Models are Human Beings

[The Newswire]

It seems like it should be unnecessary to point out that models are human beings, but a lot of people seem to have difficulty with this. Nobody is as beautiful as their best photo or as hideous as their worst. Ugly may go to the bone, but beauty is still only skin deep. All true.

The nature of digital interaction makes the relationship of humans with their images more difficult. Once upon a time, my unsavory pals and I could hang out at our punk rock group house and, if someone said a model...

Read the full article

[Rockwulf]

I treat models just like I do everyone else. Online and offline. Some people I make fun of, some people I desperately want to but for whatever reason don't, and those that deserve it get compliments.

[Amelia G]

I treat models just like I do everyone else. Online and offline. Some people I make fun of, some people I desperately want to but for whatever reason don't, and those that deserve it get compliments.

Actually, I believe you. Although I find it more amusing when you make fun of people I feel deserve it than when you make fun of people I like. But isn't that always the way.

[nathanmbailey]

The only people I go out of my way to be an asshole to are my friends, but that's just how I am. I don't have the time to waste on people I don't care about, so they get indifference. Unless they say or do something stupid.

[Lady Alias]

Pretty much what Nathan said.

[mystoo]

That makes 3 of us.

[TheDeathKnight]

Although once you agree to pose for some kind of public photography, and put yourself out there, you are opening yourself up to criticism. I was having this debate with some people recently, mainly about how guys critique girls on tv, movies, and magazines, especially celebs, with an extreme level of expected perfection. And yet many times the guys making the negative comments are NOT sexy, nor fit, nor much of a catch themselves. But we kind of agreed that it's different if you critique someone in the public eye, versus critiquing a regular girl you meet on a date, or at work, etc. I expect normal people to look "normal". But if you take nude models and porn stars, you are evaluating who is the hottest out of a huge selection of "hot" people who are also out there posing nude. So it gets to be a lot more specific about who has the best breasts, best body, etc. Because you are comparing IMAGES, not human beings. You are saying, "This photo is the hottest, because this particular girl has PERFECT breasts, a PERFECT pose, etc" It has nothing to do if that person is an awesome person or a terrible person. Once you put an image out there, it's up for evaluation.

[Amelia G]

Although once you agree to pose for some kind of public photography, and put yourself out there, you are opening yourself up to criticism. I was having this debate with some people recently, mainly about how guys critique girls on tv, movies, and magazines, especially celebs, with an extreme level of expected perfection. And yet many times the guys making the negative comments are NOT sexy, nor fit, nor much of a catch themselves. But we kind of agreed that it's different if you critique someone in the public eye, versus critiquing a regular girl you meet on a date, or at work, etc. I expect normal people to look "normal". But if you take nude models and porn stars, you are evaluating who is the hottest out of a huge selection of "hot" people who are also out there posing nude. So it gets to be a lot more specific about who has the best breasts, best body, etc. Because you are comparing IMAGES, not human beings. You are saying, "This photo is the hottest, because this particular girl has PERFECT breasts, a PERFECT pose, etc" It has nothing to do if that person is an awesome person or a terrible person. Once you put an image out there, it's up for evaluation.

How many images of someone should be out there before it is okay to treat them as either worthless or godlike for the appearance of those images? I think the difficulty comes in when an audience for an image dehumanizes the person in it. Almost everyone in our society now has avatars and text representing them in the digital world. I don't think we will all enjoy living in a society where every little thing is put on trial. But so many people are photographed today that dehumanizing everyone who appears in images is just going to lead to an unpleasant culture. It makes me not want to photograph anyone, if doing so will either subject them to that kind of casual cruelty or put them up on a pedestal. When people extrapolate from a few appealing or unappealing images what a person is like, they are almost guaranteed to be wrong.

[TheDeathKnight]

But most people aren't even evaluating the person at all.

They are just evaluating the appeal of the image.

Like a photo of a flower.







Which one is better?
Which one is more appealing?

People will have tons of different opinions, and will debate which one they like endlessly.
And it will get very detailed, and very involved. Perhaps picking out small flaws with the flowers, with the images, and so on. And the same thing happens with images of human beings. I could just as easily put up 3 pictures of different kinds of men, and asked the women on this board what they think of those photos.. And some women would think certain guys were more sexy than others, and for a variety of reasons. Does it mean the ugly guy isn't an awesome person? Do you know if the hot male model is a jerk? No. You don't know anything about the model in an image. All you are evaluating is how they look, and the feeling the image creates. It's not about personality.

