Rated PU" for Public Ugliness? >:(

If "Beauty Industry" exploits beauty for profit, movies like these exploit ugliness for someone's political purposes.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: WalterEG on August 20, 2012, 07:45:58 pm
Then there are folk like me who revere the aberration: who glorify the alleged 'imperfection'.

We are all, each and every one of us, are first and foremost PEOPLE and we share in a common humanity which, sadly, seems not to be exercised with either sufficient vigour or frequency.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6410484169_4024b64ebe.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltereg/6410484169/)


W
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 20, 2012, 07:52:10 pm
It’s a sad commentary that self-image issues are still prominent in the 21st century. Corporations use people’s self-image insecurity...

Damn right!

It is high time that humanity gets rid of its thousand years adoration of beauty. Time to correct historical injustice towards ugly people. Perhaps even reparations are in order for all the pain and suffering they endured. I urge you to write to your congressman and demand that ugliness be included into the list of protected species, together with race, gender, etc.

Just stopping the injustice is not enough. Time for some affirmative action:

- from now on, colleges should assign extra points for ugliness during admission
- beauty magazines should have at least 2/3 of ugly people on their covers
- the same for flight attendants (wait, scratch that... already implemented)
- Hollywood A-List as well (new Bond is a good start)

Beautiful people should be considered politically incorrect and denied roles and promotions until and unless they prove they can hide or permanently scar that beauty, or at least wear burkas in public.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 20, 2012, 07:54:11 pm
Then there are folk like me who revere the aberration: who glorify the alleged 'imperfection'....

At least the OP posted a link. Your post is more like a visual grenade. ???
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: WalterEG on August 20, 2012, 08:13:21 pm
Your post is more like a visual grenade. ???

Seldom have been so sincerely flattered.  Thank you.

W
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RFPhotography on August 20, 2012, 09:25:37 pm
Ken, I'm familiar with those studies.  There are others that deal with what men find to be the most appealing body proportion in terms of things like waist/hip ratio.  The findings, it turns out, are related to breeding and whether one body type or another appears more fertile than another and whether one body type or other would have an easier time birthing a child.  The results of the studies would, I'd also venture, be different over time.  Marilyn Munroe wouldn't fit many of the studies either.  By today's standards of beauty she would be considered too fat. 

By those studies probably 99% or more of us aren't scientifically beautiful. 

Thing is, none of the types of models who are the Chanel girl or the girl in the Lauren jeans ad or who strut the runway for Versace would fit those 'scientific' studies of beauty either; particularly the ones dealing with body proportion. 

Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: kencameron on August 20, 2012, 10:31:08 pm
Ken, I'm familiar with those studies.  There are others that deal with what men find to be the most appealing body proportion in terms of things like waist/hip ratio.  The findings, it turns out, are related to breeding and whether one body type or another appears more fertile than another and whether one body type or other would have an easier time birthing a child.  The results of the studies would, I'd also venture, be different over time.  Marilyn Munroe wouldn't fit many of the studies either.  By today's standards of beauty she would be considered too fat. 

By those studies probably 99% or more of us aren't scientifically beautiful. 

Thing is, none of the types of models who are the Chanel girl or the girl in the Lauren jeans ad or who strut the runway for Versace would fit those 'scientific' studies of beauty either; particularly the ones dealing with body proportion. 
I would have some minor disagreements with various points there - there is constancy as well as variation over time, particularly in relation to symmetry, and I would say that what the studies show is that all of us are more, or less, beautiful, allowing for cultural and historical variations - they provide a metric that can be applied to all of us and that has predictive value as to how others will respond to us. As for the model girls, I  concede that the reasons I find them visually pleasing are only partially explained by the metrics. They also also have to look striking in a way which can't be measured - and I suspect, with reference to a point Rob made, that "inner beauty" may sometimes be part of that. My underlying point is that it helps to be clear about what we mean when we use the word "beauty" . There is a defensible sense of the word in which it could be applied to the image in Walter's posting, and another in which it could not.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 21, 2012, 05:34:35 am
Marilyn Munroe (sic) aside; there’s a further mistaken idea pervading this thread: the looks of catwalk models and fashion magazine models are not the same as the ideas/ideals of sexual desire or appeal to men.

