Gretchen wrote:

I'm sorry if I offended you.  I was just agreeing with this girl, and telling her what I know has happened; why I agree.

As for Helmut Newton-I've never heard of him.  But I am aware that although American media is very censored, European media and other very high fashion magazines do show mild nudity.  But it isn't porn-style, not even Playboy-style.  Those are the styles I'm considering as trash--trash to designers and other fashion clients, agents looking for photographers to help build their models' books, etc.

The agency my friend visited wasn't in New Jersey.  It was Ford Models, Los Angeles.

Gretchen,

FYI, Helmut Newton changed the fashion industry here in the US with his style of images - he was a ground breaker and arguably the most successful fashion photographer ever. His style of work has influenced several generations of photographers. You should go to book store and look in the fashiion/photography section or simply Google "Helmut Newton" and educate yourself.

And I guess from reading the other postings on this thread, I don't need to say anything else.

As for trash - how can you know what is trash when you don't even know Helmut Newton? What you need to do is educate yourself - look, look and look - and eventually you'll REALLY be able to tell what's trash and what actually incredubly GOOD photography - just because an image entails nudity doesn't in any way automatically confer the label "Trash" on it. I am not fond of Playboy style images - pretty soul less stuff most of it, but some of those images are VERY GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY - not my type of images but I can see that is good - and I respect it for that.

A good model has an open mind - open to new things, open to learning and so learns to convey feelings and emotions - if she is close minded she'll never be a good model.

Geary Enterprises wrote:
An after thought...

I have two separate print portfolios that I show to models interested in working with me, one non nude and one with nudes. I work with models strictly at their level of comfort and interest.

I have had many models that are not interested or comfortable with shooting nudes ask to see my nude portfolio. When I ask why, the reply comes back every time "If you can shoot quality and artistic nudes, you can shoot anything well"...........

I have actually 6 different portfolios - pain in the derriere to lug around as they are large print portfolios, but they are geared towards different audiences/galleries/agencies and show different aspects of my work.

And, yes, I too hear that last sentence all the time - and my nudes have gotten me much commercial work..=*^)

Gretchen wrote:
In the real world of fashion, all that nude stuff is trash to the important people.

Yeah, you've got it all figured out.  Avedon, Penn, Webber, Ritts, Mappelthorpe, LaChapelle, Von Unwerth, Newton...none of them will ever amount to anything in this industry.

So which agency did you see this happen at?  Ford?  Click?  Must have been one of the really big, trend-setting ones.

Brit Small wrote:
So I've been feeling out the site and I think its great, but Im having an issue with all the nudes.

I'm having an issue with all the non nudes. What a friggin disgrace. Nude art has been here for 25 000 years as the most beautiful and honest of all art forms. Having an issue with it ain't no different than having an issue with human beings.

MarkMarek wrote:

I'm having an issue with all the non nudes. What a friggin disgrace. Nude art has been here for 25 000 years as the most beautiful and honest of all art forms. Having an issue with it ain't no different than having an issue with human beings.

Here here! And I am having an issue with someone who doesn't look like they have even been on a shoot knocking something she knows nothing about.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
Here here! And I am having an issue with someone who doesn't look like they have even been on a shoot knocking something she knows nothing about.

She's even an underage kid. I wander if she was just trying to draw attention to herself by making a blunt statement

Claire Elizabeth wrote:

Here here! And I am having an issue with someone who doesn't look like they have even been on a shoot knocking something she knows nothing about.

Hear, Hear...=*^)

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Yeah, you've got it all figured out.  Avedon, Penn, Webber, Ritts, Mappelthorpe, LaChapelle, Von Unwerth, Newton...none of them will ever amount to anything in this industry.

They certainly didn't get there by shooting nudes. Unless someone figures out how to use a naked butt to sell clothes I'm afraid fashion pictures will still have clothes in them.

