Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: How u define urself as model?

  1. #61

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Mattlock, what if I'm a very established artist with many award winning works, yet I do not derive consistent income from jobs relating to photography. Does that make me any less of a photographer? I don't think representation or percentage of income goes towards the description of model or photographer.

    However, I would say that just because you buy a camera doesn't mean you're a photographer. If we were to apply that same low bar to models, it will not mean that an unrepresented model is not a model, mayeb something closer to say, a human being who puts on clothes.
    Two points of view: Ideally everyone can be called a photographer
    Same as everyone can be called a model.
    Same as everyone can be called a chef simply if they cook once in awhile.

    But all definitions are reliant on the social perception of a word.
    So when I think of a model we have two impressions going on:
    the general layman idea of the model attending fashion photoshoots, appearing in magazines, partying.
    the industry idea of a model as a represented girl by one of the major agencies who give a certain assurance of quality.
    unrepresented girls are called talents. (not meant as a disrespectful term in my opinion, I prefer shooting talents to models)

    oh and there's the third point of view is the internet forum POV, which I need not explain further I think.

    So everyone can call themselves a model, sure. Just be careful that telling a commercial photographer that you're a model when you aren't represented and do not fufill the criteria most commercial photographers have when they use the word "model" is going to make you look naive and inexperienced.
    Last edited by mattlock; 7th December 2008 at 04:10 AM.

  2. #62

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    In essence , there's a difference between being a model and being a "model".

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN View Post
    Tried... That's why I'm a photog and not a model.
    In the era of modern culture, sufferings and lifestyle one has got to
    keep on acting for the world is just a stage where the parts have to be
    played accordingly to the situation.

    Most people will call it flexibility.

    If you are a cat you are just a cat and nothing else!
    -----------------------------------------------------
    None but ourselves can free our minds
    It is only in the commercial context of living that
    all these rules of standards are set for better
    or for worse.

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Upper Thomson
    Posts
    422

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    every model does TFP/TFCD shoots.
    alot of the shoots you see in models' portfolios in established agencies are TFP/TFCD

    a model in the generic context, defined by someone who derives consistent income from jobs directly related to modelling (commercial/advertising/editorial), 99% of the time represented by an agency.

    Other types of models cater specifically to certain segments but are usually quite specific like "fine art nude model","glamour model".

    let's not kid ourselves, you can call yourself a model the same way I can call myself a photographer if I buy a camera, but the social connotations and stereotypes related to a "model" are more in line with a REPRESENTED model rather than a freelance model.

    The next time I see another girl call herself a model in an interview without having an agency (phantom carrie diva mannequin ave and a few others),I'm going to take out my coke, hunt down the person and start spurting coke all over her.

    In essence , there's a difference between being a model and being a "model".
    ahhh. this has been what i've been trying to say. thanks. HAHA.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    Quote Originally Posted by forward View Post
    If you are a cat you are just a cat and nothing else!
    If you shoot a cat often enough it is your model.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    What is this world and society coming to?

    Every single damned thing all 'Show me your paper'.

  7. #67
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    I respectfully disagree on some points:

    Chef is a term used for a person who has reached a higher level in the industry. The lower levels are called cooks, or kitchen assistants.

    People who cook once in a while at home are called neither. Hence my mother who prepares food for the family once is a while, is neither a cook, a chef nor a kitchen assistant.

    Uncle Bob who takes out a point and shoot camera and only shoots like, once in two years during birthdays, is not likely to be called a photographer. Joe Bloke, who goes for shoots every week, has photographs exhibited, wins awards, is more likely to be called a photographer. A differnt Joe Bloke, who makes his primary income as a photographer, but does it on a freelance basis, refusing to be associated with a wedding studio (ie agency) or the like, is also likely to be called a photographer.

    Finally, we also need to distinguish social perceptions from personal perceptions.

    When I think of a model, so long as it satisfies "the general layman idea of the model attending fashion photoshoots, appearing in magazines, partying." it qualifies as a model. The sole "industry idea" (which can be disputed) of a model being represented is neither a factor, in my opinion, to deciding whether a person can be called a model. There are many unrepresented models who do all of the above, been featured in magazines, done runway shows, save for representations, which they prefer to do themselves for various reasons, and I think they deserve to be called models on this basis. To say that they are "talents" even though in every other aspect they are superior save for representation is wrong.

    Hence representation alone is not a factor to deciding the qualification to be a model.

    Talents is a description used to describe new models, and even in agencies, there is a group called talents. Now, doesn't that make it a contradiction that all females unrepresented are talents (no matter the skill or level gained), but females represented are then "talents" and "models"?

    My point is, representation alone, does not determine whether the term "model" can be used.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    Two points of view: Ideally everyone can be called a photographer
    Same as everyone can be called a model.
    Same as everyone can be called a chef simply if they cook once in awhile.

    But all definitions are reliant on the social perception of a word.
    So when I think of a model we have two impressions going on:
    the general layman idea of the model attending fashion photoshoots, appearing in magazines, partying.
    the industry idea of a model as a represented girl by one of the major agencies who give a certain assurance of quality.
    unrepresented girls are called talents. (not meant as a disrespectful term in my opinion, I prefer shooting talents to models)

    oh and there's the third point of view is the internet forum POV, which I need not explain further I think.

