Nico K wrote:
I had a quick check to see if anybody has already posted this, but couldn't find any. Apologies if this is already up, but I thought this was rather interesting and would love to hear thoughts.

http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/elite- … net-model/
Elite Obituary: The Internet Model

"These internet models are some of the more disingenuous persons in society: not only do internet models scream out for attention by demanding a place on the fashion scene, they also cheat their way onto the screens of millions of users. Meanwhile, the actual chance of these girls’ wistful dreams of fashion fame are near zero, even with digital surgery."

Jeez, where is all this hating coming from??
For me, the modeling that I do is not about wanting to get my foot in the door of conventional fashion modeling - far from it...
It's about creating and owning my own form of media and controlling my own image (at least the ones that I have rights to) and exploring my own creative means...

Nobody would write an article like this about amateur bands or photographers, so what the hell at models getting the bash like this

Yeah, you're right, there aren't any threads online, or articles on GWCs, or 'perverts' that wanna shoot pics with girls taking their clothes off.

I mean, I've never come across an article like that...

Nico K wrote:
they also cheat their way onto the screens of millions of users.

Hmm, this quote from that story is interesting...how does one go about this?

It was, at least, humorously written.

Tiffany_B wrote:
Clearly your opinion is the only correct one and any deviation from that train of thought is going to be met with both resistance and continued lobbying for the unappreciated and disrespected model because of course you're the only ones in the industry who truly do anything worthwhile and professional and the rest of us are just "haters" (a term I abhor by the way) when we point out anything that may sully that pristine image.

I'm done. I may not be model but I do work for living and considering that you won't take the time to read out a definition when it's clearly spelled out for you I have no desire to attempt to explain the difference between facts and opinions because that could take days if the prior conversation has been any indication.

Well if you are going to resort to sarcasm and run then that is up to you.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
You read the article and can identify with it because you have had dealings with crappy wannabe models. I'd say that's your own fault. You could have got references; and you shouldn't be working with models who aren't paying you well for the styling.
So to you it is a fair summary of the internet model.

I'd say that as a model who has worked in many fields of the job I know rather more professional models than you and the breadth of what they do. Just as you would know the styling job more. It is up to others to make what they will of both our opinions.

But on that article; the definition of an 'internet model' is not one limited to the crappy wannabe. It implies we are all like that. I am not the only one who has taken it that way. The description is not a definition; it is a string of unwarranted insults against all of us using the base stereotype.

I have at NO POINT said that we are the only ones who do a worthwhile job. In fact; I have said that our work is just humble journeyman stuff and we support those who are doing the real Art and design and creation. But they need us to be reliable and professional. That is all. So you have completely misrepresented what I am saying.
The definition of an 'internet model' is apparently excusable because they are not actually talking about 'internet models' but wannabes. Oh well excuse us if we took it to mean internet port based models with facebook accounts.

YOU are the one who is making excuses for some dire journalism which objectivity by looking at perhaps the range internet models for BALANCE was NEVER an intended aim. And you back that on the disappointing experiences. Sorry about that; but you should be more selective.

Jim LaLota wrote:

Yeah, you're right, there aren't any threads online, or articles on GWCs, or 'perverts' that wanna shoot pics with girls taking their clothes off.

I mean, I've never come across an article like that...

So find us one where models have said yeah that sums them up? If the word model was subsitutued for photographers I'd be equally as condemning of it.

Sirensong wrote:

Whoo!
I am in your workplace stealing your monies..

Go Sirensong!! xx

Eliza C wrote:




Go Sirensong!! xx

Can't you just say 'i love being an internet llama'?

Saves us having to read pages and pages of the same stuff...just saying!

Eliza C wrote:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
You read the article and can identify with it because you have had dealings with crappy wannabe models. I'd say that's your own fault. You could have got references; and you shouldn't be working with models who aren't paying you well for the styling.
So to you it is a fair summary of the internet model.

I'd say that as a model who has worked in many fields of the job I know rather more professional models than you and the breadth of what they do. Just as you would know the styling job more. It is up to others to make what they will of both our opinions.

But on that article; the definition of an 'internet model' is not one limited to the crappy wannabe. It implies we are all like that. I am not the only one who has taken it that way. The description is not a definition; it is a string of unwarranted insults against all of us using the base stereotype.