[Amelia G]

But most people aren't even evaluating the person at all.

They are just evaluating the appeal of the image.

Like a photo of a flower.







Which one is better?
Which one is more appealing?

People will have tons of different opinions, and will debate which one they like endlessly.
And it will get very detailed, and very involved. Perhaps picking out small flaws with the flowers, with the images, and so on. And the same thing happens with images of human beings. I could just as easily put up 3 pictures of different kinds of men, and asked the women on this board what they think of those photos.. And some women would think certain guys were more sexy than others, and for a variety of reasons. Does it mean the ugly guy isn't an awesome person? Do you know if the hot male model is a jerk? No. You don't know anything about the model in an image. All you are evaluating is how they look, and the feeling the image creates. It's not about personality.

I feel like the problem is that a lot of people will see a photo of somebody and decide they know everything there is to know about the person and really dehumanize them. For example, someone could post either really interesting and insightful things or really idiotic and close-minded things on a forum, but response to that person will often be either super-positive or super-negative based on a few pictures.

And, honestly, I don't think any of us do ourselves a service by becoming psycho judgmental of people we see in images, in an age when so much interaction is online, and so many of us have an avatar representation that far more people will see than what we look like or present like day-to-day.

I also think it is very unhealthy that many people define themselves as either nice or feminist for being very positive about someone they saw a picture of or very nonconformist or individualistic for being very negative about someone they saw a picture of.

[Alliecat]

This is a good point to bring up. It definitely made me think about my own critiques and comments I've left about models/photography.

The hard part is finding that line. When are we being rude? When are we praising too much?
Is it harsh Critique or just being a jerk? It's the internet, so we always have to accept there will be 4chanre's out there. That's just going to happen- when people can hide behind a screen.

I've been guilty of saying rude things about models on the internet. In my own defense, it mostly has to do with the message the photographer is trying to convey, and the model he chooses that I feel doesn't match. For example, A photographer taking a picture of a woman in black and white to show off how beautiful she is, and commenting to that effect, trying to capture the essence of 'woman', for lack of a better description. But then I feel the model contradicts his meaning when she has something altered in her body (implants, nose job) since those curves aren't real, and I'll point that out. Of course, it is callous of me, and I am am told this through other comments, but I feel the message of the photographer is false.

I also feel that something that isn't helping, is that many photographers (or graphic designers) alter the photo to the point where I feel it would be better to consider it photo manipulation, and no longer photography. These women are altered to be impossibly beautiful to the point where now we on the internet, are over it, and waiting for the next elevation (minus the creeps who never find a chick pretty, like above comment where creepy guys who would never get a second glance are commenting) So like everything, there is a backlash- and those who worship it.

Maybe we need a super back-lash to everything! Just start taking wonderful pictures of normal, unique or interesting looking people and barely altering them, and see what happens. Kinda of like what you are doing.

[Raza]

I don't generally bother critiquing aesthetic. The only way it can fail is by not impressing me, in which case no reaction is warranted; most of the world falls into this category.

Seems to me that people doing this generally have something else to express. The subject offends them somehow (although this can be very subtle and very few would describe themselves as being offended); either through dissonance of identity, or because they were expecting something different. Neither reflects on the subject so much as the relationship between the subject and the critic as experienced by the latter, which is not really a useful thing to know about for anybody else.

Suckups, I just don't get. It's not in my nature anywhere; there's nothing for me to relate to. Respect people earn from me for one thing does not leak into my opinion of them on any other subject, and I've no urge to pretend otherwise.

A lot of models are afraid to go interact in public because people online can be so critical and most models know they are not as beautiful as the best photos where they were lit well, made up just right, dressed in clothing they may not own, shot with good composition, and post processed to perfection. In real life, people tend not to say the sort of rude things they write when in keyboard warrior mode. But, after seeing one’s best efforts nit-picked to death online, not just models, but most creative people find it more difficult to interact IRL.

This is most likely personal pride, but I do find that I hold it against people a little when they represent themselves through 'professional' photos that are for a large part not the product of their own efforts. When I see "Photo (c) soandso, makup by X, clothing provided by Y" under a picture I have a hard time seeing it as anybody's personal achievement.

