The Grand Artist wrote:
Didn't you know this is Fashion Model Mayhem where if you are not trying to work in high fashion then you are a lowly peasant.

I think that the problem lies more with people who do not work in fashion, with designers and actual fashion agencies, who are spreading falsehoods and misinformation how the fashion industry works and the people in it ought to behave in their opinion, while projecting their 9-5 office job mentality and rules onto something not entirely comparable.

Industry people have usually short tolerance for the above mentioned types.

Too many opinions of clueless people, who insist that their fantasy knowledge is real.

The Grand Artist wrote:
Didn't you know this is Fashion Model Mayhem where if you are not trying to work in high fashion then you are a lowly peasant. 

Honorable mention goes to Art Snob Mayhem where if you don't have tea at the top galleries and museums in the world and say they are all filled with crap then you know nothing about art.

Who is saying that exactly ? And I mean outside your mind.

The Grand Artist wrote:
Didn't you know this is Fashion Model Mayhem where if you are not trying to work in high fashion then you are a lowly peasant. 

Honorable mention goes to Art Snob Mayhem where if you don't have tea at the top galleries and museums in the world and say they are all filled with crap then you know nothing about art.

Right, because everyone is just a special little snowflake who deserves a trophy…

This has nothing to do with being exclusive to fashion.  I remember you and I having a discussion about art photography.  You stated at the time that you were unfamiliar with the current state of fine art photography (gallery world, not MM), that you were unfamiliar with the canon of art photography that had come before, and that you had no interest in exploring, learning about or understanding the history of art photography, relevant photographers or the works of they produced.  If that is indeed the case, how can one possibly have a conversation with you regarding the subject matter that goes beyond "everyone's special and deserves a trophy"?

All work, whether photographic, musical, literary, etc. is judged or discussed in context - no matter if it continues a trend or starts a new one.  Without context how can we have the discussion?  Because you say art is entirely subjective and you know what you like?  Well, sure, you can take that position, but then there's absolutely nothing to discuss.

The Grand Artist wrote:
Honorable mention goes to Art Snob Mayhem where if you don't have tea at the top galleries and museums in the world and say they are all filled with crap then you know nothing about art.

well, that would be silly..my work has been in one of those museums, therefore. not completely filled with crap.

-sips tea-

i'm just being silly, though, i think everyone should be able to state an opinion of their perspective, without ridicule or being mocked of one facet of their industry ..and see where it goes.. so many of them out there

The Grand Artist wrote:
Didn't you know this is Fashion Model Mayhem where if you are not trying to work in high fashion then you are a lowly peasant. 

.

What is this High Fashion I keep seeing on MM ?
I've only ever shot ONE model who's wardrobe was high fashion brands and those were her agency test... once she had those done she never came back onto MM.
MM models wardrobes are fast fashion not High Fashion.

I find it amusing when models put up castings for High Fashion.

udor wrote:
That is awesome!

What kind of mainstream work are all those models doing and do you have links to their tear sheets and campaign?

Would love to see them!

I'd be guessing those would be something like car, luxury and beverage commercials?

There's something wrong with car, luxury and beverage commercials? How about jewellery and millinery? And lingerie?

Here's Lyn Campbell Walter director of BMA who is 5ft 6 and had a successful career as a model
doing commercial and also some fashion. Her agency is one of the UK's biggest. You don't open a paper or see a tube poster or a tv commercial without seeing a BMA model. Lots of them are on MM too. Plenty of tall ones too of course.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/feature … 444.print/

She worked as a photographers assistant in Soho until he insisted she try modelling which reinforces the point in my post above. But she also makes the point that modelling is actually quite diverse. Not high fashion necessarily of course , but we aren't talking about that exclusively.


Then there's no height restriction on glamour modelling, art modelling , promo modelling etc. of course or related fields like dance acting presenting where modelling may be part of what one does.

udor wrote:

The Grand Artist wrote:
Didn't you know this is Fashion Model Mayhem where if you are not trying to work in high fashion then you are a lowly peasant.

I think that the problem lies more with people who do not work in fashion, with designers and actual fashion agencies, who are spreading falsehoods and misinformation how the fashion industry works and the people in it ought to behave in their opinion, while projecting their 9-5 office job mentality and rules onto something not entirely comparable.

Industry people have usually short tolerance for the above mentioned types.

Too many opinions of clueless people, who insist that their fantasy knowledge is real.