I have at NO POINT said that we are the only ones who do a worthwhile job. In fact; I have said that our work is just humble journeyman stuff and we support those who are doing the real Art and design and creation. But they need us to be reliable and professional. That is all. So you have completely misrepresented what I am saying.
The definition of an 'internet model' is apparently excusable because they are not actually talking about 'internet models' but wannabes. Oh well excuse us if we took it to mean internet port based models with facebook accounts.

YOU are the one who is making excuses for some dire journalism which objectivity by looking at perhaps the range internet models for BALANCE was NEVER an intended aim. And you back that on the disappointing experiences. Sorry about that; but you should be more selective.

First of all I wasn't running. Actual paying work just happens to trump arguing with people who refuse to tell the difference between sh** and shinola, but those just happen to be my wacky priorities at play. But I'm on a break.

Secondly, references don't always work. I can point you to at least half a dozen people who outright lie about them and another half a dozen who make them based on personal feelings. So instead I look at little things like whether stated height and measurements work for a project. And so we're clear I say "no" to the jobs that don't offer up something I'm interested in and I usually word it much nicer than that even when the girls are loons.

Third, I'm at least willing to listen to your opinion and see some validity in it...maybe (again) that's because it was very similar to what I've been saying all along.

Ok so I showed you mine (or rather theirs) and pulled actual text from the article which defined the term internet model. I humbly ask you to show me where it says that any model with an online portfolio fits that description exactly.

It doesn't feel good to have what you're saying taken out of context and perverted to make a point does it? I didn't think so. All I did with your words is what you've been doing with my statements from the very beginning of this little back and forth where I SUPPORTED the models making their own way. But of course because I chose to only mention girls I actually knew that wasn't good enough I of course needed to blindly support every other person with the label model who may be on the internet. Sorry I won't do it, the same way I don't offer references for models I know socially as opposed to professionally or have only met in passing. It's this little quirk I have where I try to be as truthful as possible.

Finally, the same way you're entitled to launch into a one woman crusade for the sanctity of all models with online portfolios because no one knows the plight of those who work behind the scenes I'm entitled to liking an article that made some really valid points about the attention whores who claim to be models. And so you know as a model you're not a protected class the worst stereotypes about you are that you're dumb or easy and are easily rectified by your actions and/or a change in career. When you start getting followed around stores by security because of the color of your skin or have sales people sneer at you because you're looking for something in a size 2 which you clearly aren't (and will never be, thank you genetics) then you can start griping about what's "damaging".

Boo Hoo, a few "models"(some of who deserved it) may have been offended by this, excuse me while I focus my energy on something important.

Tiffany_B wrote:
First of all I wasn't running. Actual paying work just happens to trump arguing with people who refuse to tell the difference between sh** and shinola, but those just happen to be my wacky priorities at play. But I'm on a break.

Secondly, references don't always work. I can point you to at least half a dozen people who outright lie about them and another half a dozen who make them based on personal feelings. So instead I look at little things like whether stated height and measurements work for a project. And so we're clear I say "no" to the jobs that don't offer up something I'm interested in and I usually word it much nicer than that even when the girls are loons.

Third, I'm at least willing to listen to your opinion and see some validity in it...maybe (again) that's because it was very similar to what I've been saying all along.

Ok so I showed you mine (or rather theirs) and pulled actual text from the article which defined the term internet model. I humbly ask you to show me where it says that any model with an online portfolio fits that description exactly.

It doesn't feel good to have what you're saying taken out of context and perverted to make a point does it? I didn't think so. All I did with your words is what you've been doing with my statements from the very beginning of this little back and forth where I SUPPORTED the models making their own way. But of course because I chose to only mention girls I actually knew that wasn't good enough I of course needed to blindly support every other person with the label model who may be on the internet. Sorry I won't do it, the same way I don't offer references for models I know socially as opposed to professionally or have only met in passing. It's this little quirk I have where I try to be as truthful as possible.