[TheDeathKnight]

Yeah, but there are so many wanna-be models and photographers now.

So on one hand, you have some people who are overly critical of them, because they don't stack up to the "pros". So some slightly overweight girl has her boyfriend take some pictures in their bedroom, and call it "fetish modeling". And some people say it's bad photography, or that she's not attractive. But then on the other hand, you have the people who tell everyone that their work is amazing, and they are beautiful, etc. And many times I really disagree, but like Raza, I keep my mouth shut about it most of the time. I figure if it makes them feel good to model for pictures, then good for them. But I can't lie, and pretend that their body, or photography, is very good.

To me, the line is crossed as soon as you put it out there for public review and consumption. Like Raza and his girlfriend take pictures for their own enjoyment. So they could keep them to themselves, and just have fun dressing up. But if they post photos here, they have to be open to criticism. It's one thing if someone says, "Hey, me and my boyfriend were just goofing around and took some pictures..." In that case, I am assuming it's amateur, and I am not going to judge it the same way. But if someone says, "Take a look at this professional photoshoot I just did..." Then I am going to compare it to all the other photographers and models out there.

[Aza]

I can understand both sides of this argument...

On the one hand, I've never been the type of asshole that purposefully points out anyone's flaws who isn't deliberately asking me to perform such a critiquing service.

On the other, such assholes do exist in-mass, and smart models go into the industry knowing of their existence. I honestly believe that any models who embark upon a career based on their physical appearance, yet expect never to hear the worst about themselves, are being unrealistic.

I'm not enough of an asshole to shoot a cop... yet cops go on-duty every day knowing full well that they might get shot.

I'm not enough of an asshole to file a malpractice suit against a doctor who honestly tried to fix me... but so many other patients manage not to let that bother them, and most doctors seem prepared for the eventuality.

I'm not enough of an asshole to yell at a chef for cooking my steak just a millisecond too long... but I think the guy next to me just went into the back and threw his at the chef's face because he found a small piece of red pepper clinging to it.

I'm not enough of an asshole to boo a fellow actor offstage, because I know firsthand that the world of Acting is at least as cutthroat as the Modeling industry. I've seen and heard it happen though, and I've gone on for every performance of my life expecting even the vague possibility of like treatment.

People risk all sorts of things, from their dignities to their very lives, in order to do what they want to do. If you ask me, models who can't take criticism should accept that they're too thin-skinned for the industry and pursue other lines of work.

[keiko]

As a model who is friends with models here's the way I look at it:
We are all very aware of our faults. Hell, we're more self critical than the average shmoe with ever be. Modelling is not the industry for the thin skinned. Beauty may only be skin deep, but insults cut to the bone. there's nothing more aggravating that having someone point out flaws we are already aware of, flaws that we have to silence in our heads with sheer force of will. Yes, some models lie to them selves, not as badly as the rest of you do. We're fully aware of the 1/2 lb of cellulite on our thighs, or the zit on our neck, muffin top over our jeans, that fact that our ass is too big to let the pockets of the jeans lie flat, that breasts aren't the right size, our nose needs work, not enough/too many tattoos. We know. We've heard it from our peers, from our mirrors, from the photographer who aims around these flaws, from the photoshop wizards who had to do touch ups, from critics etc. here in a community where at least half the activity is pictures and/or posts from models there is no need to be pointing out flaws. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

~K

[Raza]

I would say that as a general rule, everybody is subject to criticism over everything they do and everything they don't do. That's just the way of a world where accuracy is not a requisite for having and expressing an opinion.

How openly you act ties into the likelihood of feedback practically, but I don't see how it relates ethically. You can say anything you want about anyone you want; I would say that the question is more whether you enjoy doing so or have something insightful to share than whether someone is 'fair game' for a certain category of feedback.

[Amelia G]

I can understand both sides of this argument...

On the one hand, I've never been the type of asshole that purposefully points out anyone's flaws who isn't deliberately asking me to perform such a critiquing service.

On the other, such assholes do exist in-mass, and smart models go into the industry knowing of their existence. I honestly believe that any models who embark upon a career based on their physical appearance, yet expect never to hear the worst about themselves, are being unrealistic.

I'm not enough of an asshole to shoot a cop... yet cops go on-duty every day knowing full well that they might get shot.

