Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge
Thread started 15 Jan 2018 (Monday) 11:29
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Don't know what to make of this

 
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Jan 15, 2018 11:29 |  #1

I posted this in Glamour and Nude Talk yesterday becaues it seemed pertinent to that forum. So far, 32 views and not a single comment. Hmm.

I have cast aspersions on the GWC who is primarily interested in getting in a model's pants and uses the camera as an instrument toward that end. My perception is/was that a true professional would not be so characterized. From the article in the NY Times, and if the allegations are substantive, it seems that I was mistaken.

That no one in the other forum had anything to say is interesting. I would like to broaden the audience.

Here's my post from yesterday:

Sunday's NY Times had an article about multiple allegations from male models against renowned fashion photographers Bruce Weber and Mario Testino. I admit that I am somewhat befuddled. I am not an experienced glamour/nude photographer. Although I have had two such sessions over the years. It never occurred to me that it was ever all right to touch the model let alone hit on her/him. In other circles, it has been considered the first commandment that you never, ever touch the model. Am I wrong? Could someone more experienced address this issue? I really would like to know.

Here's a link to the NY Times piece: https://www.nytimes.co​m ...eber-harassment.html?_r=0 (external link)


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​texternal link
Editing ok

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,783 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. 4 edits done in total.
Jan 15, 2018 11:40 |  #2

Leaving my own moral comments out of the acts described in the article, I am confused about the recent shift where people are coming forward with what we conceive to be today's standards on yesterday's activities.

If back in the 1990s, those activities were considered by models to be the price for gaining notoriety, but now that wouldn't be, why raise those activities now in today's society for what was considered normal then? This is a rampant thing now, and there has to be some sort of statute of limitations for these things.

Would that be condoned now? Nope, but it was then. Just like comments and behavior of men toward women in the workplace. What happened in 1995 in some office somewhere should not be tried now in today's court of public opinion.

It is a very slippery slope. We are now headed toward a place where anything you have ever done in your life can be tried later in life once laws and public opinion has shifted against you. Think of the implications of that, it is quite scary. You could be the most moral person, NOW, and in 20 years, morals then could cause you to be tried in the courts of social media and civil suits, ruining your life. The acts here seemed deplorable now, but back then, was it?


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,936 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Jan 15, 2018 13:21 |  #3

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415 (external link)
If back in the 1990s, those activities were considered by models to be the price for gaining notoriety, but now that wouldn't be, why raise those activities now in today's society for what was considered normal then? . . . What happened in 1995 in some office somewhere should not be tried now in today's court of public opinion.

What happened in 1995 should be publicized because people who still regard forcing young men into what is essentially prostitution for the sake of their careers as normal need to be told that it was wrong then and it's wrong now. These abusers of power may not care that it's wrong, but they'll care if they become less likely to get by with it. The publicity will also encourage models to say no and refuse to keep the abusers' secrets.

It still happens. The son of a friend of mine was interested in modeling. He abandoned that pursuit when he learned what he'd be required to do to get work.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
number ­ six
"After 40 years still not housebroken, I still piddle on the carpet"
number six's Avatar
8,901 posts
Joined May 2007
SF Bay Area
Jan 15, 2018 14:30 |  #4

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415 (external link)
It is a very slippery slope. We are now headed toward a place where anything you have ever done in your life can be tried later in life once laws and public opinion has shifted against you. Think of the implications of that, it is quite scary. You could be the most moral person, NOW, and in 20 years, morals then could cause you to be tried in the courts of social media and civil suits, ruining your life. The acts here seemed deplorable now, but back then, was it?

Yes.


"Be seeing you."
50D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 18-55 IS - 28-105 II USM - 60 f/2.8 macro - 70-200 f/4 L - Sigma flash
I do not piddle on the carpet!

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,783 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. 7 edits done in total.
Jan 15, 2018 14:44 |  #5

number six wrote in post #18541559 (external link)
Yes.

If so, why weren't these raise up in news outlets to create a public outcry back then? I don't remember any such thing, yet it was a common expectation in the modeling and acting scene that there would be some sort of sexual advances or more. If it was so deplorable then, why didn't the public get into an uproar like they do now? Just a question, my intention isn't to invalidate your response. I agree with it, but again social values and limits to what behavior others expected of you was quite a bit different, and constantly changes. Not always in a good way, but a society's value system does constantly ebb and flow over time.

This is a huge philosophical discussion, one that is raised in classes, so I doubt we will get any answers that will please most people. :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,783 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 15, 2018 14:46 as a reply to OhLook's post |  #6

I certainly appreciate bringing current affairs to light, but it doesn't take 1995 events to do that. In this case, perhaps these gentlemen are only trying to raise awareness, however, many times, there are other ulterior motives involved. My comments are also a bit more generic than just this one case. Just be careful where the bar is set on these types of things.

This is an obvious egregious situation, but as we go down this slope, who knows where bottom is on what somebody can dredge up from any person's past to file litigation or to create a public stir to ruin a life. This is just my personal view however, but I am old enough to have seen, and are seeing, many of these types of slippery slopes of which there is no bottom, so many things in the past that were just accepted. We are trying things in the future for what happened in the past where there wouldn't have been any trials. This is like Minority Report, but in reverse.

Again, I am not condoning the actions of the photographers, nor the stress or pressure they put on their clients in order to satisfy their desires, but this was indeed status quo then in all of the modeling and acting arenas. It was a standard expectation that one would have to sleep with a director/producer just to get a part, even, which didn't happen here. It still is in fact, despite all the discriminatory laws and quid pro quo statutes we have in place now. :(


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,936 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Jan 15, 2018 15:46 |  #7

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541574 (external link)
If so, why weren't these raise up in news outlets to create a public outcry back then? I don't remember any such thing, yet it was a common expectation in the modeling and acting scene that there would be some sort of sexual advances or more. If it was so deplorable then, why didn't the public get into an uproar like they do now?

I'm not sure the public is in an uproar now. The casting-couch issue is in the news, but most people don't write the news, they read it.

If you're asking why these specific offenses didn't make the news at the time, with the perpetrators' names, plausible reasons exist. Models who could have reported the incidents had little bargaining power and remained dependent on the men they would have accused. They may also have feared losing other gigs if they showed themselves willing to "tell on" photographers and agents. Some may have felt they'd done something wrong that brought trouble on themselves: unknowingly acted flirtatious or seductive, let themselves be drawn into a sexual situation, or just been naive. In addition, many people consider their sexuality private and dislike drawing strangers' attention to it. Haven't you ever seen that women say testifying in court was like getting raped all over again?


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

571 views & 8 likes for this thread
Don't know what to make of this
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00121 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is NormanS
975 guests, 450 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017