But as I was asked many times before in a similar thread what industry? The industry they are talking about may be completely different than the one you know with completely different experiences.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Right, because everyone is just a special little snowflake who deserves a trophy…

This has nothing to do with being exclusive to fashion.  I remember you and I having a discussion about art photography.  You stated at the time that you were unfamiliar with the current state of fine art photography (gallery world, not MM), that you were unfamiliar with the canon of art photography that had come before, and that you had no interest in exploring, learning about or understanding the history of art photography, relevant photographers or the works of they produced.  If that is indeed the case, how can one possibly have a conversation with you regarding the subject matter that goes beyond "everyone's special and deserves a trophy"?

All work, whether photographic, musical, literary, etc. is judged or discussed in context - no matter if it continues a trend or starts a new one.  Without context how can we have the discussion?  Because you say art is entirely subjective and you know what you like?  Well, sure, you can take that position, but then there's absolutely nothing to discuss.

I did not say I was unfamiliar I simply stated that I did not care and it was not an influence for me or something I thought about frequently.

And art is completely and utterly subjective if it was not we would not have so many experts here frequently stating how so many well established and recognized artists or photographers were not very talented and simply hacks.

If it was not subjective then that would mean all of those comments by our so called experts were all meaningless drivel, would it not?

udor wrote:
I think that the problem lies more with people who do not work in fashion, with designers and actual fashion agencies, who are spreading falsehoods and misinformation how the fashion industry works and the people in it ought to behave in their opinion, while projecting their 9-5 office job mentality and rules onto something not entirely comparable.
.

The Grand Artist wrote:
But as I was asked many times before in a similar thread what industry? The industry they are talking about may be completely different than the one you know with completely different experiences.

Exactly and that's why we are challenging the OP because unlike udor, the OP didn't specify.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Right, because everyone is just a special little snowflake

The Grand Artist wrote:
And art is completely and utterly subjective if it was not we would not have so many experts here frequently stating how so many well established and recognized artists or photographers were not very talented and simply hacks.

If it was not subjective then that would mean all of those comments by our so called experts were all meaningless drivel, would it not?

Art is not that subjective. But that's for another thread

But as far as the bolded claim... Who does? Who claims stablished artists are hacks? Because usually the answer is: wannabe photographers who will likely not make it and are jealous of whoever does so they criticize them and call themselves artists.

WIP wrote:
What is this '  not make it ' all about ... make what ? where ? is this make it some mystical world ? is there a diploma pass give out from the make it guild ?

Edit; I should have quoted you Natalia as you seem to have amended your last posting drastically... the bit about ' not make it'.

Very slippery.

Is REALLY hard To quote from the phone, I edited it like 3 times

Philipe wrote:
agents and photographers trying to sleep with models.. Young models being exploited (very common in Europe) Just as an example, John Casablancas dated Stephanie Seymour when she was 16... John Casablanca was a notorious playboy with his models.. Many of his models once they became "Super models" kinda ignored him and did not want to have anything to do with him....

Its a crazy industry...

It works both ways... models hitting on photographer in the hope it will further their chances of being booked.
One photographer used to act gay just to keep models of his back.

WIP wrote:

It works both ways... models hitting on photographer in the hope it will further their chances of being booked.
One photographer used to act gay just to keep models of his back.

Yes it does go both ways.......

Star wrote:
I 've been seeing a lot of thread recently that rehash the old question of, how do I get work?

The fact is paying work is pretty much going for the brass ring. It is good to have goals, to set them for yourself, but in the end nobody is owed the brass ring.

If you find yourself not booking paying work then you can consider continuing as a hobbiest. No it isn't as sexy to say you are a carpenter by day and a hobbiest photographer by night- but isn't it less stressful to do this for enjoyment rather than kill yourself trying to figure out why you aren't booking work.

But let's say you HAVE to be able to do this-

here are some tips

Photographers- you should be shooting at least 2 times a week. You should be doing exterior, interior, and everything in between. You should be signing up for local college courses. You also want to take classes in dance, theater, and aquire some basic set building skills. You should be shooting from eye level, from below, from above, you should be circling the model once you have set your lights to see how light work from different angles. You should be trying every lighting modifier you can find and figuring out how they can work for you. You should be doing minimal photoshop work, instead it should be right in camera. Learn to read your histogram. You should be looking at work, and most of all you should NOT be falling in love with your subjects. Once you have done that for a year or two your photography will improve. maybe enough to even get a few paid gigs.

Models-
5ft 10 and above, 14-20 years of age, 24in waist or smaller, no breast implants, no hair extensions- congratulations you have the minimum requirements to go to an agency and try and get signed. Go to one and see what they say.

EVERYONE ELSE- every type of modeling has its requirements. Learn what they are and see if you fit into them. NO model I have ever met easily lives on modeling. It is as hard as working at Burger King and in the end you make about as much. BUT you can say you are a model.

99.9999999% of people who want to model WILL not be able to book more than a few paying gigs. Instead of being upset if you aren't working well in front of the camera and getting paying gigs, why not pursue it as a hobby. Find who you are through modeling. Take dance and movement courses, learn basic sewing skills, become adept at understanding fashion and fashion movements. Behave like it is an art form, and you will get better results. Maybe you aren't a "pretty" model. Well then what kind of model are you, are you a kick ass chick like the Derby Girls. Who are you and how will that translate into what you do.

make-up artists- let us just start with if you don't have at least 10 years of experience you are unlikely to make it in editorial in a large market.

5-10 is needed for smaller markets

3-5 for wedding work

1-3 for Glamour shops

oh- and you need to be really good. There isn't really a hobbiest market as such for make-up so I suggest you go into the MUA forums and learn from the people in there, they mainly know what they are doing.

stylists- become a PR girl and work from there

photoshop experts- again unless you are amazing, with thousands of hours under your belt and actually taking classes in how to work the program, enjoy playing around with it as a hobby. Small end jobs are done by the photographer or their assistant, high end jobs go to the amazing pros and middle of the road jobs are pretty much gone.

Mainly I am saying if you feel like you can't make it in this business- why not do this for fun, if money comes then great. Imagine you want to be a painter, sure you can do some local fairs but mainly you are spending a lot of time and effort to create something you like for yourself and screw everyone else.

Shooting a least 2 times a week can be a task in itself if four not shelling out cash to work with models. There are photographers on here that don't have any formal training and are making ends meet with their gear.

Mua experience isn't exactly true...

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
There's something wrong with car, luxury and beverage commercials? How about jewellery and millinery? And lingerie?

Did I say that there is anything wrong with those gigs I've mentioned?

I don't think so, not even implied. I just would like to see... is that wrong, Eliza???

Tony Lawrence wrote:
With no disrespect to any members but most here on this site are hobbyists.

Hey, I object to that!

Oh wait, I are one.

Never mind.

WIP wrote:

Probably the only one; how many people on MM make an effort to visit art galleries in various forms ? I'd think a very small percentage.

Maybe not so small, they are just never on the forums to say so.

Small percentage I would grant. Very, small, not so sure. And that is just a guess on my part.

howard r wrote:

very odd that talent, vision, and taste didn’t make your list.

Trouble is that far too often they have little to do with being a commercial or even a gallery success.

Wish it were not so.

GCobb Photography wrote:

That's pretty accurate.  If she can specify what "industry" is then people can be more specific about how wrong she is about her post.

5'7" - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0548247/bio?ref_=nm_ql_1

And the condescending attitude has been there for as long as I've been in here.

Ouch!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

There's something wrong with car, luxury and beverage commercials? How about jewellery and millinery? And lingerie?

Here's Lyn Campbell Walter director of BMA who is 5ft 6 and had a successful career as a model
doing commercial and also some fashion. Her agency is one of the UK's biggest. You don't open a paper or see a tube poster or a tv commercial without seeing a BMA model. Lots of them are on MM too. Plenty of tall ones too of course.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/feature … 444.print/

She worked as a photographers assistant in Soho until he insisted she try modelling which reinforces the point in my post above. But she also makes the point that modelling is actually quite diverse. Not high fashion necessarily of course , but we aren't talking about that exclusively.


Then there's no height restriction on glamour modelling, art modelling , promo modelling etc. of course or related fields like dance acting presenting where modelling may be part of what one does.

Aha!!!

A full post that I can totally agree with.

I knew you could do it love. 

WIP wrote:

It works both ways... models hitting on photographer in the hope it will further their chances of being booked.

Where?
When?
Who?
What am I missing?

Herman Surkis wrote:

Where?
When?
Who?
What am I missing?

My guess is that its happening past your bedtime

Philipe wrote:
I have to say what Star said does not apply to everyone.. There is always that one exception..
But for the most part she is right and as far as how many times you shoot a week. I think what she means is being in demand...