Gregory Garecki wrote:

They certainly didn't get there by shooting nudes. Unless someone figures out how to use a naked butt to sell clothes I'm afraid fashion pictures will still have clothes in them.

Mapplethorpe didn't get there by shooting nudes? Helloooo...

And Newton didn't? He singlehandedly changed the look of fashion in the US - before him women did not have nipples in the mags here...=*^)

Gregory Garecki wrote:

They certainly didn't get there by shooting nudes. Unless someone figures out how to use a naked butt to sell clothes I'm afraid fashion pictures will still have clothes in them.

Maybe they didn't, but all of them are far better remembered for their nude/erotic/portrait work than any fashion they ever did.  These are the people who made it possible for artists like myself to simply do their chosen work without having to go through the "industry" clearing house. 

Progress is cool that way.

MarkMarek wrote:

She's even an underage kid. I wander if she was just trying to draw attention to herself by making a blunt statement

Tell it like it is!

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Now that I think about it, the OP has me skeptical.  Do you have an issue with nudes or does your mother?

And since we are on the subject of issues......the avatar is a camera phone shot in the front seat of the car? Now THAT is something to have an issue with.

Gretchen wrote:
In the real world of fashion, all that nude stuff is trash to the important people.

The implied nude on your avatar is beautiful...but if you really feel this way, why are you using it as an avatar, much less posting it in your portfolio. I also noticed that you said to check out modelsforchrist..... My mother is a church deacon, my father is an agnostic, but since they are both in the medical field, I was taught nudity is beautiful...if presented that way. That is, after all, how we came into this world. And yes, they have seen my portfolios.

ChristerArt wrote:

Mapplethorpe didn't get there by shooting nudes? Helloooo...

And Newton didn't? He singlehandedly changed the look of fashion in the US - before him women did not have nipples in the mags here...=*^)

We'll sure, fashion comes and goes and human body as we know it today has been in style for the past 40-50 years. I have nothing against the nudes. As you can see I use nude body in my pictures. What I'm having a problem with is convincing FASHION models that, in order to be a fashion model, they need to get naked for pictures. I also have a problem with people calling photographs of nude women fashion photography.

To me it's really quite simple: guns-n-chicks photography without the guns is just chick photography. Fashion photography without the fashions is just chick photography too. And there is nothing wrong with chick photography as long as the model knows that she is doing chick photography (other wise known as T&A).

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
Do you get upset when you step out of the shower and catch a glimpse of your naked body in the mirror? The nude form is something natural and beautiful. Granted, there are people on this website who portray nudes in a way that could be considered distasteful by most, but this is a place for art, and look at Michelangelo's David...nudes are art, and just like any other form of art, sometimes they're done right and sometimes they're not. Either way...they're here and all you can do is ignore them. I personally don't get upset about a beautiful photo just because it has a nipple in it.

I concur. Well said!

Gregory Garecki wrote:

We'll sure, fashion comes and goes and human body as we know it today has been in style for the past 40-50 years. I have nothing against the nudes. As you can see I use nude body in my pictures. What I'm having a problem with is convincing FASHION models that, in order to be a fashion model, they need to get naked for pictures. I also have a problem with people calling photographs of nude women fashion photography.

To me it's really quite simple: guns-n-chicks photography without the guns is just chick photography. Fashion photography without the fashions is just chick photography too. And there is nothing wrong with chick photography as long as the model knows that she is doing chick photography (other wise known as T&A).

I don't think I've ever said anything about "convincing fashion models" etc., The simple fact is that in most cases of PROFESSIONAL modeling in the fashion world, nudity is a very natural thing - and as someone else mentioned - most top - and I mean TOP - fashion models do nude or partly nude fashion images. Look at any worldwide fashion mag and you'll see...