Finally, the same way you're entitled to launch into a one woman crusade for the sanctity of all models with online portfolios because no one knows the plight of those who work behind the scenes I'm entitled to liking an article that made some really valid points about the attention whores who claim to be models. And so you know as a model you're not a protected class the worst stereotypes about you are that you're dumb or easy and are easily rectified by your actions and/or a change in career. When you start getting followed around stores by security because of the color of your skin or have sales people sneer at you because you're looking for something in a size 2 which you clearly aren't (and will never be, thank you genetics) then you can start griping about what's "damaging".

Boo Hoo, a few "models"(some of who deserved it) may have been offended by this, excuse me while I focus my energy on something important.

Well who has their knickers in a twist now?

We are never going to agree on this.
You have issues with internet models because of sour grapes and have said as much.
That is YOUR fault entirely.
References don't work my arse. People lie? As if a designer is going to put their reputation on the line by lying for a model. You get a glowing reference for a good job.

You don't see that most modelling work is done by independent models or agency models who get their work on the net because they would be twiddling thumbs waiting for Agency work only. We are the cake; the top agency models are the icing.
The article didn't say the cake has some mouldy bits it said cake is crap; look what it is made of; and gave us a drivel list of stereotypical behaviour based on the wannabe; NOT the model.

That's okay. You get on with your work I have some ice core samples to centrifuge. Because YOU are not the only one with important work on.
If you can't afford the time don't pick the battles.

And how accurate is it around here to think of models as dumb? Some well educated people round here. So that stereotype doesn't have any credence either. And if that had been the thrust of an article posted here I'd have gone with that too rather than accept any 'exemptions' to the 'rule' or that it didn't mean some of us. And if a couple of 'non models' kept harping on about a model they had used who was thick I'd respond with the same vigour.

We aren't asking you to cry for us; we are just telling you what we do as you don't seem to have much clue apart from what your own expereince is and that is limited; and as you say based on a few bad uns and a few good uns. Not the variety and genres of the models I have come across daily in London for three years and rarely met an unprofessional one. Yes I have seen the ports of the wannabes here. But are they really models? No. So who are internet models if they arent actually the models on the internet?
QUOTE:
"Obituary: The Internet Model"
not
"Obituary: the Wannabe model"

If it then had been a facebook page with the description rather than the MM page of a model that doesn't look like she has a mobile phone pic then that may be different.

But it's no big deal and I don't hold grudges so see ya later

Tim Little Photography wrote:
Just before I read this stupid article I was reading an email from a model I photographed a few years ago. At that time she lived in a small Delaware town and had a few shots in her portfolio. We shot and got some amazing images, she has natural talent. She is now living in Chicago and earning a living modeling and doing commercials. I'm not saying I made her a success, she did that, but I helped. She was an internet model who put herself out there and used her experience to move ahead.

This stupid article just reeks of snooty hate. Screw em.

+1

London Fog wrote:
Can't you just say 'i love being an internet model'?

Saves us having to read pages and pages of the same stuff...just saying!

It hasn't anything to do with me liking being an internet model it just appears to me a lot of people round here don't know what models do. So I have had to try to explain it which is difficult; because there are a lot of examples I could have used. Take for example the thirty plus milliners that have added me on facebook. I didn't even know about that myself until recently or the specific way they work with models. I have only scratched the surface; yet as you say that is still a lot. Have a look at Sirensong's brilliant port and that is a whole different genre again with huge scope.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
Why is anyone upset or even arguing?

You float or you sink.  No matter what if you can pay rent modeling or taking photos then you float and if you can't, then you sink.

Reality is rather simple and not subject to interpretation.

That is very true.
However when someone writes an article saying 'internet models' are dead then I would raise the fact that clearly those that work are not and those who don't were never 'internet models' in the first place.

the a few come along and say...er that;s right that is because I had a model who flaked; but I do know there are a couple of wonderful idnependent models. Again; put 'immigrants' in that and see how it sounds.
It isn't a big deal. It won't affect our reputation. And as you say the proof of the pudding and all.  But people here SHOULD know better. And surprise surprise they don't because they have actually flirted with working with the wannabes.

Eliza C wrote:

So find us one where models have said yeah that sums them up? If the word model was subsitutued for photographers I'd be equally as condemning of it.

Well, I was quoting the OP, but thanks for chiming in on what I said to her.

