Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Don't know what to make of this

 
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,246 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 387
Joined Dec 2007
Location: 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​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,523 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3740
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed. (4 edits in all)
     
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 Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
16,945 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4005
Joined Dec 2012
Location: 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: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
number ­ six
"After 40 years still not housebroken, I still piddle on the carpet"
Avatar
8,922 posts
Likes: 45
Joined May 2007
Location: 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
Avatar
33,523 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3740
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed. (7 edits in all)
     
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 Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,523 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3740
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
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 Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
16,945 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4005
Joined Dec 2012
Location: 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: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moppie
Moderator
Avatar
14,744 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 131
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Akarana, Aotearoa. (Kiwiland)
     
Feb 23, 2018 15:52 |  #8

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415 (external link)
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.


Except it wasn't normal then, or legal, or morally acceptable. It never has been acceptable to abuse others, to use your perceived power over them to force them to do things they are not ok with.
It wasn't ok in the 80s, the 90s and it isn't ok now, it was never ok, and it never will be ok.

The abuse wasn't condoned by society, the perpetrators simply got away with it. The reasons are complex, wrapped up in attitudes towards the victims (homophobia, misogyny, bigotry etc) and the power relationships that existed at the time. If you think the victims accepted the abuse and condoned it, your greatly mistaken, and have a warped and broken idea of what happened, and what it is like for the victims of abuse.

Fortunately society is slowly moving on from old attitudes and people are able to talk about what happened, they are able to seek some form of justice and hopefully, the victims can finally begin to heal.


flickr (external link)

Have you Calibrated your Monkey lately?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joeseph
"smells like turd"
Avatar
9,464 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 1331
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Feb 24, 2018 01:59 |  #9

I think one of the limitations of the '80s & '90s (and earlier) was the lack of mass communication in that, if someone wanted to get it known that there was inappropriate behavior going on, there was generally a limited audience to tell. With the introduction of the Internet, it's very easy to reach a vast amount of people.


some fairly old canon camera stuff, canon lenses, Manfrotto "thingy", 1D MK II converted for IR, and now an M5
TF posting: here :-)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,325 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2067
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 5 months ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Feb 24, 2018 15:32 |  #10

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18541415 (external link)
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.

yeah, like getting rid of the statue of Christopher Columbus because he was merely behaving in the manner of the rest of the world, with regard to indigenous people they encountered.

  • Have folks bothered to consider all the early fathers of our country who were slave owners? The fact that George Washington was an active slave owner for 56 years, and the Mount Vernon estate’s enslaved population consisted of 317 people. Like Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves.
  • How about the fact that recent news reports have publicized the fact that John McCain's family owned slaves in the pre-Civil War South?
  • How about the now sainted Junipero Serra, the subject of allegations that Serra was involved in the murder and torture of indigenous people who did not willingly submit to the Spanish Crown's program of conquest and religious conversion. During his tenure, the preferred methods of abuse included floggings with heavy leather straps ("Cat o' Nine Tails") or metal-tipped straps; staking out "bad Indians" in the sun for days; putting them in stocks; forcing them to attend Catholic services on pain of beating; and imprisoning them in fetid, disease-riddled rooms.


And then there is the fact that we idealize folks who were the sanctioned pirates (like Sir Francis Drake) operating under commissions from royalty of different countries.
So we selectively apply the mores of today to the behavior of yesterday?

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
I'm having size issues, does this get worse with age?
Avatar
18,042 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 101
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Mar 11, 2018 09:31 |  #11

The fight is about money; don't kid yourself that it is SJW, PC, or whatever it is dressed-up as.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scokar
Goldmember
Avatar
1,071 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 16
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
     
Mar 11, 2018 10:14 |  #12

We need to bring in more broad social issues and a much longer time frame into this thread without focusing on the article or why op needs validation by number of responses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,246 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 387
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Post edited 5 months ago by joedlh.
     
Mar 11, 2018 11:04 |  #13

scokar wrote in post #18582658 (external link)
why op needs validation by number of responses.

You think I need validation by the number of responses? This is too funny. I don't do social networking. I do have a little-used Instagram account that has one "like" and that was me because I accidentally clicked on it one day.

Perhaps I was too subtle when I listed as zero the number of answers to my question in the Glamour and Nude section. Note that it was a question that I had thought would be answered by those whose interest was in this area. The absence of answers didn't offend my sense of self-importance at all. Trust me. It was troubling on a deeper level. I meant to imply that perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that the exploitation and abuse of models was universally perceived as an egregious activity.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,003 posts
Likes: 987
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 11, 2018 11:22 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #14

In any endeavor where you have more people who want to participate than there are spots for them there is the opportunity for abuse. Sure the subject of the abusive behavior could complain, but doing so pretty much shuts the door for advancement within that field.

Casting directors, modeling agents, fashion photographers and similar positions, even if they are above reproach still look at the subjects work history and a track record of complaints is just one more thing to consider. Especially when those complaints are difficult to prove. The whole "me too" movement only gained critical mass when enough actresses who were secure in their careers to move on Weinstein and his ilk.




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

1,664 views & 25 likes for this thread
Don't know what to make of this
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is opertluser
681 guests, 259 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.