    So everyone can call themselves a model, sure. Just be careful that telling a commercial photographer that you're a model when you aren't represented and do not fufill the criteria most commercial photographers have when they use the word "model" is going to make you look naive and inexperienced.
    Last edited by vince123123; 7th December 2008 at 11:33 AM.

  8. #68

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    well that definition of a chef you just gave is the social perception of what a chef is (head of a kitchen)
    One of the dictionary definitions of a chef is: a cook.
    So anyone can be a chef, simply by the definition of someone who cooks
    just like someone who models or photographs can be a model or photographer.
    So the same logic goes for modelling
    anyone can be a model.



    The reason I would think that it's worth being more stringent about the definition of a model is because many represented models are so poorly paid in the first place, to call yourself a model when you're not represented sounds really bad.
    A represented girl doing a runway show can get like $400.
    A runway show that is too cheap to get even a represented model can expect to pay less than $400.
    An unrepresented model can forget about getting enough runway shows to pay her rent on a consistent basis.
    Sure, she can call herself a model. But the gap between social and professional expectations related to that term, versus the reality of the situation, would be so vast that one can't help but snigger.

    Name me 10 girls who have appeared on magazine covers or magazine editorials (FHM doesn't count ok) and do runway shows consistently, who are unrepresented. I can't really think of any.

    It's just a matter of humility lah. Just because one appears on the cover of FHM doesn't make one a model ok. It just means the girl's done some modelling.

    btw talents and models are different. Once in awhile a talent crosses over to become a model, but this is a rare occurance.
    However I don't see talents as being any lesser than models. Models tend to be marketed for certain specific jobs, talents are marketed for other jobs.

    aiya ultimately
    any girl can call herself a model lah.
    But people have certain expectations when you call yourself a model so it's good to actually consider whether you can proudly and honestly tell someone that you're a model.




    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    I respectfully disagree on some points:

    Chef is a term used for a person who has reached a higher level in the industry. The lower levels are called cooks, or kitchen assistants.

    People who cook once in a while at home are called neither. Hence my mother who prepares food for the family once is a while, is neither a cook, a chef nor a kitchen assistant.

    Uncle Bob who takes out a point and shoot camera and only shoots like, once in two years during birthdays, is not likely to be called a photographer. Joe Bloke, who goes for shoots every week, has photographs exhibited, wins awards, is more likely to be called a photographer. A differnt Joe Bloke, who makes his primary income as a photographer, but does it on a freelance basis, refusing to be associated with a wedding studio (ie agency) or the like, is also likely to be called a photographer.

    Finally, we also need to distinguish social perceptions from personal perceptions.

    When I think of a model, so long as it satisfies "the general layman idea of the model attending fashion photoshoots, appearing in magazines, partying." it qualifies as a model. The sole "industry idea" (which can be disputed) of a model being represented is neither a factor, in my opinion, to deciding whether a person can be called a model. There are many unrepresented models who do all of the above, been featured in magazines, done runway shows, save for representations, which they prefer to do themselves for various reasons, and I think they deserve to be called models on this basis. To say that they are "talents" even though in every other aspect they are superior save for representation is wrong.

    Hence representation alone is not a factor to deciding the qualification to be a model.

    Talents is a description used to describe new models, and even in agencies, there is a group called talents. Now, doesn't that make it a contradiction that all females unrepresented are talents (no matter the skill or level gained), but females represented are then "talents" and "models"?

    My point is, representation alone, does not determine whether the term "model" can be used.

  9. #69
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: How u define urself as model?

    No problem then, I guess its just a matter of personal viewpoint, we can agree to disagree

    I would think that it is a sad day that I can no longer call myself a photographer, since I'm not associated with any photography studio or company.

    Cheers!

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    well that definition of a chef you just gave is the social perception of what a chef is (head of a kitchen)
    One of the dictionary definitions of a chef is: a cook.
    So anyone can be a chef, simply by the definition of someone who cooks
    just like someone who models or photographs can be a model or photographer.
    So the same logic goes for modelling
    anyone can be a model.

    The reason I would think that it's worth being more stringent about the definition of a model is because many represented models are so poorly paid in the first place, to call yourself a model when you're not represented sounds really bad.
    A represented girl doing a runway show can get like $400.
    A runway show that is too cheap to get even a represented model can expect to pay less than $400.
    An unrepresented model can forget about getting enough runway shows to pay her rent on a consistent basis.
    Sure, she can call herself a model. But the gap between social and professional expectations related to that term, versus the reality of the situation, would be so vast that one can't help but snigger.

    Name me 10 girls who have appeared on magazine covers or magazine editorials (FHM doesn't count ok) and do runway shows consistently, who are unrepresented. I can't really think of any.

    It's just a matter of humility lah. Just because one appears on the cover of FHM doesn't make one a model ok. It just means the girl's done some modelling.

    btw talents and models are different. Once in awhile a talent crosses over to become a model, but this is a rare occurance.
    However I don't see talents as being any lesser than models. Models tend to be marketed for certain specific jobs, talents are marketed for other jobs.

    aiya ultimately
    any girl can call herself a model lah.
    But people have certain expectations when you call yourself a model so it's good to actually consider whether you can proudly and honestly tell someone that you're a model.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •