Worshipping False Idols

I was chatting to the local vicar recently (she’s loud, round and totally nuts – you’d like her) and she was waxing lyrical about meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury who had graced this remote little English marsh with a visit. The vicar confessed to having a totally inappropriate and passionate crush on His Grace for years, so meeting her icon was her dream come true.

"So how did it feel?" I asked her? She replied that actually she was astounded as to how utterly normal he was. Underneath the glamour and pomp of the English Anglican High Church, when she finally met him she discovered that he was surprisingly a very humble man, ordinary in every way and as flawed as everyone else.

She’s right of course. Rich and I have come across a fair few “celebs” over the years, as no doubt you all have too. The “icons” we have met are hot-stuff in their fields: mainly finance, law and nutrition, I’m afraid, so you probably won’t know them anyway. A few were numpties because their egos had run away with them (reality t.v. stars and Gordon Brown being obvious examples – Rich met him at a local business pow-wow years ago and confirmed that he really is as much a total prat in person as he is on t.v.) but the majority were just regular people, as normal and screwed up as you or I. Most were mildly embarrassed by their infamy and saw it as a sort of necessary evil, and pretty much all of them disliked sycophancy and preferred normal conversations on an equal footing. They shunned the general public where possible because they felt that they were always expected to be something that they were not.

So when I come across a model who is hungry for fame and celebrity, or when I talk to the teenage girls at my teenage son’s school who are completely and utterly obsessed with the celebrity culture, I always sigh in silent sympathy for these “icons” they worship.

I’m not a big fan of icon’s, I’m afraid. A “celeb” pumped up to icon-status is nothing more than a false idol who has been created and harassed by a fame-obsessed modern media which is itself hungry for money and notoriety. If you talk to many of these “stars” yourself, without all the fawning and hero worship, then you’ll find that there is nothing particularly magical or glamorous about them. They are just regular people who have a job to do and who make mistakes like the rest of us. They are also very often lonely people who guard their private lives as zealously as the Beefeaters guard the Crown Jewels. Much of their precious free time is spent hiding from the outside world, although in actual fact they’d probably like nothing better than a cuppa and a chat, just as long as you treat them like real people.

If you don’t believe me then you should try emailing or tweeting your icon one day. You’d be surprised at how often they reply. And if you ever get to meet them in person, please don’t fawn and slobber (unless it’s Uncle Gordy – he likes it.) Talk to them as normally as you would if you were talking to me. Then you might possibly catch a glimpse of the real person under the public persona and you’ll realise that like the media, we too have a responsibility not to put these poor people on a pedestal.

We have a duty to these celebs (whether actors, scientists, models, politicians or archbishops) to remember our humanity and respect them as the ordinary human beings they are, instead of expecting them to be something which exists only in our imagination.

other 1308

Image is of local church. Not a nude - sorry. Can't put archbishops, vicars and nekkid laydeez in the same post. I do have a conscience, you know...

The Charity Essay

A couple of days ago I was invited to a yummy mummy (YM) coffee morning. As per usual, most of the talk was about dinner parties and the latest volunteer work that the mothers were undertaking. Most of the YM’s in our social circle either work part time or are stay-at-home mothers, and they dedicate huge chunks of their time to voluntary projects such as save the local woodland, save the otter, art for trees and so forth (no I’m not kidding about any of those.)

“What do you do?” I was asked by the head charity YM henchwoman who was dressed head-to-toe in gold chains and Burberry, and who is always terribly busy dedicating all of her “free time” to “worthy causes.”

“I work,” I replied.

“Oh not that sort of work. Other work, I mean. Who do you support?”

“Myself and my family,” I retorted. “If someone comes to our door collecting for charity then I don’t donate.” You could have heard a pin drop. Guess that’s the last invitation I get to a coffee morning for a while.

ifat 1068

I don’t know about in America, but over here in our horribly middle-class social circle, it is de rigeur to boast about how many worthy causes you support. You are supposed to do school fundraisers, church fundraisers, local community fundraisers and anything else that’s deemed a good cause because it is your moral obligation to do so. You’re not part of “the in-crowd” unless you’re ignoring your family and spending serious amounts of time saving the local otter instead. It’s literally a competition to see who can give most, both in terms of time and money.

