Woman As "art", Not Objects

Recently I have had to make a tough decision....

My boyfriend was asked to submit his photos to a magazine, and a bunch of what he submitted was images of me. The magazine loves his work, but asked if he coulkd remove my scars. So he left the decision to me.....

I did some online investigating with Amelia and found that the magazine wants to 'represent woman as art instead of objectifying them', which is the most over used cliche in nude photography, but whatever......

So I think about it.... it is my opinion that if that were their true goal they would in fact leave my scars in, as it is greatly objectifying me to change my physical being to better suit their tastes.......

I am aggrivated on so many levels.

Why does 'mainstream' media need to make believe that people don't have scars? I have met SO MANY people online that felt ashamed of their scars and hid them under long sleeves and later became liberated by how open I was about mine and for the first time were able to show theirs unashamedly. It is the fact that they remove such things to remain unoffensive that so many people have image issues.

I cannot decide what to do, as I don't want to be a pain in the ass and I know my BF is super excited to get published. But at the same time I don't want to cave in and say 'OK remove my scars, just keep my name in there' and then come to find when the magazine prints that they exclude my name. I mean why wouldn't they? It is SCAR 13! What could be more offensive to people offended by, um, scars???

Don't do it. If it was truly art, they would include all of you.

Jackie T.

money is money, people sell products for other people to buy, sometimes people just want to buy parts of a product. A person can make a lot of money selling parts. Besides all 'art' is is an arangement of atoms in such a way as to be pleasing to the viewers eye.

actually when you think about it theres a lot of potential there, just keep in mind, art fags are art fags but there are a lot of them out there and if you can get 50 cents from all of them, thats a lot of money

i wouldnt do it... the scars are part of you. personally i wouldnt want part of me in a magazine... it would make me feel kinda fake i think.

If someone wanted me to remove my scars, I'd feel hurt.
As you've already stated, scars are a part of ones self. It's wrong to remove them simply to please others.

Are you sure the magazine can't print you with your scars?

You shouldn't have to remove your scars. You should also tell your Boy that he shouldn't leave it all up to you, Artist and Model should have a nice disscussion. I know he's exited, but dosen't he feel that part of his art was you? And you have scars. If its up to you, I'd ask if they couldn't keep the scars in.

Make some money. You'll still be the same person after it. The scars can be a cool little easter-egg for people to find out about later. Plus you're helping out your boyfriends career and getting some extra advertisement.

well, being a model I'm sure that there's a great deal of time that a person appears in photos where people don't see "you." For instance, in fashion modeling, the person is the accesory, not the garment.

On the other hand, this is supposedly an art magazine, so the criterea should be more focused on the artistic composition of the picture and not as much on the subject matter.

the fact that they want to edit your boyfreinds art, and in a sense, edit you, would piss me off if it was me. I guess the real decisive factor, at least In my opinion, is that they either lied about woman as "art" or else they are just snobby and stuck up, and that ultimately would ensure a not very pleasant experience and make me not want to work with them.

I suppose that it really comes down to money. we all do things that we don't really like the best to pay the bills. If it would be better off for your personal lives to do this business, then it might be worth it to just do it and get it over with. If not, then it could be better just to stick it to them for what is right and stand up for empowerment in it's pure form.

I think your scars are beautiful, and are very meaningful... and have played a huge role in defining your ...ism.
I can look at this topic objectively in both lights.

I can TOTALLY understand your reasons for not wanting them covered.
And by looking at the other side of the coin is not me suggesting for you to allow them to be covered.... but simply to be subjectively objective.

Many models have meaningful tattoos that are edited, even though they may carry the same personal importance.
A blemish, knee bones, ankles are often retouched for the sake of the picture, not to scrutinize the flaw but rather to preserve the continuity of the artists vision which may reflect the expression of smoothness.

I guess the question is how important is it to you to keep them? Is your statement more standworthy than to appear alltogether, yet smoothed?

My opinion as a never published artist is torn.

On the one hand, there is the purity of the thing. I made the art, if I wanted to do it that way I would have done it that way. And that is long before even considering the models feelings.

On the other hand, it is contract work, sort of. You have to think of the customer.

I would like to think I would tell them that my art was designed with my vision in mind and I am not willing to make changes to the piece that I consider fundamental to the piece. I could shoot another project, but I would have a hard time altering one I already shot with a specific vision in mind.

My gut feeling is that, if they really like his work he can shoot another model he doesn't have to edit for them, or he can try a magazine that will not edit these photos, but I am not him and it is not my work on the table. Ultimately he has to decide how he wants to be seen or represented. So do you actually, but it is easier to put myself in his shoes that yours, so that's what I went with.

Of course, if someone put dollars or recognition on the table, we may find out I am just a liar. It is always easy to say you wouldn't sell out your vision when no one is buying.

but you or ART my dear! just do what you feel true to YOU!

well art is an object so it is just a weasle way out of objectification

sounds to me like they want mannequin perfection they probably want to cover up your tats as well

your bod is a piece of art its like putting a leave on david but realistically there is no bad publicity so let them do what they want as long as you get paid in money or recognition

I'm guessing that by his leaving it up to you, he's already made up his mind what he wants to do, but is just trying to be considerate of your feelings as well. I agree whole-heartedly with your opinion on the situation, and I think I'd be hurt if I needed to be "fixed" in order to be art, however, I think I'd fight my battle elsewhere. He should at least see if leaving them in is an option, but if not, I don't think that counts as caving in or selling out. You will still have so many opportunities to present yourself in a light that is really you, that I wouldn't let one cliche` of a magazine get you down. Especially if it lifts him up.

He went ahead and answered for me strangely, which I was kinda irritated about. He told them they have to use the pix as is and he will edit them if they put in writing that they promise to publish my name. I was still undecided on how I felt about the whole thing so I am not sure if that is the answer I would have given, but that's the answer they got :-)

(string of curse words here)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scar

He went ahead and answered for me strangely, which I was kinda irritated about. He told them they have to use the pix as is and he will edit them if they put in writing that they promise to publish my name. I was still undecided on how I felt about the whole thing so I am not sure if that is the answer I would have given, but that's the answer they got :-)

(string of curse words here)

---

It's almost kitsch when you think about it. You could look at it from this perspective: A viewer may wonder "Why is her name Scar?". From what you've written here, I just don't know if its worth the trouble. It is kind of dubious for me to assume a viewer will even bother wondering how you got the name (thus giving you more of a forum to speak to it) In terms of a written contract, I would consider having someone familiar with the business have a look. The response you got sends up a major red flag to me.

Jackie T

Oh... ouch. Well, guess that solves that debate, whether it ended as you'd hoped or not. Out of all this, regardless of what your ultimate decision would've been, it's the fact that you never got to choose that sucks the most. You know what tastes good when you're angry? French Toast ice cream from Coldstone. Mm Mm good...

french toast ice cream... i think we ALL need some mmmmmm

dairy free sorbet and vegan chocolate chip cookies?

mmmmmm as long as its some kind of frozen thing im up for it!

See, if they want a regular model, with a perfect body, perfect skin, no scars, etc, then hire one...

You aren't putting yourself out there as a "normal" model.
And you will never make it past the first casting call,
if they are looking for flawless perfection.

So why bother trying to fit into that kind of look?

Look at real runway models over the years.
Some of the big, breakthrough models, were ones with an unconventional look.
Like some really tall girl from Africa, with dark, dark, skin.
Or the heroic chic look.
Someone had to be first.
And since people get bored of the same old thing all the time,
who is to say that scars, or goth looks, won't be the next big thing?

I would not sell yourself as something you are not.
Artistic integrity aside, and feminism aside,
it's simply not an accurate representation of the model.

It would be like an amputee model, photoshopping
all their photos to make it look like they have all their limbs.
What's the point?
Do you really want to do "mainstream" modeling?

Anyway, I've babbled enough.
Leave the photos alone.

not that my opinion matters... however... if you take it to another level... publish your pic's without the scar's.. you not only get the money.. you never know where that might lead. And YES you will be the same person... only with a hell of alot more money and fame. Natural beauty also comes from the inside.... which you most certainly seem to have. if i was you ( I more then likly would never leave the mirror lookin at my upper bpdy ;) i'd let them remove the scar's .... use them as they are trying to use you.. get the exposure and run with it as far as the train goes... gl in whatever you do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by c4wolf

not that my opinion matters... however... if you take it to another level... publish your pic's without the scar's.. you not only get the money.. you never know where that might lead. And YES you will be the same person... only with a hell of alot more money and fame. Natural beauty also comes from the inside.... which you most certainly seem to have. if i was you ( I more then likly would never leave the mirror lookin at my upper bpdy ;) i'd let them remove the scar's .... use them as they are trying to use you.. get the exposure and run with it as far as the train goes... gl in whatever you do

---

This isn't a big money gig. I can tell just by how the guy responds to queries. I would venture to guess this site is bigger.

Jackie T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scar

dairy free sorbet and vegan chocolate chip cookies?

---

:luxhello:

couldn't help it, had to post it.

OK so here's th progress....

my BF told the art director of the mag that I didn't want my scars removed and explained why. It actually started a huge argument between the art director and whoever is above him, cause once he thought about it he agreed that if you were trying to show art you'd leave the scars in. Plus, there's bondage in the mag, and he felt if that could be shown so should my arms. He ended up QUITTING his job over the issue! Can you believe it?

That aside- if it had been a paying gig, I would happily allow them to remove my scars. I have been in shoots were they removed my scars and changed my name, the payoff is money. This magazine wasn't offering money, as MOST don't, it was purely for the love of art and exposure and all that. I understand the essence of modelling is to have a look where you can easily transform your appearance, and that's what a MODEL is supposed to do. However I am not THAT kind of model, I am a interesting looking chick who people have asked to photograph, as myself, over the years. The difference being MODELS get paid big bucks to be adaptable physically. I am in this whole getting-naked-for-the-camera thing cause I like getting naked for the camera. not cause I wanna be rich or famous or glamorous.... I wanna be me and express who I am for people who wanna look :-)

Quote:

---

if i was you ( I more then likly would never leave the mirror lookin at my upper bpdy

---

upper body? get a full length mirror :P hehee!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmmcherry

upper body? get a full length mirror :P hehee!

---

i's be sitting on a mirror and squishing by boobies till i went permanantly crosseyed

hahaa!!!! omg bohoki... that is too funny :D:D