The Private Dancers

"I'm your private dancer, a dancer for money, I'll do what you want me to do.
I'm your private dancer, a dancer for money, and any old music will do."

As we gradually shoot with more and more models, we are increasingly coming across models who approach Rich for a shoot, but who want to know what is going to happen to their images.

Now this is an entirely understandable question, and I approve entirely. Every model should ask it. We are only too happy to explain that the finished images will be used for prints, and will be displayed on our web site and this blog. I also make sure I send them an advance copy of the model release, so we can go through any questions they might have before the shoot and I can make sure that they are happy and comfortable working with us. This is important because our model release protects not only the photographer, but the model too. Plus, with newer models in particular, some are understandably rather nervous and need a little reassurance that Rich is a legitimate and honourable photographer, and that I’m not a jealous axe-murdering wife (only when the moon is full, in case you’re wondering.)

AlexisSummers 920

But the strangest thing is starting to happen. We are increasingly coming across models who are initially keen to shoot with Rich, and they want to be paid handsomely for it too, but they stipulate up front that the images are not to be made public at any time. In essence, these models do not want to sign a model release, and they want the photos only to be seen by the photographer and no-one else, in case they are recognised. “Shooting for the photographer’s private portfolio” it’s called. In other words, there is a growing industry niche for models who will only shoot with GWC’s (That’s Guys With Cameras for new readers.) When Rich gently explains that a model release must also be signed, they demand loadsa extra cash. When I politely explain that the images are to be published on our blog and possibly elsewhere in the future, they run screaming for the hills.

To some extent, you can understand the attractions of shooting only for GWC’s. The advantages are that models get paid very well, they know exactly what is going to happen to their photographs, they don’t have to sign any legal documents (and thus the photographer is therefore guaranteed unable to publish or use the photos for commercial purposes) and they don’t have to worry that their own families or day-job employers might find out about their little cash-making enterprise on the side. Anonymity is assured.

These models are not professionals (although I suppose it depends on your definition of “professional”) nor do they want to shoot with professionals. The fact that some guy is tossing off over photographs of them nekkid, doesn’t phase these women at all. They prefer it. The audience is one, not thousands. Not every model wants fame. Not every model does it for art. Sometimes it really is just for the money.

I’m not sure of an appropriate label for this type of model. Rich has some ideas, but they’re not that polite I’m afraid, so I’m just going with “private dancer” from one of my all-time favourite Tina Turner hits.

As for us, sometimes life would be a lot easier if we were simple pervs and we just did photography to get horny. For some reason some folks find that easier to comprehend than the concept of photographic art.

AlexisSummers 929

Alexis Summers, a completely professional model, and a joy to work with.

On Why I Make A Terrible Model

My humblest apologies if I upset anyone with this post, but this has been eating at me for months now and it just had to come out. Think of it as me taking a large sink plunger to my seriously blocked pipes. Cleans out the crap so they flow properly again.

As an art model, when I pose for a shot, I am often required to act. I put on a mask, I put aside my own reality and slip into role. I am trying, to the best of my ability, to interpret the photographer’s instructions, to bring alive his creative vision at that particular moment in time. I think most art models would agree with me that it is this collaboration between artist and muse which produces a great picture.

syd_aj 853

However, more often than not, when such acting is required, the emotions depicted in the story are not real, they are contrived. The model has to put her own personality aside to wear a mask, and temporarily trade her own reality for a role. It is not who she actually is in real life. It is a fantasy.

Now please don’t get me wrong, I think that this process can produce some absolutely fabulous images, and it can sure be immense fun to create, but this topic has been slowly fermenting in my mind for the last couple of months, and the trouble is that I just don’t enjoy it any more. The question for me personally, is why?

The short answer is that I’m almost certainly not very good at this modeling/acting combination (I’m not fishing for compliments, I’m just being honest here.) That’s not a result of lack of practice because anyone can become excellent at something if they love doing it and they try hard enough, even me. I wondered if it’s because I just can’t be bothered, but no, that’s not me either. I’m actually quite dedicated to trying my hardest for a shoot when required. But after much rumination, I’ve realised that this is my (hopefully temporary) reaction against producing fantasies. I just don’t like acting for a photograph. It’s that simple. I don’t like wearing a mask, no not even for the higher purpose of realising a photographer’s vision.