The "problem" we are dealing with here is two fold - America is a pretty repressed country - and the majority of the "models" on this site - and similar sites - are not pros and not really fashion models - the majority think it's cool to be a "model" or do it for fun - and that's totally ok - but we need to keep this fact in mind - just as a majority of the "photographers" here are not Pros either - I would bet less than 5 % (probably less) of both models and photographers on this and similar sites actually LIVE off what they make as a model/photographer..

Gretchen wrote:

Hey, you're the one who was about to leave!  Haha I'm not saying anything about it I was just putting it out there.

Well you're right, I've been pretty worried about my look, and whether or not it would fit in with the demands of today, but I should know more names of photographers and fashion directors, I just don't know where to start.  Pretty much the only studying I've done is going to the library reading up on how to launch a career in modeling/how to become a successful model, and looking at high-fashion magazines at the bookstore.  But I can't afford to buy the magazines because I'm just a college student!  Boohoo.  Any suggestions so I can start knowing what I'm talking about? ;-)
I've actually considered taking a photography class at my college as an elective... I thought it might help my modeling.

Gretchen, you don't have to buy the magazines, go to the newstand and look at them, then go to Bookstore and look at some of the names I mentioned above. And finally (and I should have put this first...look up the names on internet).
True, I was about to leave and I got sucked back in...LOL.
As far as your look is concerned, you are who you are, it may happen and it may not. Sometimes you look my not be the right look for the area you are in (example... you may not be the right look for LA, but your look somewhere else might be what is happening at moment.....other models will gladly tell you this...they work a ton over here, but literally can't find a job over there).
As far as taking a photograhy class or photos yourself, GREAT idea. You then get to experience the other side. You will then see diferent levels of comfort people have (the original discussion... and how frustrating it can be....because some peoples levels of comfort can be so short, that they only want to be photographed on one side of face). Just one peice of advice, always consider THE SOURCE of the advice (and this really goes for anything). Many people, including instructors may not have the real life experience knowledge to give you. Not always, but sometimes the teachers are teaching because they couldn't quite make the cut themselves (I am not saying this is always true, but I've found there is a lot of this to go around). I think your original comment on this blog was pretty weak (no offense please), and not going in the direction of making a good model. This doesn't mean you can't be, I would just open your thoughts up a litle, instead of defending your original agreement with a pretty close minded person. Your personality, and what you say will have a big difference in how you do, I truly believe this.

Gretchen wrote:
You're not wrong.  I totally agree.  My friend who is a photographer brought his book into an agency, and there were two other photographers there to show the agency their books.  My friend caught a glance at their books and saw all this nudity and crap, and the agency dismissed the photographers right in front of him!  My friend, whose book was clean and beautiful, caught their attention as potentially someone to work with.

In the real world of fashion, all that nude stuff is trash to the important people.

I have heard this too, any model/photogrpaher who presents thier book to an agency(unles it is Playboy or something) it should not contain any nudity or swimwear. Have some swimwear photos available in case they ask but nudity is not required for sexy photos. However as also mentioned we are not all professional /commercial photogrpahers or models(I am a Tour Bus driver full time). But I also beleive that if done tastefully it is good work. After all were we born wearing clothes? If a nude photo comes up and it offends you close your eyes and the photo. So also as someone mentioned it is a judgement only you can make about being wrong.

However i beleive there to be many portfolios without nudes mine for one and i am sure others.

Nude is natural society made it offensive.
Christopher

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I noticed that the girl started the discussion has not participated.  Maybe she will when she get home from school.

Thats hot lol.

ChristerArt wrote:
Gretchen,



A good model has an open mind - open to new things, open to learning and so learns to convey feelings and emotions - if she is close minded she'll never be a good model.

Amen to that!

Lapis wrote:
nudity is beautiful...if presented that way.

Lapis-- very articulate.

EAD Productions wrote:
AAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDD, some models just look better naked! If you talk to some of the runway models, they don't like doing nudes because they feel too skinny, and some of the "curvier" models look amazing naked, but current fashions sometimes need a "clothes hanger" type model (I didn't make the name up!).
PS- love the nudes Claire! you look and move great.