Unfortunately this hive of supposed generosity is all about personal egos and social pecking orders and much less to do with the individual causes concerned. Most people donate to charity in order to feel good about themselves, to “give something back” in return for having a comfortable standard of living, to appear selfless in their own minds and especially in the eyes of others. A British bishop once confessed that he worried when a volunteer or charitable donor appeared utterly selfless: “Unless I can identify that they are getting back something in return” he said, “be that status, recognition, inner peace or whatever, then I know they won’t be staying for long. Human beings simply must have a payback.”

But is it right that you should pay a monetary debt for leading a privileged life? Is giving to charity critical to a libertarian’s moral principles? I agree that it’s wrong to be greedy, and yes indeedy if no-one gave to charities then millions would starve, but I fundamentally object to being emotionally blackmailed to donate (be it time or money) because charity organisers choose to play on the very human characteristics of guilt and altruism.

Charitable giving results in a form of what economists call “rent exhaustion”: the more you give, the harder they try. However much you give to these people – it’s never enough. There will always be a need for more, more, more. If someone knocked on your door today collecting for Christian Aid, then you would probably find $5 to give them simply because you don't want them to think badly of you. Similarly, instead of watching TV tonight, you could also be out fundraising, saving your local forest, collecting door-to-door yourself and making other people feel guilty about parting with their non-existent money to assuage their guilt. There is always an opportunity to make more money instead of spending time with your family. But you don't, and it’s right that you don’t. You know that your family would rather have you at home, and that you need that extra $5 right now because you have bills to pay.

If capitalism is the best way for society to flourish, why is charity necessary? At what point does you giving $5 more for starving people in third world countries become equivalent to government donations? When you and a friend make it $10, or when you and 280 million people you’ve never met make it $5 billion? Surely it makes more sense to lobby your governments and force them to donate instead, as they should be doing in the first place? Why does society have to rely on the global personal blackmail machine in order to save lives? Why should we use guilt as a weapon to beg struggling middle-class families for money? Shouldn’t it be a personal choice as to whether you decide to donate or not? And even if you assume that each person has a moral obligation to give something back to the poor and needy, then shouldn’t it be up to the individual to decide if, how or when he donates? Why should charity be all about feeding egos not feeding the millions who need it?

ifat 1102

By now you’ll all be shocked out of your chairs and be thinking that I’m a horrible greedy, selfish person. Just to reassure you, that’s not actually true.

There is a way to give back without emotional blackmail, there is a way to help others who really need it.

Recognise the emotional manipulation which is going on here and actively choose to opt out. If you are going to give, then pick the poor people who are expecting it least. Pick a favourite charity and donate to it, but do it quietly. There’s no need to tell anyone, and if you just can’t afford it, then do not under any circumstances feel bad that you can’t. Your family is the most important donation you can make (in both time and money) and let’s not forget that charity starts at home. As for volunteering, if you have a cause you love then by all means go for it, but don’t do it just to prove you’re more noble than your peers. It’s not about you or what others think, it’s about less fortunate people who are genuinely in need of your help.

We’ve been approached by door-step charity collectors hundreds of times. We always decline to donate. They frown, they usually get annoyed but very occasionally some of them take the time to ask us why? We quietly explain that we do donate when we can through our day-job business and that we simply can’t afford to donate any more. They always shake our hands and leave with a smile.

It’s not about ego.

Your deeds are as tall as you are.

ifat 1094

All images are of Ifat.

It’s a Man’s World

Another whopper of a post. You'll need alcohol for this one. I repeat: Do not attempt without being suitably plastered or you’ll ever make it to the end.

Last weekend we went to a Hogwarts Schmooze-up where parents were able to meet and greet the top professors and the eminent school governors. They were very interested in meeting Rich in particular, the fact that he was an internet entrepreneur and a photographer highly impressed them and they were very keen to give him their business cards. It was noticeable that no-one at any time asked me what I did for a living, no-one offered me a business card, and although they were happy to talk to me about the kids, I was treated as a wife who was there merely as an extension of my husband. Lordy, I thought such sexist stereotyping went out with the ark, but apparently not. I’ve never been a trophy wife before, so this was an entirely new experience for me. Clearly careers are for men not women, and I should just stay home and knit.