I'm not enough of an asshole to file a malpractice suit against a doctor who honestly tried to fix me... but so many other patients manage not to let that bother them, and most doctors seem prepared for the eventuality.

I'm not enough of an asshole to yell at a chef for cooking my steak just a millisecond too long... but I think the guy next to me just went into the back and threw his at the chef's face because he found a small piece of red pepper clinging to it.

I'm not enough of an asshole to boo a fellow actor offstage, because I know firsthand that the world of Acting is at least as cutthroat as the Modeling industry. I've seen and heard it happen though, and I've gone on for every performance of my life expecting even the vague possibility of like treatment.

People risk all sorts of things, from their dignities to their very lives, in order to do what they want to do. If you ask me, models who can't take criticism should accept that they're too thin-skinned for the industry and pursue other lines of work.

I think the problem lies in digital communication requiring photographic avatars. Many feel less trust for people they can't see a picture of. But, once a picture is taken, there seems to be the sense that someone is a model and should be subject to either sycophantic worship or bullying nit-picking.

I don't like to shoot people who are solely models. When I started Blue Blood, the notion of someone with funny-colored hair or tattoos calling themselves a model would have been laughable.

Today, it is almost peculiar for someone female to insist she is not a model and would like to be judged on attributes besides her physical appearance as recorded in pictures. And I think it is more difficult for someone male to come across as a memorable person because, for some weird reason, so few people want to photograph men. So men have very few options for social influence online and women are generally given some options to be judged on things which, as Raza pointed out, they may have had very little hand in.

Oh, and almost nobody can make a lifetime career out of modeling.

[Raza]

I think the problem lies in digital communication requiring photographic avatars. Many feel less trust for people they can't see a picture of. But, once a picture is taken, there seems to be the sense that someone is a model and should be subject to either sycophantic worship or bullying nit-picking.

This is insightful. On the 'nets, appearance gets ripped from its place as something automatically part of social contact. Here, the decision to share is active rather than passive, which places it in a different mental category for people delivering feedback to it.

I'm not sure that not showing a picture isn't a perfectly valid default, though. I know I personally just engage faceless people online on other, generally more intellectual levels. In fact, I'd say it allows for contact that bypasses many popular opportunities for prejudice - like for example my own, talking to normal looking adults that I'd refuse to give more than poorly veiled hints of disinterest had I met them in person.

[Aza]

Once upon a time, seeing what someone looked like was a prerequisite for getting to know them. Then came the ability to insult others however we wished without having to take the physical punch-to-the-face that would ordinarily result.

The world certainly hasn't changed; it's just that these days there are fewer personal health risks to being an asshole.

Fucking internet.

[Raza]

Or maybe it's that there's fewer opportunities of taking one's assholiness out on people's personal health, and a global database of people looking different from oneself is providing an intuitive alternative. =)

[Aza]

Or maybe it's that there's fewer opportunities of taking one's assholiness out on people's personal health, and a global database of people looking different from oneself is providing an intuitive alternative. =)

Oh, how I mourn for the passing of the days when our pron came in a form that gave people no option to insult the model directly (without postage required), and left only the choice: to either rub one out, or move onto the next magazine photo.

[TheDeathKnight]

But especially with nude photography and porn, that's the exact thing that causes the "evaluation". You look at one picture, and if that photo doesn't turn you on, you go onto the next one. The problem with the internet, is that there is such a vast amount of naked images. So you aren't looking at each nude female as a real woman you might meet tomorrow. You are looking at it as pure visual stimulation. So I am not concerned about that model's feelings, if I choose to skip one girl's image, and go look at a different one, because that girl is more attractive, or suits my fancy better. To me, it's just an image. I take a totally different view of appraising women in real-world situations. But if I am looking at hundreds of images of models, I am not really evaluating those women as people. I am evaluating the images themselves. So an image that's well-photoshopped, or has good lighting, might look much hotter than a poorly shot image. But to me that has nothing to do with the actual girl. The actual girl in the crappy picture could be much cooler, much nicer, and might even be hotter than the heavily photoshopped girl in real life. But I'm not even worried about that unless I actually meet them at some point...