The women that grace the pages of Vogue are thin because of the need of garments in photographs to look good in order for them to whet the appetite of the prospective purchasers: women, not men. That ‘looking good’ is achieved by the perspective that a tall figure provides when compared with the same garment on a stocky figure. As HC-B said, it’s geometry, old chap, geometry.

Women in ‘glamour’ magazines are pneumatic because their function (in the magazine) is to excite the male gender (usually) into buying, and, hopefully, taking out a subscription. Given the option, I know of no man who would rather bed a thin one if the choice of a Marilyn one is available. It has nothing to do with fanciful notions of good 'childbearing hips'! Good Lord, at the dating stage, childbearing is the most feared part of the whole process, unless we introduce the little matter of AIDS.

The two types of model are worlds apart, blowing out of the water the forced notion (here) that there is this single, frightening, type of beauty or imagined beauty, to which all women pray and that they ultimately do this in order to feel attractive and ‘ensnare’ unsuspecting mates. As has already been noted here, but with a different perspective, bullshit! The one type of beauty does, in fact, conflict with the sexual allure of the other.

As I have suggested earlier, misogyny lurks below these righteous surfaces as well as a helluva lot of lack of any understanding of women. The biggest mistake about gender that can be made is the assumption that women are, as a rule, dumb.

Anything but; in gender values it’s usually the other way around.

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RFPhotography on August 21, 2012, 07:33:40 am
Yes, sorry, Monroe. 

Rob, no one; not one fucking person, in this discussion has implied or intimated or hinted at or in any other way stated that women, in general, are dumb.  You seem to have this mistaken idea that anyone who doesn't believe the way you do toward women is a misogynist.  You seem to feel that no one else has experienced anything that you have.  Get your head out of you ass.

Ken, there is constancy as well as variation over time?  That's one of the more obtuse and obfuscating statements I've seen.  Putting aside the 'scientific' definition of beauty because, as we've already determined the models who are presented to women as the 'ideal' don't fit that definition, I'd suggest that it's very difficult to measure that 'inner beauty' from seeing someone on the cover of a magazine or in a cosmetics ad or on a runway or in a swimsuit ad. 
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: LoisWakeman on August 21, 2012, 08:48:49 am
I don't normally contribute to these somewhat acerbic exchanges as I don't especially want to be stirred up by any dismissive responses, but some assertions have been made about women and AFAIK none of us has replied so far.

Rob is right that anyone who's had girl and boy children cannot help but notice the difference, even at 2 or 3. I was a tomboy as a kid and as an adult am a geek unconcerned on the whole about my (plain) looks and (practical) clothing, although in my late teens and early 20s, there was some boyfriend-related angst on that front of course! I imposed no expectations on my kids, but as soon as he could crawl, my son used to push toy cars round making 'brrm brrm' noises, whilst my daughter did not - she preferred the farm set (not the tractor) and plush toys.

Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect that millions of years of evolution and tens of thousands of years of social development can easily overcome the wiring in our brains - one of the reasons that I feel some of the more extreme expectations of feminists will never be realised. Men and women are different (on a spectrum) and just believing otherwise won't change that. 

Thirdly, whatever our individual intelligence, not all women are influenced much by advertising - either to buy outlandish designer clothes or to feel the need to starve themselves to a size zero. Some are, and it causes a lot of angst and ill heath that is very regrettable. And the same is true of men of course.

(Perhaps I am lucky in living in a small rural village where there is much less pressure to look immaculate at all times than might be the case in the city - if you like, in a village, people can get to know your inner beauty and ignore the shabby welly and barbour jacket exterior?) I suspect I am way out on one shoulder of the bell curve of femininity however, and so perhaps my contribution here isn't very representative of what "typical" women feel.

Sorry - I'm rambling now and its time to stop. But please don't rush to be too offended on my behalf - I certainly don't take exception to what Rob says.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 21, 2012, 11:12:08 am
Two things, if I may.

1. Lois; you are no exception regarding the effects or otherwise of advertising on women. My wife worked along with me on some of my fashion shoots, and I discovered that spring/summer and autumn/winter were always going to be expensive times for me: we ended up buying quite a lot of the merchandise that I shot! However, Ann always stated that she was absolutely not moved, interested in, nor influenced by advertising. She knew what we could afford; she knew that we were not in the world where buying a 2000€ shirt made sense to her, so fashion magazines at home were about professional trends in photography. She bought Chanel No 5 all her adult life, and we were both happy about that; she never felt a need to buy any other brand, despite knowing pretty much all there is to know about available brands – we couldn’t avoid it in our professional life. She bought magazines for a while until she realised that all women’s magazine fare is on an endless annual rhythm of engagements, weddings and babies. House ‘n’ Home magazines were also of little interest because über residences were always going to be beyond us and neither fancied debt. In the same way, realising the futility, I stopped buying car magazines.

Like you, she only ‘tarted up’ when she had to go to a party or something similar; she was happiest at home, on the terrace, dishing out her just-made paella whilst wearing the bare minimum to avoid scaring the neighbours or the gardeners. It had nothing to do with trying to look sexy; it had everything to do with enjoying summer and feeling the freedom.

2. Keith;

"I agree with much Rob had to say, but to suggest that those who have differing opinions are righteous misogynists who have no understanding of women isn’t going to help his argument."

Close, but not quite. I’m saying that there are those here who probably do understand my point of view – I state it unambiguously enough - but prefer to misrepresent it. I simply give up wasting my time trying to handle that.

However, by what I read in some replies, it goes further: I also realise that a sort of masculine ‘superior’ attitude creeps into the tone; it’s almost as it the posts are saying outright: “poor little woman, she’s too dumb to understand what the world’s about, that she’s being conned by those capitalist bastards running the fashion world. I shall help her to get it right; I’ll help her fix her poor little head!” To me, that’s patronising and as close to an insult to the female gender as it gets. Anyone who holds that attitude towards women does have little experience or has been very unfortunate in his associations in life. Or, he’s just basically a misogynist after all, and despite his experience. Can’t win with that situation.

For me, that’s where the video starts from and never departs. It’s never going to be difficult for people in the media to find other people who will be happy to get in front of the camera and play ball. Putting those people into situations where they look bad isn’t smart, it isn’t compassionate and it is exploitative, in my opinion, humble or otherwise.

Rob C

Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 21, 2012, 11:57:48 am
Rob, I think you must be reading a different thread.


God, don't tell me there are two like this!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RSL on August 21, 2012, 12:58:35 pm
This is one of the most hilarious thread's I've ever seen on the web.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RSL on August 21, 2012, 01:38:33 pm
Damn right!

It is high time that humanity gets rid of its thousand years adoration of beauty. Time to correct historical injustice towards ugly people. Perhaps even reparations are in order for all the pain and suffering they endured. I urge you to write to your congressman and demand that ugliness be included into the list of protected species, together with race, gender, etc.

Just stopping the injustice is not enough. Time for some affirmative action:

- from now on, colleges should assign extra points for ugliness during admission
- beauty magazines should have at least 2/3 of ugly people on their covers
- the same for flight attendants (wait, scratch that... already implemented)
- Hollywood A-List as well (new Bond is a good start)

Beautiful people should be considered politically incorrect and denied roles and promotions until and unless they prove they can hide or permanently scar that beauty, or at least wear burkas in public.