I want add, that in this industry...
This is not an equal opportunity industry........
With modeling, its not like other careers..
Where you can go to college or learn a trade.. Its an industry that judges you based on your look.. Where agents and agencies look at you up and down and judge...
You have to have good genes and have a good look..
If your 5'9" and up the rules are still the same.. (you have to have a good look)
Being taller just means you are taller and you still have to have good skin and be thin and long..
Again there are exceptions for smaller models, but the exception is, you have to be exceptional, your body shape should be balanced (meaning smaller girls tend to have bigger heads or smaller shoulders in proportion to their bodies) its the same with guys too. Unproportion with long legs and limbs is good...
Short legs is a big no...

The industry is based on look..........
Not maybe, not kind of, not that will do.........
Its a "You have to have it or your out" industry.......

I want to add too. That a lot of girls could not handle the schedule and traveling that many top industry models do and the big demands they have. (This is not gypsy modeling crash at people houses and kind of go with the flow) No..
Its grueling.. and there is no warming up and this is not a dress rehearsal...
Where you think you can do it or you may have doubts..
Or ask, how do I do this? on set.......... No...
You have to have experience and be ready for the demands of quick changes and direction..
The industry also, can be quite ugly.. The fashion industry has its drugs, agents and photographers trying to sleep with models.. Young models being exploited (very common in Europe) Just as an example, John Casablancas dated Stephanie Seymour when she was 16... John Casablanca was a notorious playboy with his models.. Many of his models once they became "Super models" kinda ignored him and did not want to have anything to do with him....

Its a crazy industry...

I don't recognise this at all. Sounds like something from a really crap eighties movie, or some mantra for the show crud they come out with on Americas next top model.


Now ok I am NOT a high fashion model. BUT I have worked as a fit model in a major fashion house. I've also done some commercial jobs, and modelled showroom and  runway (including for the fashion house) and done a dozen editorials or so plus have another twenty or so tears.


I made a LIVING my only form of income, like this for four years.

I started as a life model. I know dozens of models who make their living exclusively at this in London. There are hundreds in fact. Then theres plenty like me who through networking with the wide variety of people (including designers, boutique owners, media people and photographers) end up in other forms of modelling. Or indeed you get fashion models sent by their agency to try it or observe. Or you get actresses who do it. Or other artists. All sorts of ages. Some do film extra work, some are in ballet or contemporary dance but also do alt modelling, some do character modelling.
This work pays about £15-£35 an hour. There are dozens of educational institutions from art to fashion to graphics and guilds from framers to architecture and public and private art galleries.and old and new Art Societies, plus private art classes , who provide it. Plus then you get private work with individuals from those groups.

It's easy to get yourself say 30 hours a week. Easy. IF you are a good model. The LOOK is not important. Nor size, nor height. I know a guy who is four foot tall who does,it who is also a character model and actor. I know actresses who are familiar from tv who do it. I know fashion models who do it because they enjoy it.

There is NEVER a question of not being paid.



The same is true of working in fit and showroom. The money can be between £20 and £200 an hour. Fit and showion models don't usually exclusively do that. If you look at the fit models here they nearly all have tears and some campaigns.

Now as a fit model, a collection is made on your body. They CANNOT afford to lose you half way through hence the high pay. True much of it is,standing on your feet for Wight hours having pins,stuck in you and your body covered on dressmakers chalk, but you will ne working closely with top designers. You know, THE names you read about in Vogue. You will also likely do showroom, because NOBODY is going to fit those clothes better than you, where you will demonstrate the garments to buyers , national and international wholesalers and franchise holders. It's an important job because hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of sales depend on what you do. You TALK to people. So this is a job thats nit all about look. And I certainly don't look anything special. I've a good figure, and I cultivated my personal style,to echo the brand. I had the top stylists in,London make me up and do my hair fir such events. And I did runway, as many other fit models do.  Then parts and bits fir catalogue shoots etc. When you are a house model you do everything. This type of modelling goes bqck to French fashion houses of the nineteenth century.


I also did some commercial jobs for an ad agency. Even though I was freelance, this opportunity arose because a guy burst into the pub in Shoreditch where I was having a drink after life modelling at the Prince Charles Art school, desperate for a model as the Agency girl had flaked and they only had two hours to find a replacement and it was 8pm. I did several jobs for them.