And then I got to thinking. Does such sexual career stereotyping extend into the photographic world? Now I’m not talking about modelling here, I’m talking about the artists who create the images. So I did some research and what I found astonished me.

Althaia 1367

Apparently 90% of photographers are men, and a paltry 10% are women. And what is even more interesting is that this 90/10 split applies to ALL areas of photography, not just photographing images of people. The evidence is unanimous, female photographers are always in the minority, regardless of photographic genre. Landscapes, fine-art, travel, glamour, fetish, fashion, whatever, it’s a man’s world. Even readerships of photographic magazines (excluding women’s magazines and fashion) show a clear 80% male/20% female divide.

How so?

To me it’s a mystery. Why are there more male photographers than female? I don’t believe for one moment it’s because magazines are sexist when choosing photographic submissions. The majority of editors I’ve come across are strictly equal opportunity motivated, and they are genuinely delighted to receive submissions from women. So why aren’t there more Annie Leibovitz’s out there? Yes we all know the famous names such as Diane Arbus and Tina Modotti, to name but two, and there are thousands more talented published female photographers of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are in the minority. Maureen Gallagher of Lenswork observed that although MFA programs show a 50/50 split between men and women, once the Masters degree is done very few female graduates stay the course end and up doing photography for a living.

What is happening to these young women photographers after they earn their degree and enter the photographic industry? Do the majority quit to raise a family, or maybe they become teachers instead? Or do these young female photographers become so quickly disillusioned with “the biz” that they then decide on a different career path? Gallagher wondered if this was due to the fault of the university courses themselves? Maybe they lack the proper marketing-based training to enable these women to make it in “the real world” as successful photographers? Or perhaps the problem is that the industry is too competitive and male orientated. I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to succeed in a male orientated profession and you have to demonstrate a certain type of ruthlessness and aggression to get ahead and become “one of the boys.” Perhaps female artists are more sensitive than balshy accountants like myself, and thus are not able to be emotionally hard enough to make the necessary personality adjustments in order to compete. Is female nature the main reason for why these women abandon the photographic profession?

I do believe there’s some truth in the psychological gender stereotyping argument. Perhaps the reason why so many landscape photographers are men, for example, is due to the fact that men are thought to be inherently more anti-social and find it easier to be alone. Biologically human females are hard-wired to be more sociable in groups, so is this the reason that female photographers decide to teach photography and/or prefer to shoot mainly portraits, still life and culturally orientated themes? Obviously this genre classification is not exclusive, and no-one should take offence here. I’m not trying to be sexist, I’m just trying to find some answers. I’m analysing statistics, generalising wildly and there are always exceptions to every rule, the more the merrier – indeed, let’s challenge stereotyping whenever possible because how else can you bring about change?

Lastly there’s the important matter of market forces to consider. Of course the vast majority of photographic models are women because the industry is driven by consumer demand. Most glamour and nude photographs are looked at by men, so it follows that most models are women and most photographers are men. The industry is simply responding to heterosexual stereotyping. People like to photograph what they find attractive and beautiful, and thus is follows that there are more male photographers photographing chix than women. Again, this is the essence of human nature. Glamour, fetish and nude photographers love women and being with them, otherwise they wouldn’t do what they do, but how much of that is because the models are obviously attractive and sexy and how much of it is because they genuinely find it easier to relate to being with women rather than men? In the end, it always seems to come back to human physiology and psychology before anything else.

So that’s it then. Whether or not you become a working photographer is all down to different hard-wiring between men and women. You only spend your life as a photographer if it’s in your nature to do so, and what genre you choose depends on your gender and sexual orientation.

Is it really that simple? And if so, how can we change the 90/10 split and should we even try?

Althaia 1368

Images are of Althaia

All comments welcome here folks. Don’t be shy now. Put aside your political correctness and sock it to me. I’m seeking the truth, no matter how unpalatable we laydeez might find it.

Washing Away Greenwash

(Note for readers: Richard has called this "the most boring post you've ever written." Thanks for the encouraging and positive feedback Rich. Actually I'm having a few days off computer stuff in the interests of spending quality summer time with my children by tramping round forests. So, on the basis that anything is better than nothing, here's a worky post. Who knows, some of you might find it interesting. Others may just enjoy the snooze.)

Lynx 88

Greenwash : The term used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service for the purpose of increasing profits, or in order to try and enhance its standing with the general public.

Due to the increasing focus on climate change and global warming there can be no doubt that ensuring a strong ethical culture is of premium importance to companies. The latest research by Deloitte shows that four out of ten consumers will buy more environmentally friendly products this year, so companies want to ensure that their business ethics are sound, and widely publicised too. A business must demonstrate to its consumers that its corporate responsibility isn’t just playing at manipulating its carbon footprint, but that its emphasis and actions regarding protecting the planet are the core focus of the company mission.

Most importantly, those ethics must be genuine. If a company spends millions on advertising its green credentials but also manipulates its statistics to look better, for example if it employs African child labour or exploits local farmers, then those money-motivated practices will be quickly exposed by an ever-vigilant public and the media. In this modern internet age, secrets don’t stay that way for very long. Greenwash is real, and the truth will come out.

So when a company’s reputation is at stake, it is important that all companies analyse their goals and business practices and ensure their policies are rock solid when considering how they use their energy, their ethical trading plans and also their sustainable patterns of consumption. British supermarkets are currently revamping their business ethics and competing for a larger market share of an ever-increasingly environmentally aware general public. If they don’t change to reflect this trend, then their customers will go elsewhere, so it’s important to tow the line, even if it means increasing prices because they have to switch to different suppliers, or reducing their packaging, or even charging for carrier bags (which will be law in the UK next year.) Tesco (the UK equivalent of Walmart) is even carbon-foot-printing its own products. However, because supermarkets are fundamentally cost and profit driven, they will always cut corners and when they do their greenwash is quickly exposed. As John Grant said in his book The Green Marketing Manifesto, "You can't put a lettuce in the window of a butcher's shop and declare that you are now turning vegetarian."

It is a moot point as to whether or not this trend towards social, evironmental and ethical trading is an overly onerous responsibility or a new marketing opportunity, but it is certain that this will be the way forward for future capitalism in the Western World, and one day all companies will operate this way.

Our world is changing. There is no place for eco-cliché in the new corporate world. Advertising spin subsequently exposed as lies will kill a corporate brand stone-dead. Companies should tell the truth, embrace the change, and put ethics and saving the planet at the core of their agenda.

The future of business is green. Just make sure it's real green, not fake.

Lynx 165

Well, I do hope everyone enjoyed my cure for insomnia. If anyone is still conscious after this, please do let me know...

Everyone has their price

For anyone who missed all the drama yesterday...

SuicideGirls v. Lithium Picnic Lawsuit Settled

(Thanks to Scott for the link)

So...the question for mankind is:

Did Warner sell out or was it a con?

PirateMaiden 571

Image is of Pirate Maiden

The Worm Turns

I appear to have been going through a mini-metamorphosis this week, particularly with regard to my writing. This could be to do with my impending radiation, but I suspect it’s more to do with photographic happenings around me. There has been an explosion of plagiarism (both photographic and written) in the last few months or so. Plus a rise in bitchiness, back-biting, censorship, and general under-hand tactics. In other words, typical politics in the photographic world.

IMHO, this greatly detracts from the ability to create. In theory, artists and writers should be able to shut out the world, ignore other folks being conniving and mean, and continue blissfully creating their own art to their heart’s content. But in practice, even the most thick-skinned artist or writer will be affected negatively by politics. Other people’s shit gets to you after a while, no matter how much you try to ignore it.

So I have spent an entire week thinking. Really THINKING about the photographic world, both literary and image-wise. I have been taking a step back, analysing the situation, looking at others’ behaviour on the forums and in the modelling world in general. What I have found is not good. Other than the friends I know and trust (which I am happy to say are quite a few), many people in this photographic world are nasty, manipulative, selfish. Worse, they are unprofessional. In the art business, and in the photographic art world in particular, I always believed in the higher ideals of professional courtesy.

As a qualified lawyer and an accountant, I have been a professional for over twenty years. I have become used to people sticking to standards of behaviour, both high ethical standards, and courtesy to others at all times. I expected the same from the photographic art world. From what I have seen recently, I can only conclude I was hopelessly naïve.

In the end it comes down to one simple question:

How do I develop a thicker hide?