Right, Slobodan, but in order to be sure ugly people are represented proportionately we'll have to create a new government bureau to count ugly people. Maybe we can use the census bureau to do that. I can see the question right there on the census form along with some of the other NOYDB questions already there: "Are you ugly?" But first the House, the Senate, and the President will have to agree on a legal definition of ugly. I can visualize an argument over the bill, perhaps even an argument as ugly as some of the arguments on the House floor back in the early 1800s. The solution might even have to wait until after the following election.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RFPhotography on August 21, 2012, 02:32:21 pm
Quote
However, by what I read in some replies, it goes further: I also realise that a sort of masculine ‘superior’ attitude creeps into the tone; it’s almost as it the posts are saying outright: “poor little woman, she’s too dumb to understand what the world’s about, that she’s being conned by those capitalist bastards running the fashion world. I shall help her to get it right; I’ll help her fix her poor little head!” To me, that’s patronising and as close to an insult to the female gender as it gets. Anyone who holds that attitude towards women does have little experience or has been very unfortunate in his associations in life. Or, he’s just basically a misogynist after all, and despite his experience. Can’t win with that situation.

If you're reading that into the replies that have been posted in this thread then that says far more about you than it does about anyone else.  Again, you come back to this flawed, fantastical notion that you are the only one who has any experience at all with women, with children, with fashion, with anything.  And that as a result of your exclusive experience you have all knowing, all seeing insight into womanhood.  That's certainly not misogyny.  But it is chauvinism of epic proportion.  And yes, of course, everyone is misrepresenting your comments (intended with dripping sarcasm).  But you're not misrepresenting anyone else's position at all?  No, of course not.  You're not reading misogyny into everything most anyone else says because it serves your purpose, whatever fantasy that may be.  No, not at all.  That would never happen.  Bloody hell.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: WalterEG on August 21, 2012, 06:35:17 pm
Penny for your thoughts Keith.

Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 22, 2012, 05:52:54 am
Walter, Keith.

Nice to see you two guys roasting your nuts in the same fire again!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 22, 2012, 06:05:06 am
Russ, can you fix it for me to be on the Committee to decide the condition of Ugly?

Not being one (American), I couldn't be accused of Un-American activities, now could I? Or could I, in fact, not avoid that charge by dint of not being American? Think of the advantages it would offer you all! A calm, temperate, objective foreigner with no local political, social, religious or sexual axe to grind! I'd be an invaluable contribution to the State of the Nation. I'd even be relatively inexpensive compared with, say, the Beckhams. And there'd only be one of me. The advantages appear irresistible; where do I sign?

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Justan on August 22, 2012, 11:12:13 am
Then there are folk like me who revere the aberration: who glorify the alleged 'imperfection'.

We are all, each and every one of us, are first and foremost PEOPLE and we share in a common humanity which, sadly, seems not to be exercised with either sufficient vigour or frequency.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6410484169_4024b64ebe.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltereg/6410484169/)


W

Peter Rubens frequently portrayed less than ideal beauty in people, following is a well known example:

(http://www.jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Rubens/Ruben3Graces.jpg)

So did L. Nemoy...

(http://www.rmichelson.com/artist_pages/nimoy/MaxBeaut/Zz303.jpg)
Other examples of Nemoy’s works on this theme: http://www.rmichelson.com/artist_pages/nimoy/pages/MaxBeaut.htm

Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: RSL on August 22, 2012, 11:53:14 am
Russ, can you fix it for me to be on the Committee to decide the condition of Ugly?

Not being one (American), I couldn't be accused of Un-American activities, now could I? Or could I, in fact, not avoid that charge by dint of not being American? Think of the advantages it would offer you all! A calm, temperate, objective foreigner with no local political, social, religious or sexual axe to grind! I'd be an invaluable contribution to the State of the Nation. I'd even be relatively inexpensive compared with, say, the Beckhams. And there'd only be one of me. The advantages appear irresistible; where do I sign?

Rob C

Rob, you'd have to talk to the chairman of the Ugly commission. Of course if you had a lot of pull (or suck) with the president he probably would "suggest" the chairman put you on the commission and that would be that. After all those years photographing beautiful women are you sure you really understand ugly?
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2012, 01:07:47 pm
Too bad I can't hide certain posts (as on Facebook).
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 22, 2012, 02:46:27 pm
Peter Rubens frequently portrayed less than ideal beauty in people, following is a well known example:

So did L. Nemoy...