Also, your reply to someone else says that everyone is entitled to their opinion but you criticize their use of sarcasm. I don't get that, actually.

Loki Studio wrote:
An amateur writer bashing amateur models-how ironic.

Agreed

DLWoods Images wrote:
One "good" thing about this article, Jessica The Austin Model will get numerous hits on her Model Mayhem page. 

I went there . . .

  - David Lee Woods

Hardly the kind of exposure I would want. My image and name were being tied to a very negative and inaccurate depiction of me as a professional model. It was embarrassing and I had them remove the screen shot of my profile.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
Why is anyone upset or even arguing?

You float or you sink.  No matter what if you can pay rent llamaing or taking photos then you float and if you can't, then you sink.

Reality is rather simple and not subject to interpretation.

100000000000000000000000000

DinoUnchained wrote:
There are no standards for "internet models". There are no measurement or height weight restrictions. An internet model can be over the age of 30. An internet model can have tattoos and/or piercings anywhere they want. Perhaps what the author has against internet models is that these models are bringing a wider range of what is accepted as beautiful (and marketable) to our cultures conscious. Viva la Internet Model!

YES! Breaking down the barriers and restrictions set up about who can be a model has to start somewhere.

Jim LaLota wrote:

Well, I was quoting the OP, but thanks for chiming in on what I said to her.

Also, your reply to someone else says that everyone is entitled to their opinion but you criticize their use of sarcasm. I don't get that, actually.

Not every opinion has equal value.
Hence the elephant visual earlier.

I am free to chime in on whatever anyone says just as you are. It isn't just op and respondent it's a conversation.

But thank you for completely ignoring what I asked you.

Sophistocles wrote:

Actually, it would.

It's both commentary (allowed use) as well as possibly even parody (allowed use). Likely, it would be seen as both.

It's a poster-child for fair use.

Using the image that was in my avatar was a copyright violation. NOT legal.

Jessa The Austin Model wrote:

YES! Breaking down the barriers and restrictions set up about who can be a model has to start somewhere.

5ft 2ins of modelling dynamite SINGLED out by a twat journalist; then we have people here who don't think it is an attack on us all.

SHAME on those who didn't rally. Take a look at Jessa - yes the very model whose profile they held up as an example - and tell us she is a bedroom mobile phone wannabe model!!!!

Jessa The Austin Model wrote:
Hardly the kind of exposure I would want. My image and name were being tied to a very negative and inaccurate depiction of me as a professional model. It was embarrassing and I had them remove the screen shot of my profile.

Well I looked   Great look and some really good work, shame I don't get to Austin much these days.

I really expected a link to a bit more of a train wreck.

Jessa The Austin Model wrote:
Using the image that was in my avatar was a copyright violation. NOT legal.

See a solicitor and quote article 13 of the TRIPS:
"Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder."

Should charge you about £25 to send them a warning or perhaps an injunction prohibiting use. It clearly does unreasonably prejudice your legitimate interests or at least those of the photographer.

And for those who questioned my argument that it wasn't an attack limited to the bedroom mobile phone model; here is jessa:



Out of my league; massively inspirational; professional and 5ft 2ins. And SHE is who that appalling article singled out as 'deceased'. She looks a pretty live wire to me...

AJScalzitti wrote:

Well I looked   Great look and some really good work, shame I don't get to Austin much these days.

I really expected a link to a bit more of a train wreck.

LOL, thank you. A screen shot of a myspace "model" with self taken cell phone pics of her duck face in the mirror perhaps would have been a bit more accurate to describe the "internet model" the writer seems to be hating on.

It was a stupid move for this author to include a screen shot of an actual professional model that happens to use MM to network. Kind of contradicts the opinion they were negatively shouting out.

Eliza C wrote:

5ft 2ins of modelling dynamite SINGLED out by a twat journalist; then we have people here who don't think it is an attack on us all.

SHAME on those who didn't rally. Take a look at Jessa - yes the very model whose profile they held up as an example - and tell us she is a bedroom mobile phone wannabe model!!!!

If I could hug you I would!

Jessa The Austin Model wrote:

If I could hug you I would!