(Apologies for the negativity folks. Clearly I need a vacation.)



This is Amy from last week's shoot. She really doesn't realise just how pretty she is, which makes her all the more charming of course.

Paranoia: its just life

When Lin wrote her post on lighting yesterday, she said that it would probably cause a bit of a stir. It sure did.

The point that she was trying to make was that many photographers have their own unique "look" which often encompasses a particular lighting style, a personal signature if you will. She argued that others who create a direct copy of the original photographer's image with the same lighting and maybe an element or two's difference, are merely acting as photocopiers. She thought this was plagarism, and that it was wrong.

The responses seem to indicate that people think that I should accept the situation, stop being paranoid and learn some lighting. Ouch.

Let me put this to you. Is it really O.K. to see a shot you like posted to a blog or a portfolio site, sit down and work out the lighting, find a model, and shoot the same picture, with the same lighting and a similar pose, post it the following day as being yours, and then sell it and make money from it? It happens all the time, and I don't know of any photographer who likes it, unless they are one of the photocopiers.

The problem is that at one time the photographers were innovators, they had a style, be it posing or a lighting style, and for a while it would be their own style, unique to them. There were very few of them and photography was an expensive job, so the styles moved slowly. Now in the days of the internet, there are millions of photographers, they have the money to buy the kit and the time to study the pictures and work out how they were done, but they don't have the imagination to be an artist, so they copy what they see. Because there are more photocopiers than innovators, the value of innovation has been lost and now the majority, even those who should know better, think that this photocopying is normal and acceptable.

It's just another example of the moral bankruptcy of the modern world.

People think its O.K:

To download free music, music companies make too much money, sod the artist,
To download free films, the studios are money grabbers,
To download the text of a new book, its over priced,

It's O.K. to rip off any damn thing you like, if you can.

Moral bankruptcy.

Read it again.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Lighting Wars

Today I want to ask a question that almost certainly does not have a simple answer.

Is it ethical to copy a photographer’s lighting technique?

I propose that the answer to this is not clear cut. A lot will depend on whether the photographer says you can. And most of them do not give this permission.

Not all photographers are secretive about their lighting, of course. Jimmy D often gives free advice and bloggie-tuition about how a particular shot was set up, and the specific lighting involved. Marcus Ranum also makes no secret about how he does specific shots, and I think he even provides occasional tutorials as to how it is done. IMO, this is marvellous, and incredibly kind and generous of these artists. They are sharing their wisdom with the world, they are teaching, simply out of kindness and for the pleasure of helping amateurs who are trying to learn.

But what about other circumstances which apply to most photographers? What about for the majority of images, when a photographer spends a lot of time and effort setting up a particular shot for his own artistic purposes? Is it O.K. to copy the photographer’s lighting in that instance?

Of course, most photographers want to protect their image, protect their copyright, and their art. But just as you can’t copyright an idea or claim a specific pose as just your own, in a similar way you can’t patent or protect a specific lighting technique. Someone, somewhere will copy your lighting. It may not be ethical, but there’s bugger-all you can do to prevent it.

It makes Rich feel rather flattered when folks try to copy his lighting, but occasionally it makes him pretty mad too. “They can try, ” is the usual dry comment, when we spot a fine art nude image which has virtually the same pose, and similar lighting. I’ve no idea if this happens in the rest of the world, but I must admit this happens a lot in the UK, especially on Web-Models. Rich has taken to not posting his best work on there because he gets so annoyed about it. If he designs a new lighting idea, shoots it and uploads an image, then I can absolutely guarantee that within 3 days there will be a whole range of copycat shots pop-up on there. But the copycat images are always poor imitations because no-one can get the lighting right. I guess there’s some satisfaction in that, but Rich still gets very irritated that there is always a rush of photocopying, as everyone frantically tries to out-do him. Web-Models is becoming a kind of fine-art pissing contest, where everyone tries to prove they can do the same thing.

Those poor souls who try to rip off his lighting have no chance in hell of course. His lighting set-up is NOT simple. There are all sorts of lights absolutely everywhere. It’s like Blackpool Illuminations up in the studio sometimes.

“Turn towards the big light,” he said to me today, when I was in eight inch fetish heels, blind as a bat, unable to balance, and trussed up like a chicken (yes, I’m well enough to start suffering for my art again…finished photos will no doubt be forthcoming eventually.)

“Ummm…” The problem was that through the clingy material over my eyes, I couldn’t see a bloody thing, and they all looked like big blurry lights to the blindfolded wobbly model. (Sometimes it’s easier for him to just pick me up and move me like a Barbie doll.) His lighting appears (to me) to be very complicated, but I guess that’s why his photographs work.

Really good photographers develop their own lighting styles over a long time. They experiment, they practise, and if they are talented, they might get very good at it. Good enough to call that lighting arrangement their own, good enough to become emotionally attached to it, good enough for it to hurt when someone else steals it.

After all, in a photograph, everything is about the lighting. Illumination is THE art-form, and it reflects the uniqueness of the artist who created it.

So to all you wannabe’s out there, yes I know you become good at photography by studying the best, and by copying those photographers whose images you admire. We understand you have to practise, and part of the training is to copy lighting set-ups that are better than yours.

Just don’t go and claim the lighting as your own idea, O.K.?
Don’t then go out and call yourself a photographer and sell the images elsewhere.

It’s not nice.

It’s not polite.

And it’s certainly not YOUR art.



An image of me from a few months ago - included only because Orixx told me to:-)

Technical disclaimer: Any resemblance of the lighting arrangement in this image to that designed by any other photographer, living or dead, is purely co-incidental and was not intended by this photographer, i.e. he thought he designed this lighting set-up. Although no doubt it's been done before, and probably better too.

The Meaning of Inspiration

One of the most over-used words in the nude photographic world is “inspiration.” You only have to go on MM or other photography forums to notice that photographers and models use the term all the time.

“Darling you inspire me!” is a phrase I’ve heard way too much over the last couple of years. Of course, it’s a compliment, and it’s meant well, but it’s kind of like an air-kiss or a friend request on MM. It’s usually not a true feeling - it’s just another form of networking, of pimping yourself. Used too often, it’s meaningless and empty. It’s just another love fest.

I guess I sound pretty grumpy and cynical about this, and you’re right, I shouldn’t be. Everyone likes to hear they inspire others. Of course they do. And I wanna be loved as much as the next model. Show me mega-love people! Heck, I really WANT TO be the most inspiring-middle-aged-nude-model-writer ever (yeah, right, like that‘s ever going to happen.) And you never see Rich objecting to being told he’s an inspirational photographer (he gets told it often.)

But does it mean anything?

Well, it means a great deal if the person saying it genuinely feels an emotional response to your work, but I’m guessing this actually happens a lot less than we would like to believe. Otherwise Rich and I would be such amazingly inspirational icons, we’d be walking on water by now.

“Inspiration” is a sacred word. The Greek word for inspiration is “Theopneustos.” It literally means “God-breathed,” or given by the inspiration of God. The theology is that the Divine Being/spirit/goddess/giant-marshmallow-man who presides over us all actually uses human faculties to guide mortals to “record the ultimate truth.”

Basically, the word is used (in both the theological and the artistic sense) to explain a supernatural or mysterious divine influence on artists, musicians, writers, photographers and so forth to record, communicate and channel the truth. This process of “making truth” requires a combination of both the artist’s human personality, intermingling with the revelation inside the artist’s head. Only if both elements are present, can powerful art be created.

Inspiration is therefore much more than stimulating someone into having a new photographic or artistic idea. It is more than giving someone a new insight into a way to produce a pretty picture. Of course, the word is usually used in these contexts, and many photographers will say, “I was inspired by Ansel Adams/Weston/Insert-another-great-photographer's-name-here to take this shot.” Naturally, studying another photographer will give you rough ideas, and you might like to copy his ideas and adapt them to your own. However, to me at least, inspiration is much more than that.

As a photographer (or a dedicated art model who is passionate about art) you shoot because you have to. It is essential to you as eating. If you don’t make art, you’ll be grumpy, unfulfilled, hell to live with. Part of you is missing if you’re not making that photograph, creating that image in your head. Only when you’ve made that imaginary picture actually real, and recorded on camera, only then can you feel release.

This process is what I mean by “inspiration.”