Aw thank you! I definately agree with you. I am thin for my frame but I am muscular and not bony enough for runway. You just have to know what category you fit into best-for me nude/print is my thing.

EAD Productions wrote:
Amen to that!

It may be if interest to you - and then it might not..=*^) -  that of all the thousands of images on my main site,  probably 99 % of the models are all amateurs - and 90% of those had never been in front of a camera (as a model) before - much less naked - the woman in my present avatar is in fact my eye doctor...

ChristerArt wrote:

Really?

OK, how come then that one of the worlds most well known fashion photographers - Helmut Newton - why does his prints sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars? And why did all the world's best, biggest, most influential magazins all over the world, - like Vogue - he's dead now - feature his work for decades?

And, how come I then are hired by corporations such as Motorola to photograph their executives? And, The Smithsonian, NCTA, the National Council of the Traditional Arts and others have bought images/prints/hired me for projects?

"Trash to important people" - who? you? The agency?

You make silly statements, girl. What agency are we talking about here? In Podunk, NJ?

Most well known worldwide agencies are very comfortable with nude or erotic images because the Eurtopean magazines in particular use images that are simply that way - lots of nude and erotic images. And most well know fashion photographers are also well known for their nudes - often of celebrities.

Just because YOU are not comfortable with nudity - don't take that out on those who are - and don't make silly statements like the one above - it only tells the rest of us that you are very immature.

i'm confused about your perspective.  do you consider your own photography to be 'fashion?'  there is a huge difference between helmut newton shooting a topless woman for european vogue, and a guy showing his portfolio full of nudes to ford in l.a..  i can't think of any reason for a photographer to show nudes to a modeling agency, when looking for 'fashion' models.  they were right to summarily dismiss them.  as someone else already said: fashion photography involves shooting clothes, usually on a model.

craig wrote:

i'm confused about your perspective.  do you consider your own photography to be 'fashion?'  there is a huge difference between helmut newton shooting a topless woman for european vogue, and a guy showing his portfolio full of nudes to ford in l.a..  i can't think of any reason for a photographer to show nudes to a modeling agency, when looking for 'fashion' models.  they were right to summarily dismiss them.  as someone else already said: fashion photography involves shooting clothes, usually on a model.

Why are you confused about MY perspective? If you've read this thread you really shouldn't be - and MY work is not in this discussion at all. I've DONE fashion - and music, dance, event and documentary to name a few genres - as a pro I've done this and that - the majority of it is nudes - erotic and sensual nudes and as such I am published worldwide - but the same goes for much of my other work..

What we have been discussing here is that a couple of young - and at least one of them a christian - girl(s) commented on the nudity and one made a comment that was - to say the least - silly. And judging from that comment and that she had no clue to who Helmut Newton is/was - I personally put little faith in the comment she made about the guy showing a portfolio full of nudes - and the reaction to it. What do we REALLY know about that? The quality of the work? Who was looking at it. etc., etc..

Every pro *I* know shows what he can do in at least ONE portfolio - my number one portfolio shows the "breath" of my work - it includes, nudes, music, fashion, portraits, dance and commercial images. My five other portfolios are all tailored to a specific audience and the images are selected for that particular portfolio.

Any one who knows fashion do KNOW that a lot of that genre involves nudity to a certain degree. Especially the high end magazines - we're not talking "Teen" here.

I find your comment a little confusing - you are mentioning ME, Helmut and someone showing nudes - allegedly - to an agency - what all this has in commone with MY perspective and MY work I fail to see..

craig wrote:
i'm confused about your perspective.  do you consider your own photography to be 'fashion?'  there is a huge difference between helmut newton shooting a topless woman for european vogue, and a guy showing his portfolio full of nudes to ford in l.a..  i can't think of any reason for a photographer to show nudes to a modeling agency, when looking for 'fashion' models.  they were right to summarily dismiss them.  as someone else already said: fashion photography involves shooting clothes, usually on a model.