If I’m trading in my own reality in order to play a role, then to paraphrase Jim Morrison, I’m trading in my own senses for an act. I’m putting aside myself to be what someone else (the photographer) wants me to be. And although subjugating my own freedom for another person’s reality for a few hours is no big deal for most models (after all, what’s a few hours of your life to create art?), I personally just don’t like doing it any more. Why? Maybe it’s the latent feminist in me, or maybe I’m just a conceited and cantankerous old cow who doesn’t like being bossed around. But I think that the real reason is that because I’ve been exposed over the last few years to many different photographic styles, this process of study has actually produced some sort of personal psychological evolution about of how art should be created.

I’ve realised that I’m happy to be photographed as I am, for a photographer to capture my character, bring out my beauty or my flaws - either will do as long as the emotions reflected are real. I don’t even mind shooting erotica (it’s rather fun, as you can imagine!) just as long as the feelings generated in me are genuine. I just don’t want to pretend any more. I’m tired of putting on a mask, of doing as I’m told and faking emotion for the sake of supposed “art.” Yes it really matters to me if the photograph is produced from real emotion rather than faked. You, the viewer, might not know or care, but I helped create the image, and I really DO care.

The reason I choose to model for a particular photographer is because I believe that he can teach me something new about my psyche which I had not previously realised. I do this because I want to learn more. I’m not a posable Barbie doll. I’m a real woman with a mind of my own and if a photographer is only interested in what is in his own head, and just needs a slab of meat or someone to stroke his ego, then for me that is unacceptable and I’m not interested in shooting with him.

I guess I am making some sort of personal judgment here, because IMO some of the photographs which are quite obviously derived from contrived emotions are (to me) just fake drama. They might well be telling a story, and very successfully too, but such “art” has no more truth than the faked orgasm of a porn star.

And that, to me, is not what photography is about.

syd_aj 856

Mushy images are of Syd and A.J. Real emotion guaranteed.

(It's also worth pointing out that Rich disagrees with most of this waffle. He reckons it's a phase and that I'll get over it soon!)

The Great Gonzo Shoot

Surprisingly enough (to me at least) I do actually get requests from photographers to work with them sometimes. But never, ever for payment (this bit isn’t surprising as after all I am an ancient, and I don‘t shoot very much anyway.) So I was a bit boggled to find an email in my inbox this morning, offering me a paid shoot.

The photographer in question was incredibly polite, very professional and he sounded rather nice to work for. Money’s a bit tight at the moment, so I have to say the offer was tempting. As I usually ask Rich for his opinion on each potential shoot, I didn’t accept the offer immediately, but resolved to discuss the issue with him later over our morning coffee expedition.

Our favourite coffee shop was crowded as usual. Our local town is known as the “Gateway to Heaven” because there are so many old people living there, so we had to fight amongst the (surprisingly nimble) old age pensioners for a table. The coffee there is seriously good. I’m not exaggerating - I always suck the creamy bits off Rich’s cappuccino too (it annoys him no end.) As usual we chatted about photography (day-job conversation is avoided at all costs, this is “our time”) and I mentioned the modeling offer. Rich was very encouraging (as a dutiful partner should be) and said I should go for it if I wanted to, not for the money, but only if I liked the photographer’s work.

“I think I’d like to try it,” I said, “although the photographer did mention that there was gonzo work involved, and posing with a cuddly toy seems a bit of a strange request for a model my age, don’t you think?”

Cue violent explosion. Lots of loud cursing and ranting. And I mean LOTS. Both me and the rest of the old biddies thought he’d lost his mind. I’m surprised he wasn’t clubbed with walking sticks and evicted to be honest. Needless to say once he had recovered his inner poise and decorum, he calmed down enough to explain (to me, not the biddies, who would have no doubt suffered heart failure.)

It turns out that a gonzo shoot is not after all posing with my favourite cuddly muppet (I’m a huge fan of Gonzo the Great, I mean, who isn’t?) but in fact actually involves being photographed having sex with the photographer.

Immediate thoughts:

1. How do I stop Rich getting in the car, driving up to “location X” and inflicting serious harm on said photographer?
2. Why would anyone want to have sex with me anyway? (I’m guessing this blog and the love-ball shot in particular have a lot to answer for.)
3. Why is it called a “gonzo shoot?”
4. What does this have to do with muppets?
5. How is it that I’ve been modeling and writing this blog for nearly two years and I didn’t know what a gonzo shoot was?
6. Am I a forty-one-year-old naïve idiot? (I suspect I already know the answer to that one)
7.What else have I missed?

So, for the sake of my sanity, please can everyone let me know what other peculiar modeling terms and pervy-photographic-jargon I might be unaware of, so that I can become more…um…worldly?

Would you have sex with this muppet?

The Price To Pay

A UK survey last year found that over one in ten female students uses “the sex industry” to help pay study fees, by which they are apparently referring to glamour and nude modelling. Now I strongly object to Fluffytek being labelled part of the sex industry, on SO many different levels. I feel we are part of the art world, but I know many of you will just tell me I’m kidding myself.

Truth be told, no matter whether we are labelled artists or, heaven forbid, pornographers by the public, many of the models who have worked with us in the past have done it not for the art, not for the empowerment and to make themselves feel beautiful (although this may well be a side effect, and they may use these reasons to justify what they are doing to themselves, family and friends), but simply for the money. To students who are trying to put themselves through university, who are on the breadline, taking their clothes off for a couple of hours is lucrative – better paid than sweating at the local McDonalds, that’s for certain.

Sure, nude modelling is risky and scary if you’re a newbie and you don’t know the photographers or the way the industry works, but once you’ve build a reputation as a good model, checked the references and become used to working with reputable photographers, then you can earn a tidy sum per month, which will help with living expenses and college fees.

Of course there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and we really hope that models feel comfortable, trusting and happy working with us. We really try to ensure we look after them, that they have fun, that they realise how beautiful they are, and that they have helped create breathtaking art.

But…there has to be a but…how many of these young women have actually thoroughly thought through just what implications nude modelling will have on their families and friends?

Some models I know haven’t told their parents they model nude because the parents would have a blue fit. Some have been ostracised by their university friends when they have confessed to modelling naked. Almost all university-age models we have come across admit that nude modelling negatively affects their relationships. One young and very popular model eventually ended up in the divorce courts, not a result of shooting with us, I might add – the jealousy of seeing his wife splattered all over nudie magazines became too much for her hubby to bear.

And then there’s the career implications. Most models who supplement their income with nude modelling are very confident, well adjusted and happy to be shooting with us. They enjoy themselves and they are good at their work. But I strongly suspect that many do not think about the possible effects of this part-time job on their long term future career.

We have had several models who explained that they were modelling to pay their course fees whilst they were training to be teachers. Several have wanted to work in childcare with the young. A couple of models wanted to go on to careers in prestigious corporations. One was a lawyer who was training for the bar. They didn’t think nude modelling would conflict with this at all. Because they feel so natural in front of the camera, because there’s nothing unnatural or wrong about showing your beautiful body for the purpose of art, then they think this means that there is no risk of discrimination in the future. They think that if they choose a pseudonym and try not to show their face very much, then they can avoid the risk of being recognised.

This is just plain naïve. Sweet, but naïve. I specialise in employment law, I have frequently seen cases where a teacher has been fired from a school because her pupils have found naked pictures of her on the internet, which she took many moons ago when she was young and trying to support herself with modelling whilst she studied.

The real world doesn’t see nude modelling as art. It is biased, discriminating, judgemental. It thinks you are working in the sex industry, and that this means that you have unsavoury and unwholesome morals. Let me spell this out for you, in simple plain English, as your Aunty Lin, unofficial lawyer and employment counsellor:

1. Be very, very sure that nude modelling is what you want to do.

2. Don’t do it just to earn money, as a sideline to help with your studies, unless you are absolutely positive (and you have researched it thoroughly) that you are embarking on a career where naked pictures of yourself on the internet will not cost you your job when (not if) you are recognised. That means no childcare, no working with minors, possibly no professional career either. Because I model nude, I will never be able to become a judge now. And if my accountancy profession find out, I would be kicked out of that too. (That’s O.K. incidentally, I knew what the price would be, and it was worth it, IMO.)