You might not believe in God or the giant marshmallow-man, although this is actually irrelevant. The mere fact that “something” inside you makes you create those pictures- THAT is the process of real “inspiration.” The process comes from your own psyche. Not from reading other people’s work, or looking at other people’s photographs or paintings. Other artists may stimulate your thoughts, but the real inspiration comes from YOU the artist, and whatever supernatural or psychological force you tune into when you experience the process of artistic creation.

So my plea to you is not to use the word “inspired” lightly.

You are your own inspiration. You create your own truth. No-one else can give that to you.



Of course, for those who don't remotely believe in divine beings or supernatural-marshmallow-men (hi Rich!), then you should clearly refer to the next Highest Authority in the Cosmos. Which is Google of course.

So if you Google “nudes inspiration,” the number one nude inspiration in the world is…wait for it…… Iris Dassault (as reviewed by Newcastle Art Nudes.)

Bet she didn’t know that!

Professional ethics

As a former lawyer, and during my training as an accountant, I have had extensive lessons in professional ethics. I’m not just talking about the usual ethical dilemma of “thou shalt not cook the books”, or “if your client is laundering money, you have a professional and moral duty to report him”. I’m also referring to lessons in personal ethics. This can be summarised in one statement:

Thou shalt not have personal relations with either your clients or your co-workers.

In all the firms and organisations I have worked for, breaching this rule led to immediate dismissal, and probable expulsion from the Law Society and my professional Chartered Accountancy association.
Quite simply, breaching this ethical duty meant risking your career and all those years you had worked to become qualified.

Of course, this very important moral lesson had no effect whatsoever.
I have yet to meet a lawyer or accountant with impeccable personal morals. Those long hours at evening ethics seminars positively encouraged lawyers to let their hair down afterwards by nipping down the pub together to get sozzled, followed by avid humping in the car or hotel afterwards, and then nipping home to the wife.

And as for accountants? Well, you don’t seriously expect to spend 15 hour days locked up on an audit in the middle of nowhere, without er…going down the pub to get sozzled, followed by ……yes, yes, you have definitely heard this before. Auditing is the most boring career known to man. You have to intersperse it with sex, otherwise you just go plain crazy.

Nude photographers do not have the benefit of all that extensive professional training in ethics. And yet they generally have much higher moral standards.

When a model takes her clothes off to be photographed by a completely strange guy, at some level she is both physically and emotionally vulnerable, no matter how strong she appears on the surface. When a nude model takes direction from the photographer, she is effectively loaning him her power for a while. So the photographer has to have impeccable ethics.

A model should have implicit trust in the photographer’s behaviour. She has to feel safe. If the photographer gets a reputation for behaving inappropriately, his references will not check out, and he won’t remain a nude photographer for very long because his name will be mud.

The vast majority of photographers rarely touch their models. Physical contact is a big taboo, unless the photographer knows the model very well and has worked with her regularly (in which case the two are actually friends rather than professional strangers, and develop their own new mutual boundaries).

A photographer must always give a model her privacy, and not photograph her when she is getting changed without her permission, although many photographers still do this, unfortunately.

Photographers must never leer at a model (not that they ever do, in my experience, because they’re too obsessed with getting the lighting and pose perfect). They must always treat the model with the utmost courtesy and respect.

Above all, photographers must be very good at making coffee.

So besides the actual difficulty of concentrating on the lighting and posing, the photographer also has to maintain a delicate emotional balance. I am talking about the balance between keeping an emotional distance, whilst making the model feel soothed, relaxed, attractive and ensuring that she is enjoying the shoot.

Phew! Who’d want to be a photographer when you have this much to think about? I mean, yep, there’s the fact that you have a gorgeous naked chick in front of you, but frankly the poor photographer barely notices because he’s too busy concentrating on all of this. Richard is usually exhausted after a shoot, and I can understand why. And they say men can’t multitask!

Nude photographers often get a reputation as loners, but this simply isn’t true. In fact, they are really very adept at social skills. How else can they get a nervous, stark-naked woman to open up emotionally for the camera? Only when the model is relaxed and happy can the photographer stand a chance of shooting beautiful and moving art.

Professional ethics?

Yep, trust your photographer. He has the highest possible moral standards.

Which is more than can be said of your accountant.




Roswell Ivory, whom I can thoroughly recommend as a fantastic model, if you ever happen to be in this corner of the world.