Now *I* am confused...

Your profile says:

"hi. i'm a fashion photographer based in los angeles."

Yet, when I look at your images, the very first image is of a half naked women, just barely hiding her obviously naked breasts.

So, do you consider yourself a "fashion" photographer?

Gretchen wrote:

Upon further research... http://www.salon.com/07/features/helmut.html

To quote the last line of that article:

"It is like when I got tired of doing the bondage-dominated fashion shots in the early 1980s," he says. "I just couldn't bring anything new or fresh to the subject any more."

He said it himself...he just couldn't bring anything new or fresh to the subject anymore. I love the piano with all my heart, but I can only practice 3 hours in a row at the most. Everything gets old after a while. That doesn't mean he didn't love nudes.

ChristerArt wrote:

Now *I* am confused...

Your profile says:

"hi. i'm a fashion photographer based in los angeles."

Yet, when I look at your images, the very first image is of a half naked women, just barely hiding her obviously naked breasts.

So, do you consider yourself a "fashion" photographer?

I hate to criticize, but in this instance I must concur...There's only slightly more "fashion" on that guys page than I have in my hamper...And when I say "slightly," the emphasis is on slight.

ChristerArt wrote:
Why are you confused about MY perspective? If you've read this thread you really shouldn't be - and MY work is not in this discussion at all. I've DONE fashion - and music, dance, event and documentary to name a few genres - as a pro I've done this and that - the majority of it is nudes - erotic and sensual nudes and as such I am published worldwide - but the same goes for much of my other work..

What we have been discussing here is that a couple of young - and at least one of them a christian - girl(s) commented on the nudity and one made a comment that was - to say the least - silly. And judging from that comment and that she had no clue to who Helmut Newton is/was - I personally put little faith in the comment she made about the guy showing a portfolio full of nudes - and the reaction to it. What do we REALLY know about that? The quality of the work? Who was looking at it. etc., etc..

Every pro *I* know shows what he can do in at least ONE portfolio - my number one portfolio shows the "breath" of my work - it includes, nudes, music, fashion, portraits, dance and commercial images. My five other portfolios are all tailored to a specific audience and the images are selected for that particular portfolio.

Any one who knows fashion do KNOW that a lot of that genre involves nudity to a certain degree. Especially the high end magazines - we're not talking "Teen" here.

I find your comment a little confusing - you are mentioning ME, Helmut and someone showing nudes - allegedly - to an agency - what all this has in commone with MY perspective and MY work I fail to see..

the OP posted that she was skeptical of the quantity of nudes popping up on MM.  gretchen agreed with her that it was a bit disconcerting and then added her anecdote about a friend's experience at an agency, that was later revealed to be FORD.  you immediately, and condescendingly, jumped down her throat about what really boils down to opinions and perspective, and a million other subjective issues. 

when she said:

Gretchen wrote:
In the real world of fashion, all that nude stuff is trash to the important people.

i agree with her.  at least in these terms.  none of the amateurs (i think it was you who said that 95% of photographers and models on modelmayhem are amateurs...and, i agree), anyway, none of the amateur's nudes on modelmayhem would lead to work at a fashion magazine.  maybe i mis-read her.  and maybe you can discredit her for not knowing who helmut newton is (or, being christian?).  but, the fact remains that neither one of these girls wants to see all of these nudes on MM.  that is their stated opinion.  the nudes, here, shouldn't be equated with fashion photography anywhere, esp. in the books of helmut newton, et al.

also, maybe we're arguing over semantics, but i still don't see fashion photography 'involv[ing] nudity to a certain degree.'  fashion photography is about selling fashion.

craig wrote:
also, maybe we're arguing over semantics, but i still don't see fashion photography 'involv[ing] nudity to a certain degree.'  fashion photography is about selling fashion.