Then I modelled for designers,  boutiques, fashion students, photographers, photography students, photographer workshops, performance Art events, etc etc


I did all that for three years in London. I worked alongside models,from Premier and Oxygen and other top agencies.

In all that time, NOBODY was a bitch to me, and only one photographer was inappropriate and he got a prison sentence for assaulting other models. The only bitchiness and people looking down their nose at me I've ever encountered is HERE. And that'd the only place I've encountered whining about paying models too.


As far as highly competitive and hard work goes, it PALES into proportion next to doing a science doctorate.


True that modelling IS about look. But there's not one look. I know alt models, tattooed models, outsized models, and commercial models,of all sizes and ages. I've given a citation from he director of BMA one of London's biggest agencies as to the need for diversity. I am 33 five foot six but manage to project a look designers and boutiques like. I wear their clothes to events and know how to work event photographers to get them in national papers and on tv. So I guess it's 'a' look, but it's not the archetype fashion look.


Another agency which gets lots of work - worth following their Twitter for castings actually - is UGLY
http://www.ugly.org/UGLY-MODELS/


I also did a bit of promo when I strarted. One on a department store for a top French cosmetics and fashion company, the other meet and greet delegates and guests at an Embassy. Both well paid and fun. I know many girls who do all kinds of promo.  At sporting events like the,races, to hostessing, to trade fairs, to  grid girls.




So ok I am not saying any of that is typical. But I have worked across genres, know an awful lot of models of various types, and it's enough to say that it's MORE typical for average journeymen models here on MM than this high fashion malarkey that people keep on about in this thread. And I cite all of that just as examples that the 'industry' that is being discussed is neither all one thing, nor is there one way of succeeding on it, nor is it cutthroat and mucky.
I believe this view that modelling and photography and styling/Mua is for. a select few, at the top, and the rest of you/us had better either have 'the right stuff' or forget it and just do it for fun is fundamentally flawed and completely unrepresentative of creative industries in general.  I think it is fostered to persuade people to do tf. Something I've only ever encountered in professional modelling on here.

I'm pretty sure that photographers or muas could equally give examples that do nor reflect the ops advice. Not that it's bad, and I said that. But its not representative of the industry in the wider sense.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Is REALLY hard To quote from the phone, I edited it like 3 times

Don't worry about it Natalia.
Pedantry is a well known fallacy.
Those wishing to pull people on grammar etc have usually already lost any debate or it indicates a lack of interest in it and instead are doing it to make themselves look good by putting others down.


It's a particular problem on MM. There is no understanding that it's much harder to participate on a mobile phone. A lot of models use them, then get slated in forums, and opt out of taking part. There is also little thought that some people here speak English as a second language.


So please consider people: editing on the phone in forums is really difficult, and pm system is even harder.

Garry k wrote:
My guess is that its happening past your bedtime

My guess is it's rather life UFOs. It's an interesting phenomena but witness reports tend to be embellished with imaginative fantasy.

udor wrote:
I think that the problem lies more with people who do not work in fashion, with designers and actual fashion agencies, who are spreading falsehoods and misinformation how the fashion industry works and the people in it ought to behave in their opinion, while projecting their 9-5 office job mentality and rules onto something not entirely comparable.

Industry people have usually short tolerance for the above mentioned types.

Too many opinions of clueless people, who insist that their fantasy knowledge is real.

This isn't about fashion Udor. The op said it was general industry. And the fashion industry and photography are two separate sets of things, with just a little crossover in the middle. People in that who see themselves as the 'industry' are a tiny number and when they see it as 'the industry'
it's simply insulting and irrelevant, and often the cause of just as much misinformation when applied to the wider sets. Then there are also other sets such as Commercial,  Erotic, Art, Glamour, Promotional, Cinema,  Theatre, Dance, Music , etc plus sub sets such as fashion - bridal, lingerie, alt, lifestyle related fashion eg. Fitness or vintage which ate in turn part of their own sets, etc. Even geography photography has  an intersect with art and erotic. Don't believe me check out Ira Meyer one of the best photographers here. Some set intersects  are so small the individual is the industry. One essentially carves ones own niche. Then you have things that ate out of creative industries as such , take sport for example. But a sports person can do modelling such as fitness or even fashion, and a photographer can do both too.




If somebody good at doing sets and  intersect diagrams were to plot all on, they'd see how vast and incredibly complex this 'industry' really is, and why people experts in their own intersect speaking as though it's THE industry, are going to come a cropper.