I am really crying now. Want to hug you too. I rarely get emotional but from the outset I could see that tiny pic was someone special. And that they could have used any of us. So pleased to show:


You are an inspiration to all xx

Seregon ODassey wrote:
The "hate" as you put it comes from girls who really shouldn't be modeling (too short, way TOO heavy, "alternative models" who couldn't make it into the mainstream so they make their own "niche", etc) who come onto sites like this and take money out of the pockets of real models. By real models I mean those of us who have been published in real magazines, those of us who have been in movies that have received distribution and TV shows, those of us who used to get $800 for a 3 hr shoot only 2 hrs away and now get told $300 is too much, those of us who have made names for ourselves, who started on here when the site was brand new and could pay our bills with one or two shoots now have to hustle 10x harder when it should be 10x easier. THAT's where the "hate" comes from. However, It's not hate so much as sheer annoyance. Just because your mom told you that you should model doesn't mean you should. Standing in front of a camera doesn't make you a model anymore than holding a scalpel makes you a surgeon (the same goes for "photographers". I'm sure I'll get some smart ass responses, but I honestly don't care anymore.

Oh please. I'm as real as anyone else. There is so much more to what you are describing...

Jessa The Austin Model wrote:

LOL, thank you. A screen shot of a myspace "model" with self taken cell phone pics of her duck face in the mirror perhaps would have been a bit more accurate to describe the "internet model" the writer seems to be hating on.

It was a stupid move for this author to include a screen shot of an actual professional model that happens to use MM to network. Kind of contradicts the opinion they were negatively shouting out.

Well I think we have more then established the level of the authors intelligence lol

AJScalzitti wrote:

Well I think we have more then established the level of the authors intelligence lol

+10000000000000000

Nico K wrote:
they also cheat their way onto the screens of millions of users.

my favourite line of the article, it betrays the author on so many levels.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:

I would imagine they'd argue that the DECEASED was used as editorial commentary, which is how I perceived it.  They never actually discuss the model herself, do they?


IB?

Censoring Assholes our masters of MM.
If they let this article slide then MM is open to every Tom, Dick and slating journalist which wouldn't fair well for IB's advertising clients.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Internet Brands our masters of MM.
If they let this article slide then MM is open to every Tom, Dick and slating journalist which wouldn't fair well for IB's advertising clients.

Yes Jessa and I were wondering the same. Are MM owners on the case or how can we alert them? It is basically an attack on MM as well as the models. And quite clearly prejudicial.

Sirensong wrote:
Its no good I couldnt resist, its all I could think of when I started reading this thread earlier..

Who's that? Looks like Sean Bean!
Do they do TFP?

Eliza C wrote:

Who's that? Looks like Sean Bean!
Do they do TFP?

It is Sean Bean

Sirensong wrote:

It is Sean Bean

Thank goodness for that. I thought I was starting to fancy women

Eliza C wrote:
I am taking on your and Udors views.

You know Eliza;

As an academic, you do a surprisingly selective reading, twisting of opinions and I am really surprised the way how you refuse to see the intent of the author, even if the author specified what an "internet model" means to HER:

"How do you spot the internet model, you ask? Their photos are always those that seek attention: cleavage, booty shorts, bad tans, kissy faces, and a plethora of mirror photos taken with a flashing light from her handheld, digital-camera in the corner. Their status updates are also fashioned in a way so as to let the world know what they are doing, even if it pointless, quotidian minutia: “Just did my nails.”

... and continues with:

As if anyone sane person would see that ridiculous mirror-shot profile picture and thinks to themselves, “Wow, that is high fashion, let me book this idiot,”

You had been wrong already about mine and Tiffany's industry experience and involvement, with a lot of assumptions.

You have been shown several times that the author had her very own definition of an "internet model", but no matter what, you completely refuse to accept that and that you and your peers are not the target of, what SHE calls "internet models" (My impression was that it was a female that wrote it, but I can be wrong!)

"Our views" were simply just that, not that all internet models are being attacked, but a specific segment, see above.

This is really the only point that we disagree... yet... you feel that you have to "take on" our views?

Especially after telling you over and over that we share the views and information that you provide about the regular working model..., yet you refuse to make a concession that we may in fact "know" such models or the other parts of the industry.

So, what are our "views" that you have to take on?