*I* am not arguing - *you* are... I find it interesting that of all the responses to these two girls you choose me and you keep attacking me for stating what was to me very obvious - and when checking you out you are "gullty" of doing exactly what you say I am doing - which - if you read my posts - and checked my work and credentials - I am not "guilty" of.

Now cease and desist in attacking me - keep to the facts - and remember - thou shalt not throw stones if thou liveth in a glass house.

ChristerArt wrote:
*I* am not arguing - *you* are... I find it interesting that of all the responses to these two girls you choose me and you keep attacking me for stating what was to me very obvious - and when checking you out you are "gullty" of doing exactly what you say I am doing - which - if you read my posts - and checked my work and credentials - I am not "guilty" of.

Now cease and desist in attacking me - keep to the facts - and remember - thou shalt not throw stones if thou liveth in a glass house.

this is not a personal attack on you or your work.  i merely wanted to understand your perspective on fashion and nude photography.  i believe they are two separate disciplines. 

but, i do personally disagree with the manner in which you chose to address gretchen's initial post.  it was disrespectful to say the least.  am i wrong?  the truth is you both have valid points.

craig wrote:
this is not a personal attack on you or your work.  i merely wanted to understand your perspective on fashion and nude photography.  i believe they are two separate disciplines. 

and, i do personally disagree with the manner in which you chose to address gretchen's initial post.  it was disrespectful to say the least.  am i wrong?  the truth is you both have valid points.

Here is what Gretchen wrote (and pay special attention to her last sentence as well as the one about "nudity and crap") - and my comment to her - if you think *I* am disrespectful to her - what is/was your reaction to *her* statement - about which she has since apologized? And looking at your posted images me thinks you're barking up the wrong tree. Actually I don't understand your arguments here but don't really care either.

Gretchen wrote:

"You're not wrong.  I totally agree.  My friend who is a photographer brought his book into an agency, and there were two other photographers there to show the agency their books.  My friend caught a glance at their books and saw all this nudity and crap, and the agency dismissed the photographers right in front of him!  My friend, whose book was clean and beautiful, caught their attention as potentially someone to work with.

In the real world of fashion, all that nude stuff is trash to the important people."

and my comment:


Really?

OK, how come then that one of the worlds most well known fashion photographers - Helmut Newton - why does his prints sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars? And why did all the world's best, biggest, most influential magazins all over the world, - like Vogue - he's dead now - feature his work for decades?

And, how come I then are hired by corporations such as Motorola to photograph their executives? And, The Smithsonian, NCTA, the National Council of the Traditional Arts and others have bought images/prints/hired me for projects?

"Trash to important people" - who? you? The agency?

You make silly statements, girl. What agency are we talking about here? In Podunk, NJ?

Most well known worldwide agencies are very comfortable with nude or erotic images because the Eurtopean magazines in particular use images that are simply that way - lots of nude and erotic images. And most well know fashion photographers are also well known for their nudes - often of celebrities.

Just because YOU are not comfortable with nudity - don't take that out on those who are - and don't make silly statements like the one above - it only tells the rest of us that you are very immature."

ChristerArt wrote:
Here is what Gretchen wrote (and pay special attention to her last sentence as well as the one about "nudity and crap") - and my comment to her - if you think *I* am disrespectful to her - what is/was your reaction to *her* statement - about which she has since apologized? And looking at your posted images me thinks you're barking up the wrong tree. Actually I don't understand your arguments here but don't really care either.

i read her statement.  and, i can see how you might find it offensive, depending on which side of the fence you are on.  you did.  i did not.  still, if you keep it in perspective, that is: within the story she was telling, it should not be.  regardless, her point is equally valid to your own.  and, to address her with condescension only serves to undermine your position.  your continual gibes at my work further do so as well.  cooler heads prevail.

by the way, she didn't apologize for her statement.  she merely apologized 'if she offended you.'