I'm not sure that Rubens ever painted them because they were considered less than ideal; in fact, anything I've picked up on the topic suggests the opposite, that plumpness echoed wealth and desirability: you had to be reasonably flush (meaning wealthy - nothing to do with sanitation) to eat enough to put on weight in those dark days.

But then, as you know, I see all manner of sub-texts that skim right over other heads. Woe is me that I carry this dubious blessing.

Leonard also shot some friggin' lovely ones (by my personal sense of ideals), so don't overreact to his bad days.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 23, 2012, 04:59:09 am
Coffee Corner?

Hell, this place is more like a crack den!




That's interesting. Now I realise what lies behind all those visits of yours to old Greek houses; nothing to do with photography at all!

You wicked thing, you.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 23, 2012, 08:17:12 am
Rob, I see what you did there, brings a whole new meaning to crack den ;-)




You see!? You are just as good as I at getting sub-texts!

I shall take this opportunity of exposing another crack, then.

;-)

Rob C


P.S. At least you can see that I'm in a better position than I was prior to my cellpix era - at least I do snap away most days... as it says in those old vows: for better or for worse.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Chris Pollock on August 24, 2012, 08:11:36 am
I'm not sure that Rubens ever painted them because they were considered less than ideal; in fact, anything I've picked up on the topic suggests the opposite, that plumpness echoed wealth and desirability: you had to be reasonably flush (meaning wealthy - nothing to do with sanitation) to eat enough to put on weight in those dark days.
It's also worth mentioning that in an age of widespread malnutrition and infectious disease, moderate plumpness would have been a sign of good health, not just wealth.

Actually the women in the Rubens painting look pretty good to me. They're heavier than my ideal, but not by much. I'd rather spend an evening with one of them than with one of the stick-thin models that we're supposed to find attractive nowadays.

Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Rob C on August 24, 2012, 11:03:32 am
It's also worth mentioning that in an age of widespread malnutrition and infectious disease, moderate plumpness would have been a sign of good health, not just wealth.

Actually the women in the Rubens painting look pretty good to me. They're heavier than my ideal, but not by much. I'd rather spend an evening with one of them than with one of the stick-thin models that we're supposed to find attractive nowadays.



And there we differ: I wouldn't seek out either; I'd definitely prefer the Page 3 variety of build. For non-UKers, that means 'glamour' but (for me) of the non-siliconed variety. If you need further clarification, check out my Gallery and Gallery 2. (Shameless plug to the curious.)

Speaking of which, and à propos of my stroll along the quay of impossible dreams each day: there's a boat in right now with the name Vogue acros the back; I think that's what it is, but the final 'e' is hidden by the sliding doorway onto the deck, so I'm guessing... if it's there this evening, with the rear panel complete, I'll try to snatch it before I get accosted by Conde Nast guards. Of course, it might have nothing to do with that body at all - probably hasn't.

Rob C
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: Chris Pollock on August 24, 2012, 07:12:24 pm
And there we differ: I wouldn't seek out either; I'd definitely prefer the Page 3 variety of build. For non-UKers, that means 'glamour' but (for me) of the non-siliconed variety. If you need further clarification, check out my Gallery and Gallery 2. (Shameless plug to the curious.)
I'm not sure that we disagree by much. Note that I did say that the women in the Rubens painting are heavier than my ideal. I don't think most of your models are what I'd call stick-thin, although my ideal is a little heavier. (Nice photos by the way.) One thing that I intensely dislike is silicone 'enhancements'.
Title: Re: My Body... Finally.
Post by: NancyP on August 28, 2012, 01:10:34 pm
I like this photo. If Maillol could create beautiful sculptures of fat women, why can't a photographer create beautiful photos of fat women?

Clothing models have bodies suitable for easily displaying rather stylized clothes without tailoring adjustment. Some of the women's clothing models are transgender women, and have male skeletal build and female fat distribution (due to exogenous estrogen). Once the clothes reach the store, the designs have been altered somewhat to fit the consumer. What you see in W magazine (fashion trade) is not what is sold in stores.

IRL, body habitus preferences vary.