[Amelia G]

But especially with nude photography and porn, that's the exact thing that causes the "evaluation". You look at one picture, and if that photo doesn't turn you on, you go onto the next one. The problem with the internet, is that there is such a vast amount of naked images. So you aren't looking at each nude female as a real woman you might meet tomorrow. You are looking at it as pure visual stimulation. So I am not concerned about that model's feelings, if I choose to skip one girl's image, and go look at a different one, because that girl is more attractive, or suits my fancy better. To me, it's just an image. I take a totally different view of appraising women in real-world situations. But if I am looking at hundreds of images of models, I am not really evaluating those women as people. I am evaluating the images themselves. So an image that's well-photoshopped, or has good lighting, might look much hotter than a poorly shot image. But to me that has nothing to do with the actual girl. The actual girl in the crappy picture could be much cooler, much nicer, and might even be hotter than the heavily photoshopped girl in real life. But I'm not even worried about that unless I actually meet them at some point...

Of course everyone is going to appraise pictures for their own personal entertainment. That is practically automatic and involuntary. The difficulty is when people extrapolate either wonderful or terrible qualities based on only a picture. And the difficulty is that, as a society, it is destructive to discourage everyone -- except the most thick-skinned and most freakishly talented -- for fear of being made to bear the brunt of extremely nit-picky hostile criticism.

Where do you draw the line between someone you would treat with humanity and someone you would be casually cruel to because you felt they had put themselves out there?

[Aza]

Where do you draw the line between someone you would treat with humanity and someone you would be casually cruel to because you felt they had put themselves out there?

I guess it depends on where one chooses to draw the line between casual cruelty and constructive criticism. For me personally, the line is this: the latter is verbally requested, whereas the former is volunteered.

It sounds like what we need is the verbal testimony of a heartless asshole to find out why assholes behave like assholes. Those of us who see neither necessity nor entertainment value in casual cruelty (and I hope that's most of us on these forums) can theorize all we want, but until and unless we can actually understand in our own heads the benefits (if any) that come with making others feel like shit, we shall remain as clueless as someone without asthma trying to use an inhaler.

[Rockwulf]

Once upon a time, seeing what someone looked like was a prerequisite for getting to know them. Then came the ability to insult others however we wished without having to take the physical punch-to-the-face that would ordinarily result.

The world certainly hasn't changed; it's just that these days there are fewer personal health risks to being an asshole.

Fucking internet.

I guess it depends on where one chooses to draw the line between casual cruelty and constructive criticism. For me personally, the line is this: the latter is verbally requested, whereas the former is volunteered.

It sounds like what we need is the verbal testimony of a heartless asshole to find out why assholes behave like assholes. Those of us who see neither necessity nor entertainment value in casual cruelty (and I hope that's most of us on these forums) can theorize all we want, but until and unless we can actually understand in our own heads the benefits (if any) that come with making others feel like shit, we shall remain as clueless as someone without asthma trying to use an inhaler.

Ahem, I believe I can help you with that. Hi, my name is Rockwulf and I'm an asshole. I started out with the gateways to assholism, good natured banter with my friends, pranks, then I started moving up to the harder stuff, heckling open mic nights, even just flat out laughing at people for saying/doing things that I thought were stupid.

It was all for laughs. An asshole with an audience is a deeply dangerous thing. Because if I know I can make an entire room laugh at the expense of one person, I'll take that shot every time. People say all the time on TV and movies things like, "Would you kill one man to save 20" but saving lives is noble. I just use the same logic for the lol's. Because it amuses me.

Now normally when I'm in a IRL social situation, and for the most part online as well, I try to be an "equal opportunity asshole" and spread it around. Sure, Joe just said somethin' dumb and I called him on it and he feels like crap, but in a matter of moments Sue is gonna trip and fall on her face and I'll crack on her and Joe will laugh his balls off. Targets of opportunity.

But on the other hand I have a pretty good sense of humor and don't take myself all seriously. So when I inevitably take my turn for looking like a dumbass for whatever reason, I can take all the jokes at my expense as jokes and laugh along with it. It's all part of the game.

[TheDeathKnight]

Where do you draw the line between someone you would treat with humanity and someone you would be casually cruel to because you felt they had put themselves out there?

Let's say someone posts a picture on some mainly male message board, on a thread about "hot chicks", and asks people what they think.

