I expect PETA can't actually contract all their "I'd rather go naked" models to never wear fur again. I also expect that, like Ms. Campbell, many of the models are not posing out of their deep-seated devotion to the end of the fur industry so much as out of a desire to have their profile raised. (Or money. Does PETA pay them, or is it pro-bono?)
I'm a little surprised this doesn't happen more often,but I suppose that is another reason they use celebrities more than models. Higher recognition factor and less likelihood that they will be paid to wear fur in future jobs.
@BondGirl: I remember that! They got to go to a fashion industry party hosted by Anand Jon at the Indian Embassy. I always think of that when I read these rape stories. I thought he was so hot, but what a frightening man.
The only thing that bothers me about the photo of the homeless man is that the photographer didn't say "Hey, may I photograph you?" However interesting or cool you think someone's outfit is, they have a right to not be photographed. It's such a rude thing to just snap photos of a person so that you can use the image for your own entertainment, amusement, or employment.
@foodandshoes: I'm an amateur photographer and I take a lot of pictures of strangers. If I see an image, I may have seconds to catch it as it is. Often if someone notices that I'm about to photograph them, they'll start grinning and posing. Occasionally(If I think that they will see me) I'll try to gather consent through eye-contact and expression, while disturbing the scene as little as possible. I don't want to make somebody uncomfortable, and if they see me and frown and turn away, I won't persist, but I don't really understand how it's possible to be a Robert Doisneau/Ragubir Singh type photog. without secretly photographing people. Can you say more about why it bothers you? Is it because the guy may have been homeless, or is it always a problem?
@Hana Maru: So you take the photo and delete it if they say that they don't want to have their image used. I'm not all "the box steals your soul" or anything, but people have a right to say how their image is going to be used. That's why when you go somewhere where there is CCTV, it has to be disclosed. And as far as getting consent by eye contact, it just seems like the "she was smiling at me so she wanted the attention." I know that you aren't going to walk around with a stack of model release forms, but there is something that smacks of cultural imperialism/ethnography to me. It is different if the person is performing or something, but a regular person going about their day? It's a continuum that leads down to upskirt photos and the like. The person with the camera doesn't have the right to take a photo of anyone they want to.
An explicit okay from the subject is the ethical thing to do.
@foodandshoes: I use a film camera. And by getting consent by eye contact, I don't mean something ambiguous, I mean meeting eyes, tilting my head toward my camera as I hold it up, smiling at them, and waiting for a nod. It's not flirting or friendliness that I'm taking advantage of, it's real consent. At that point, however, they have become self aware, straightened their spine, and it ceased to be a genuine image of the moment in time and space that I wanted.
It does seem like you're a little bit "the box steals your soul" if you think that candid photography takes something from the subject, or that it's a slippery slope from photographing people going about their lives, to sticking cameras under women's skirts. When you say "it just seems like the"she was smiling at me so she wanted the attention." and reference upskirt pictures, it really sounds like you equate it with violating people.
I have felt okay about what I do because I have been photographed a lot by strangers in my time, and because most people are flattered if they notice. Also, because there are pictures that I regret not taking that will never exist again. Many of the great works of photographic art out there would not exist under the terms you're suggesting.
Has anyone seen the Celebration vid too? How totally awesome is Lourdes?
And how totally cringeworthy is it that Madonna is fondling Jesus in the same vid?
Peaches Geldoff has also been appointed agony aunt for the London Evening Standard, as her years of experience make her ideally suited to advise others on difficult personal problems.
The Sisters Mulleavy have signed with William Morris Endeavor, to "advise the label on opportunities in publishing and film and identify potential strategic partnerships and sponsorships." We're seeing a lot of intricate deconstruction.
Oh man, I have it in my head (and heart) that Rodarte will do some awesome costume for period movies. Imagine them dressing Catherine Earnshaw or Miss Havisham!!! Please do not take away this wonderful dream.
I was looking at The Sartorialist yesterday and saw that shot, and what bugged me was this: "I barely stopped walking when I took the shot" - it just made me wonder if he even talked to the guy or got his permission to take the photo and post it.
I suggest that when it comes to images of rapists (and abusers like CB), Jezebel adopts the Perez approach to their pictures. I'd like to see DOUCHEBAG RAPIST OF GIRLS scrawled across this dickhead's smarmy little sexyface.
I'm with Schuman. I thought a lot about this when Galliano did his "homeless" collection years ago, and my feeling is that everyone manages their appearance in some way, and it's pompous to assume all homeless people fall into one category. Perhaps he was thrilled to have his photo taken. I don't find it particularly violating.
@Penny: I agree. If The Sartorialist is an examination of how people adorn themselves, it would be wrong to assume that homeless people are unable to have those concerns as well. Homelessness doesn't negate personality or personhood, and celebrating that like you would any other person merely reminds us that they are all, in fact, people.
@pssshwhatever: I couldn't agree more. There is a man that sits outside of my apartment on a daily basis. He loves to show off his t-shirt collection and he's always pointing out which one he's wearing.
I work with a woman who always wears Crocs and has one for her cell. It makes me scream every day - we're teachers and don't have to comply to an office dress code but sweet Moses, can't we be both comfortable AND professional?
@Sputnik_Sweetheart: but it's a Croc O-Dial!! And a removable belt clip! Or a lanyard to wear it around your neck! Now, if you don't think that's cool, I'm going to start questioning your fashion sense.
09/01/09
I expect PETA can't actually contract all their "I'd rather go naked" models to never wear fur again. I also expect that, like Ms. Campbell, many of the models are not posing out of their deep-seated devotion to the end of the fur industry so much as out of a desire to have their profile raised. (Or money. Does PETA pay them, or is it pro-bono?)
I'm a little surprised this doesn't happen more often,but I suppose that is another reason they use celebrities more than models. Higher recognition factor and less likelihood that they will be paid to wear fur in future jobs.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
An explicit okay from the subject is the ethical thing to do.
09/01/09
It does seem like you're a little bit "the box steals your soul" if you think that candid photography takes something from the subject, or that it's a slippery slope from photographing people going about their lives, to sticking cameras under women's skirts. When you say "it just seems like the"she was smiling at me so she wanted the attention." and reference upskirt pictures, it really sounds like you equate it with violating people.
I have felt okay about what I do because I have been photographed a lot by strangers in my time, and because most people are flattered if they notice. Also, because there are pictures that I regret not taking that will never exist again. Many of the great works of photographic art out there would not exist under the terms you're suggesting.
09/01/09
And how totally cringeworthy is it that Madonna is fondling Jesus in the same vid?
09/01/09
09/01/09
And now I'm actually laughing out loud at my desk.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
Oh man, I have it in my head (and heart) that Rodarte will do some awesome costume for period movies. Imagine them dressing Catherine Earnshaw or Miss Havisham!!! Please do not take away this wonderful dream.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
@lisas: Couldn't fit all of that on there, but hope this will suffice:
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
Cellphone crocs are even uglier than the real thing. I'm not sure how that is possible.
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
If Katie Holmes's clothing line looks anything like this "design" of hers, I'll be passing.