That's not to say that you or Star or I may have good specific advice for our own intersects. But even then often it's not representative of everyone's experience. So for example, a fashion or commercial campaign  photographer can take years to get into that, but another could get a fast track into it without even trying on the strength of an exhibition or one lucky published image, or a short independent movie.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

This isn't about fashion Udor. The op said it was general industry.

True, but I was responding to a statement with a specific scenario, to a post by "The Greatest Artist" and not to the OP by "Star". you might not have noticed, but I have not been involved in that discussion at all!

Kalico Clothing wrote:
.. since having a 24 inch waist at 5'7 isn't as extreme or unhealthy as having it at 5'10.

The other models, while they fit in your example, have chosen a career over their own health. They have no fat OR muscle, they are extremely unhealthy and it's unnatural to have that little body mass at that height. Even if models could get to such measurements, there is no guarantee that they will make it. It just seems like such a poor choice to me, to try and trade your own health for A CHANCE at modeling big.

Edit: Plus, half of your examples have implants, so those aren't even their natural measurements.

Hi Kalico,
It isn't actually necessarly "un" common to have a 24 inch waist at 5'10" if you are inclined to be that way. There are all types of body types. Age and metabolism is a huge factor.

Just saying that not everyone with the 34-24-34 at 5'10" and above is unhealthy.

After having resisted having a 24" waist for years and trying to gain more weight, (because of all the tsk, tsk, and eyerolls and unkind things people would claim about how unhealthy I must have been-in spite of eating like a horse and beyond my food budget,) I finally graduated AWAY from being 5'10" with a 24 inch waist by the time I reached my 40's, mostly anyways.

However, after having had it for so long I am not necessarily comfy with it so far away from it and now I actually do the reverse, (try to keep it back to where it was then.)
/personal sidebar
Jen
edit to add: positive points to Eliza for this gem below!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Those wishing to pull people on grammar etc have usually already lost any debate or it indicates a lack of interest in it and instead are doing it to make themselves look good by putting others down.

WIP wrote:
What is this High Fashion I keep seeing on MM ?
I've only ever shot ONE model who's wardrobe was high fashion brands and those were her agency test... once she had those done she never came back onto MM.
MM models wardrobes are fast fashion not High Fashion.

I find it amusing when models put up castings for High Fashion.

Well while mine is not necessarily current, I have a wardrobe that includes many pieces from top fashion designers from Dior to Mugler . I don't own any fast fashion.
I have also shot with the same wardrobe that has been in Vogue that season, for smaller magazines. So I haven't done any fast fashion editorials either.

I also know many models with similar - their own wardrobe and credits. Yeah we have contacts with press offices etc too it isn't rocket science. Or we represent brands. Like regularly we can be 'faces' (or asses or legs ) for a brand . So have the access often photographers don't know where to start to get.

But in any case, fast fashion also has its place. And models' own wardrobe is lets face it what 99% of you have to practice on. Unless you are one of those rare photographers who have some clue or you employ a stylist. So if you want to shoot some Helmut Newton style work for your portfolio, it may help if you have a model with some Mugler. Well , it's helped me get work and the kind of work I like anyway, both with art photographers and more fashion oriented.

So don't look down your nose at model wardrobe when I've been close to tears at what photographers have got out of their dress up box

udor wrote:

True, but I was responding to a statement with a specific scenario, to a post by "The Greatest Artist" and not to the OP by "Star". you might not have noticed, but I have not been involved in that discussion at all!

Let's get it right, it is The Grand Artist.

But we have been going back and forth on this topic across a lot of threads. I didn't feel like looking but I don't think I said anything about fashion either in this thread beyond saying that too many people that post are only talking about high fashion when it comes to every single topic and discussion as if that is all that everyone here does or is trying to do. I should have said high fashion and nudes to be more accurate.

I think everyone understands that NYC is the big fashion capital. I think everyone understands that the industry is the entertainment and advertising industry since in today's world often times the same people work in all of them.

Actors, models, hair stylists, make up artists, musicians, professional athletes, photographers, clothing designers, videographers, digital artists, and many others often work on the same projects or switch roles on different projects, especially those that have not made it.

I know there are specific people in specific generes that only do one thing: black women, nudes, chocolate, landscapes, sports, hands, feet, hair, plus size (one of the stupidest descriptions of a human being ever) so on, and so on but how many people limit themselves in such a way.