The guys are going to say all kinds of things, both good and bad. Let's assume the girl is actually in decent shape, and is reasonably attractive. People will still say things like:

"She's sexy, but her ass is a little too big for my taste"
"Her nose looks a little crooked"
"She's ok, but Angelina Jolie is hotter..."

Now 90% of those guys could be unattractive, dorky, unsuccessful, and have no chance of ever hooking up with that model. Nor will they ever meet her in person. But they are still expressing their opinions about her image. But they are just comparing the hotness of that model's image, against other images of hot models they have seen before. They are comparing images. Not the actual women. I just don't think you should pose for pictures, unless you are willing to accept the fact that people are going to evaluate and compare them.

[Alliecat]

I can understand both sides of this argument...

On the one hand, I've never been the type of asshole that purposefully points out anyone's flaws who isn't deliberately asking me to perform such a critiquing service.

On the other, such assholes do exist in-mass, and smart models go into the industry knowing of their existence. I honestly believe that any models who embark upon a career based on their physical appearance, yet expect never to hear the worst about themselves, are being unrealistic.
...
People risk all sorts of things, from their dignities to their very lives, in order to do what they want to do. If you ask me, models who can't take criticism should accept that they're too thin-skinned for the industry and pursue other lines of work.

I completely agree. I also agree with TheDeathKnight. Criticism is inevitable esp. on the internet. As ~K pointed out as well, models get criticism from everyone. Every profession, as Aza points out, does get criticism. Everyone one who posts up on the internet for public view is asking for feedback- unless they disable comments or give a disclaimer saying they were just goofing off and not serious (still).

Models are about their looks, so what are people going to critique/attack? There are assholes out there, and yes, people should try and be more civil, but there are always going to be clashing personalities and people who are mean. A model just has to learn when to listen and when to ignore. Artists in training have to learn that, and artists also have their work knit-picked.

Maybe it doesn't seem as bad when it's an artist/cook/something else because what's being critiqued isn't your looks, but that's how the model has to treat it- It's not you as a person, it's not you personally, it's <i>that picture</i>- that art piece, that steak.
What you're selling.

[Amelia G]

Let's say someone posts a picture on some mainly male message board, on a thread about "hot chicks", and asks people what they think.

The guys are going to say all kinds of things, both good and bad. Let's assume the girl is actually in decent shape, and is reasonably attractive. People will still say things like:

"She's sexy, but her ass is a little too big for my taste"
"Her nose looks a little crooked"
"She's ok, but Angelina Jolie is hotter..."

Now 90% of those guys could be unattractive, dorky, unsuccessful, and have no chance of ever hooking up with that model. Nor will they ever meet her in person. But they are still expressing their opinions about her image. But they are just comparing the hotness of that model's image, against other images of hot models they have seen before. They are comparing images. Not the actual women. I just don't think you should pose for pictures, unless you are willing to accept the fact that people are going to evaluate and compare them.

You kind of don't exist in the digital world without a visual representation. So does that mean that we just throw all humanity and manners out the window and concentrate on cruelty or sycophantism for anyone who has an avatar level of solid presence on the internet? Should people really avoid doing anything productive, to the point where they are practically invisible, just to be granted a bit of humanity in how they are treated?

[Aza]

You kind of don't exist in the digital world without a visual representation. So does that mean that we just throw all humanity and manners out the window and concentrate on cruelty or sycophantism for anyone who has an avatar level of solid presence on the internet? Should people really avoid doing anything productive, to the point where they are practically invisible, just to be granted a bit of humanity in how they are treated?

Oh, hell no. At least, I hope no one would jump to that conclusion. I just look at the effort, time and money that it would take to gather all the people in the world who've ever thrown tact out the window for their own amusement and have them either chastised or executed (which would pretty much make us the assholes at that point)... and I find it's cheaper and easier to advise their victims to get over it while I try to set a decent example myself.

The ability to roll with the punches is particularly important for those attempting to do something constructive! Don't give up hope on your dreams just because of the inevitable negative comment, critique or crushing insult; your ability to persevere in the face of such pathetic obstacles are what will determine whether the dream you're attempting to realize is something for which you're really willing to struggle.

Celebrities have been dealing with this sort of thing for years. The internet makes it possible for anyone to be an instant celebrity by placing our faces and our words where all can see them. It's essentially self-elevation, and it brings as much resentment as admiration. I wish I could see a light at the end of this particular tunnel, but I think that human nature (most specifically, its inability to exist without social conflict) may have screwed us on this one.