3. Realise that at some point in the future, your nude pictures WILL be found. Even if you have a different modelling name, it makes no difference. The truth will come out one day, make no bones about it. It’s easy to find out the real identity of someone on Google, and it doesn’t matter if you’re using a false name. Don’t believe me? Think you’ve covered all your tracks? You’re wrong. I’ve done it loads of times. If you know what you’re doing on the search engines, it’s not difficult, trust me.

4. You must be sure that you’re not going to be ashamed in the future of your images, that the man you haven’t yet-met-but-might-one-day-marry won’t mind that you were once “Juicy-Lucy, fetish model extraordinaire.” That your parents support you (yes your parents’ opinions are still important even if you are over twenty.) And that you won’t ever want to embark on a profession where you might get fired one day because you used to model nude.

By now some of you will either think I’m exaggerating, scaremongering, or worse. Lord knows I wish this were the case, but I’m not.

Nude modelling is a double-edged sword. You get to feel beautiful, to create art, and to have a higher degree of financial security. This is wonderful of course, but please remember that this comes at a price which must be paid at some unspecified time in the future.

Just be sure it won’t be too expensive.



Rachel T.

What’s in a name?

More observant readers will notice that we’re playing around with our Fluffytek blog title at the moment (well spotted Jimmy!) We’re not really sure what to call it to be honest. For a long time it was “Fluffytek Photographic Art” which was all well and good until Richard took up CGI, whereupon we changed it to “Fluffytek Art Blog” which was nice and general and would cover just about anything Rich wanted to create including mutant-cyber-boobies-from-Venus, or whatever pot-brained idea he came up with next. But the title didn’t really grab you by the balls, if you know what I mean. Time for a re-think, perhaps?

So I was delivering a cup of tea to Rich yesterday afternoon, as he was sitting at his computer, playing with his virtual breasts as usual.

“Are you ever going to create any art that hasn’t got boobies in it?” I asked, eyeing up the cyber-model’s humongous shiny bazookas that were on the screen.

“Probably not,” he admitted, somewhat sheepishly.

“They look like giant pink watermelons,” said my teenage son, appearing from nowhere, as often seems to happen, almost by magic, when pictures of boobies are around.

So once we had booted out the peeping Tom, we discussed the blog further and decided to change the title to “Fluffytek Nudes.” But I’m still not happy. No doubt “Fluffytek Nudes” would significantly bump up our Google hits and internet visibility, but it also will most likely result in the local constabulary banging on the door. Don’t forget it’s Big Brother Country over here. Blogs are monitored very closely.

Anyway, you’re going to see some experimenting with the title for the next few weeks. Please do ignore it (unless you can make some suggestions, which will of course be very welcome.) We’re just playing with ideas, and will probably go back to “Fluffytek Art Blog” in the end. The police don’t seem to mind about this sort of thing too much, as long as we keep it relatively tasteful and call it “art.”Ironically, if we posted the same pictures and writing, but called ourselves pornographers, then our servers would be seized by the cops in no time. Go figure.

Changing the subject slightly, modelling pseudonyms have always fascinated me. I always end up thinking of models by their modelling name, long after I find out their real one. It’s almost as if their modelling name reflects the “real them” more than their real-life name.

When I first started modelling, I decided to give myself a nice, feminine girly makeover, and name myself after a flower. But it had to be the right flower, so as to reflect “the real me.” So my first modelling name was “Dracunculus” after “Dracunculus vulgaris,” the Voodoo Lily or Rotting Flesh Plant. Definitely VERY me. It’s splendid 3 ft purple phallic flower looks like a bit of a monster and smells exactly like rotting flesh for two weeks a year. (I plant them in our garden next to the neighbours’ fence - I don’t like the neighbours much.) But as I consider myself fairly evil, it seemed an apt name. (Aside to potential photographers: please note that I do not actually smell of rotting flesh, even if I often feel like it. I smell of violets mostly, and sometimes chocolate cake. Honestly.)

Anyhoo, the problem with “Dracunculus” was that no-one could spell it, and photographers thought it meant they could shoot goth-horror-dripping-blood-nudes with me (no kidding) so Rich recommended I change it temporarily to the innocuous “L-von-B” until I decided how I wanted to be seen in the modelling world.