I also think we all understand that "the industry" is probably the last one that is so openly discriminatory left in the world. Where else can you say that you only hire Texas Republican Christian heterosexual 6'4" white males with blonde hair blue eyes 2% body fat and not get sued out of business. Or better yet don't ever bring a black girl to work for me even if she fits my requirements. I don't want them representing my product.

The kicker for me has always been that there are millions and millions of people that completely accept this nonsense because, well at least they made it and are doing what they love to do and they are not part of the "it" crowd.

I know there are plenty of people that want no part of such behavior. I suspect there are many more but that may just be me being hopeful for humanity.

The Grand Artist wrote:

Let's get it right, it is The Grand Artist.

But we have been going back and forth on this topic across a lot of threads. I didn't feel like looking but I don't think I said anything about fashion either in this thread beyond saying that too many people that post are only talking about high fashion when it comes to every single topic and discussion as if that is all that everyone here does or is trying to do. I should have said high fashion and nudes to be more accurate.

I think everyone understands that NYC is the big fashion capital. I think everyone understands that the industry is the entertainment and advertising industry since in today's world often times the same people work in all of them.

Actors, models, hair stylists, make up artists, musicians, professional athletes, photographers, clothing designers, videographers, digital artists, and many others often work on the same projects or switch roles on different projects, especially those that have not made it.

I know there are specific people in specific generes that only do one thing: black women, nudes, chocolate, landscapes, sports, hands, feet, hair, plus size (one of the stupidest descriptions of a human being ever) so on, and so on but how many people limit themselves in such a way.

I also think we all understand that "the industry" is probably the last one that is so openly discriminatory left in the world. Where else can you say that you only hire Texas Republican Christian heterosexual 6'4" white males with blonde hair blue eyes 2% body fat and not get sued out of business. Or better yet don't ever bring a black girl to work for me even if she fits my requirements. I don't want them representing my product.

The kicker for me has always been that there are millions and millions of people that completely accept this nonsense because, well at least they made it and are doing what they love to do and they are not part of the "it" crowd.

I know there are plenty of people that want no part of such behavior. I suspect there are many more but that may just be me being hopeful for humanity.

Again WHAT industry are babling about?

Advertising discriminates everyone and nobody.

If I need a short, fat bald guy for an ad, the tall model won't do, no matter how much she tries.
Same with everything else.

Not to mention those shooting landscape for national geographic, they discriminate ALL the models! - that's an industry too.

As for your question, who would limit themselves like that... Well most with an intention to be GREAT at something. Like neurosurgeons for example.

X

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Modelmayhem is not the place to depend on for "industry" work.  There are a plenty of photographers here, along with models, but very few outlets for clients on here.  The fact is that Facebook is kicking MM's ass when it comes to finding clients and even photographers and models willing to "Pay" for talent.  ALL the major modeling agencies have Facebook profiles.  ALL important businesses that want any kind of exposure are on Facebook.  They do hire off of Facebook.   

Here, I'm having fun posting in the forums.  I've made some friends.  There are many models on my "friends" list here, but most of them are on Facebook too ... and prefer communicating with me on there due to the fact that MM does not have chat available and the messaging is not as dependable.  Although I think it's important to continue to have a profile here as I've made a lot of contacts in the past on here.   

Star, I always enjoy reading your posts.  I'm not sure if you post your writings else where, so I must take a look at your website.  You have a good insight into the real industry, but you'll get mostly criticism from the peanut gallery here.  Modelmayhem is NOT exclusive to professionals in the industry.  It never has been.   This site is what it is.  I can't stress enough how important it is to have profiles evry where you can on the World Wide Web, because you never know where your next connection will come from.  Anyone who depends on MM exclusively is missing the boat!

100% agreed.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I can't speak for Star but if I were her I wouldn't comment again either.   Why?   She's published.   She's doing covers.   She's not a hobbyist.   A few members have given their personal stories about how they have made it or others they know have.   That's great but she's correct in her breakdown for fashion agency models.   If you work as a MUA with less experience then wonderful but it takes many people years to get consistent paid work.   If you've found work and are under 5'8" count yourself lucky.   Photographers can help themselves by learning to build basic sets and taking classes.   

How many members who have critiqued her have ever shot a cover much less for a well known publication.   How many besides two members in this thread even work with agency models?   I'm not saying we should bow down to Star or any other member but do we have to always eat our own.   Do we have too do that?   Especially one who in my mind has actually made a pretty innocuous  point and one that is frankly not controversial.

+1