[Raza]

You kind of don't exist in the digital world without a visual representation. So does that mean that we just throw all humanity and manners out the window and concentrate on cruelty or sycophantism for anyone who has an avatar level of solid presence on the internet? Should people really avoid doing anything productive, to the point where they are practically invisible, just to be granted a bit of humanity in how they are treated?

Are you sure you're not reaching this conclusion with some selection bias going on? I imagine you'd be especially involved online with people and communities focusing on photography, modelling and other visual content.

There's many corners of the internet where avatars are impopular, overlooked or not even activated. In many communities, the standard is to have some cartoon or meme image as an avatar, or none at all. On the chans, you don't even get a useraccount, let alone a picture to mask it with.

I know that at least half the places I hang online, I either don't bother uploading an avatar, don't get the option of uploading an avatar, or am part of a small minority having an avatar that's a real life picture of me - to the point where most people's don't even guess that that's what it is. It's really only places about alt culture/general creativity and personal networking sites where pictures play a big role, and on facebook where everything is professional and sterile and real names and crap I don't think I've ever had a picture comment.

[TheDeathKnight]

The thread title says this is about models.

Not normal people with an avatar image on the internet.

I know tons of people who have totally normal snapshot avatars.
Or cartoon images.

If people on here asked me to post a high-quality photo of myself, I could still upload a totally normal flash photo from a party, or some other casual event. And I would not expect people to be evaluating me as a "model". It's usually pretty clear when an image is from a photo shoot, and not just a snapshot.

Anything that looks artistic, or the person is posing nude, is pretty obviously meant to be evaluated.

[Amelia G]

The thread title says this is about models.

Not normal people with an avatar image on the internet.

I know tons of people who have totally normal snapshot avatars.
Or cartoon images.

If people on here asked me to post a high-quality photo of myself, I could still upload a totally normal flash photo from a party, or some other casual event. And I would not expect people to be evaluating me as a "model". It's usually pretty clear when an image is from a photo shoot, and not just a snapshot.

Anything that looks artistic, or the person is posing nude, is pretty obviously meant to be evaluated.

Part of my vision back in 1992 was to give opportunities and immortality to people I thought were awesome who were not visible in media of the time.

I used to try to avoid ever using the word model to apply to anyone I would photograph or publish other people's photographs of, but it eventually became too difficult and technically a person in a picture is modeling, whether or not it is well-lit and whether or not that person has something interesting about them besides what they look like.

Where do you draw the line and decide that a person is no longer deserving of common courtesy?

Just because the images are well-lit or look artistic at say a party I shoot, does that mean every person I chose to shoot is deserving of abuse and ridicule by people less attractive than they are, deserving of being put on trial for every little nit-picky thing just because someone above imbecile level chose to take their picture?

[Rockwulf]

Part of my vision back in 1992 was to give opportunities and immortality to people I thought were awesome who were not visible in media of the time.

I used to try to avoid ever using the word model to apply to anyone I would photograph or publish other people's photographs of, but it eventually became too difficult and technically a person in a picture is modeling, whether or not it is well-lit and whether or not that person has something interesting about them besides what they look like.

Where do you draw the line and decide that a person is no longer deserving of common courtesy?

Just because the images are well-lit or look artistic at say a party I shoot, does that mean every person I chose to shoot is deserving of abuse and ridicule by people less attractive than they are, deserving of being put on trial for every little nit-picky thing just because someone above imbecile level chose to take their picture?

Public figures are public figures. Period. Whether it's a politician, porn-star, hockey player, or actor, the minute they voluntarily make the decision that says "Why yes, I do think I'll strip down naked/put on my team's uniform/call a press conference, etc., they're no longer sheltered in the "I'm just a private citizen and want to be left alone" bubble.

Just because you might have tossed back a few drinks together doesn't mean that you're their new guardian angel against any negative comments

[Amelia G]

Public figures are public figures. Period. Whether it's a politician, porn-star, hockey player, or actor, the minute they voluntarily make the decision that says "Why yes, I do think I'll strip down naked/put on my team's uniform/call a press conference, etc., they're no longer sheltered in the "I'm just a private citizen and want to be left alone" bubble.