Btw., I didn't even have the chance to discuss the actual article and have to say that it was also not well researched, e.g. the author didn't make a clear enough distinction (so that ALL models who read this understand) of what is meant by "internet model"... They didn't acknowledge the social media and online world enough and the web presence of all kinds of models.

Agents often do use gmail; it appears that agencies, especially the smaller ones, have a little fewer jobs for their models, because of sites like MM... (heard it from 3 separate agencies, one of them a solidly known one). Don't know how that affects the big ones, because I don't work with them.

The article appears to be not edited, or well thought out...

However, that doesn't change the fact that the author provided a definition and apparently did NOT refer to people like you as "internet models" according to her definition.

udor wrote:
You know Eliza;

As an academic, you do a surprisingly selective reading, twisting of opinions and I am really surprised the way how you refuse to see the intent of the author, even if the author specified what an "internet model" means to HER:

... and continues with:


You had been wrong already about mine and Tiffany's industry experience and involvement, with a lot of assumptions.

You have been shown several times that the author had her very own definition of an "internet model", but no matter what, you completely refuse to accept that and that you and your peers are not the target of, what SHE calls "internet models" (My impression was that it was a female that wrote it, but I can be wrong!)

"Our views" were simply just that, not that all internet models are being attacked, but a specific segment, see above.

This is really the only point that we disagree... yet... you feel that you have to "take on" our views?

Especially after telling you over and over that we share the views and information that you provide about the regular working model..., yet you refuse to make a concession that we may in fact "know" such models or the other parts of the industry.

So, what are our "views" that you have to take on?


Btw., I didn't even have the chance to discuss the actual article and have to say that it was also not well researched, e.g. the author didn't make a clear enough distinction (so that ALL models who read this understand) of what is meant by "internet model"... They didn't acknowledge the social media and online world enough and the web presence of all kinds of models.

Agents often do use gmail; it appears that agencies, especially the smaller ones, have a little fewer jobs for their models, because of sites like MM... (heard it from 3 separate agencies, one of them a solidly known one). Don't know how that affects the big ones, because I don't work with them.

The article appears to be not edited, or well thought out...

However, that doesn't change the fact that the author provided a definition and apparently did NOT refer to people like you as "internet models" according to her definition.

Your attempt to excuse this by citing that so called 'definition' was utterly discredited by the use of Jessa's port.

How you  even raise this again I just don't know.

Look at her port.


And I told you don't patronise me.

It is clear the target was NOT just the bedroom wannabe.

When one has written editorial at a very high level for a living and dealt with the world's press daily one can read between the lines and see the motivation for any article.

I told you what they were aiming and and that verdict has been vindicated by the revelation of their use of Jessa's port. But anyone who really had a close look at that could see from the picture that wasn't a bedroom model.

As for your and Tiffany's experience as I said and stick by you only see a small part of what models do for a living and the variety of genres in which they work. You are not models; and your opinion is as valid as mine is on photography or styling. Which is to say I know a bit but I don't know  everything you do, how you get your work etc. yes there are areas where we agree but the stiocking point is who the attack is directed at and what journeymen models actually do for a living and how many of us there are in all shapes and sizes and shock horror some of us actually do some fashion. Not the tinty percentage of fashion you are referring to; by fashion nevertheless. Whether its for fitting, millinery, latex couture, regional editorial or boutique fashion shows. It appears not to have been taken into consideration by either of you. Apart from at the 'some of my best friends...' level which everyone laughs at when xenophobes use it.

Eliza C wrote:
5ft 2ins of modelling dynamite SINGLED out by a twat journalist; then we have people here who don't think it is an attack on us all.

SHAME on those who didn't rally. Take a look at Jessa - yes the very model whose profile they held up as an example - and tell us she is a bedroom mobile phone wannabe model!!!!

No one can attack truth of money making. 

If you are successful some blog will not undo this.  That does not make being mean justifiable but today it seems anything goes.

I find that blanket statements tend to be wrong on all sides, but you have to be honest, the models making money (or could one day make money) stand on one side of the line, the others who do not and are delusional stand on the other.  There is simply no arguing that fact.  If you are standing on the side you want to be then no one can say you are elsewhere and if not, all the pretense will not pay the rent nor change the fact that you will never make it.

Survival of the fittest has no mercy.