Just because you might have tossed back a few drinks together doesn't mean that you're their new guardian angel against any negative comments

So, in your mind, are you a public figure?

Do you think that common courtesy should not be extended to anyone who has actually accomplished something, no matter how tiny that accomplishment is? If so, you do understand that this will discourage human achievement, right?

[Mindgames]

That's completely true, but none of them are doing it because they like the critical comments - they're doing it despite of them. You'll never get rid of the critics, free world and all that, but a politician and a porn star are equally easy to offend by telling them they look like crap. For people who choose to sell their image, it's a product they have to be proud of just like any other "manufacturer" - you expect the world to agree with you (however misguided that may be), so even tiny negative comments stand out a mile. Models are, I agree, in a slightly complex category as they're only in work because someone didn't like the others in the casting call, but the end product - the photo - can't be separated from the people who caused it. Every photo ever taken has something wrong with it, and we all know which we each prefer - but nobody's claiming perfection, and most don't have the money to get close to it. We're talking (with respect) about JPEGs on a website, not the cover of Vanity Fair.

Being a public figure usually makes you far less self-confident than the average Joe - you can see quite how fragile the pedestal you've been stood on really is.

Public figures are public figures. Period. Whether it's a politician, porn-star, hockey player, or actor, the minute they voluntarily make the decision that says "Why yes, I do think I'll strip down naked/put on my team's uniform/call a press conference, etc., they're no longer sheltered in the "I'm just a private citizen and want to be left alone" bubble.

[Raza]

Money doesn't buy perfection, just flawless repetition.

[TheDeathKnight]

As soon as it goes on the net, it's public, and people will make comments.

Remember this girl?



She's probably just a normal girl, out dancing at a club.
She's not even a model, and it's not a "professional" photograph.
But because it was out in public, and on the net, people made comments.
That's just human nature. If I go to the beach, and take a picture of a girl in a bikini,
and post it on the net, people are going to comment on if the girl is hot or not.
Just like people would do if they were there in person.
The same way people at that punk show probably said,
"Man, that girl sure is dancing funny!"

You can't stop people from having opinions.

It's up to each individual person to decide if they want to be harsh, or be kind.
And like I said before, I am generally going to be more kind if I know it's a
casual snapshot, but more critical if I think someone is putting themselves
out there as a model, or as art. Especially if you are going to be prancing
around in some skimpy outfit, or nude. In that case, you are opening yourself
up to critique.

If I walk around the beach in a "Borat" swimsuit, I am going to open myself
up to the same kind of criticism. Being nude, or dressing wild or skimpy in
a photo shoot, is like saying "Hey! Look at me!" So you have to expect
people are going to say something...

[Raza]

That's at a punk show?

[LeilaHazlett]

It's up to each individual person to decide if they want to be harsh, or be kind.
And like I said before, I am generally going to be more kind if I know it's a
casual snapshot, but more critical if I think someone is putting themselves
out there as a model, or as art. Especially if you are going to be prancing
around in some skimpy outfit, or nude. In that case, you are opening yourself
up to critique.

I'm pretty much the same way, if a girl is posing as a model then I think she should have the balls to accept critique on her work and her body since part of modeling (nude or otherwise) is not just your style and how you carry yourself but also your physical appearence. While i don't think there is any point in being mean or rude to people just based on a photo the reality is some people are just dicks. When I first started modeling i was harrased by a "photographer" for having surgical scars and my head shaved. I'm glad i didn't let it get to me because now I've had a lot of work published and he dissapeared into obscurity a long time ago.

[Raza]

Iunno. Ideally, everyone should be able to deal with anyone else voicing any possible opinion of them. Certainly, a thick skin is one of the greatest things to have in this world. But considering there's zero conditions to having or voicing an opinion of somebody, I think it's stretching it to say that anything you do is bringing it on yourself.

Which actions or inactions trigger which opinions depends on the opinionate person's personality, exclusively. Certainly some action->reaction combinations are more popular than others, but within the realm of psychological subjectivity that's doesn't really prove anything other than that the people experiencing them probably adopted most of their personalities wholesale from others around them.

People having and voicing opinions of you is just a reality. It doesn't have an ethical or moral nature. There's nothing you can or even should be able to do to completely avoid it. You never 'deserve' it, and neither do you deserve to be exempt from it.

You just deal with it as best you're able, like rain or mosquitoes.