Several years later, I’ve given up deciding, and now I mostly just go by my real name. Somewhere along the way in the last few months, especially after my recent faux-pas resulting in me being outed in the local yummy mummy community, I mostly just stopped caring about what other people thought of me being a middle-aged nude model, and decided that the modelling me was actually the real me. Even if it is embarrassing when people find out that I model nude, I no longer hide it, and I can’t be bothered to go back to all the secrecy drama.

Strip the clothes off the woman often enough, let her wander free, naked and as herself, and the layers of pretence, hang-ups and social conditioning will gradually fall away over time. In the end you’re just left with the real person. No fake names necessary any more.

And that process towards “the real you,” is what IMO makes nude photography so amazing, and why every woman should do it.

Although I certainly wouldn’t object to some giant pink watermelon boobies, even if they’re not real.



Lynx. Magnificent.

Lela Rae

Just a quickie to say the amazing Lela Rae has finally (after much nagging on my part) moved her blog to Blogger!

Be sure to link to her and add her to your Google Reader. She's an awesome model, as well as a great writer, plus she's a thoroughly nice person too.
I'm sure she'll be showing you some fantastic images in the future!



Lela, photograph featured with kind permission by Iksodas.

Cyber-modelling

After a rather exhausting but satisfactory discussion session with at least six oncologists on Friday, followed by mother-in-law yesterday, I’m a bit of a basket case this morning. However I do have a shoot today where I am modelling for Rich’s first CGI virtual model.

Alas I’m not going to be the main virtual model, at least not yet, but negotiations re my alter-ego are ongoing. I want the virtual-me to have humongous big bazookas…whereas Rich is thinking of something a little more representative of the real me. I never thought I’d see the day where I spend an entire afternoon arguing about the size and pertness of my virtual breasts.

Plus I want my own virtual model to be…how shall I put it …anatomically accurate in other areas. She’s going to be a higher model. She’s going to be young, hot and juicy. Heck…she’s gonna be porn-personified. Basically everything I’m not. I mean, what’s the point of having a "virtual-you" if it doesn’t fulfill your completely unrealistic fantasy of the model you’d like to be? Plus, for the first time, a cyber-me wouldn’t make me nervous about modelling. I could show my resulting images with pride and confidence, rather than constantly worrying about viewers potentially blowing chunks (yes I do, you know.)

So, as Cyber-L-von-B isn’t ready yet, Rich’s first virtual model is going to be called Zuki.

Currently Zuki has a really naff hairstyle, a shiny Amazonian body, truly gorgeous breasts (selected by yours truly and based on the most stunning boobs I have ever seen - I’ll be roasted if I say who), and an ass with too many polygons. Sheesh. That ass needs to be smaller. And without the angles. And the horns.

Also Zuki currently lacks permanent toes. Every time Rich tries to move her, he keeps leaving her toes behind. This is really gross. Virtual toenails are a real problem in our studio this week. Ick!



Anyhoo, the reason I am modelling today is that Zuki lacks skin and nether regions. O.K. so I’m ancient, but my skin is bloody marvelous (all that veggie porn pays off), so Rich will be able to overlay and wrap my skin onto Zuki, as well as my …Oh boy, I really do need a LOT of alcohol before this shoot.

So what is Rich actually learning at the moment?

Well, basically he is creating a 3-D model that matches the physical body of the model. He then wraps it in a high resolution photograph of the same model.

Voila! Zuki is born, albeit with no toenails.

Sounds simple, huh? But this process will probably take weeks and it looks horrendously difficult, believe me, and I have NO CLUE AT ALL what he is doing.

But is it photography? This is the acid question.

Is a heavily photoshopped image classified as photography?
And if such a photo- montage is in fact photography, is a three dimensional image created from photographs then also considered photography?

Where does photography stop and CGI begin?



As Zuki will not be ready for a considerable time yet, here’s an image from Rich’s latest shoot with the lovely Lou-Lou. No Photoshop. Perfect toes.

(And, as an aside, if you want to see some really pretty veggie porn, may I recommend you feast your starving eyes on Iksodas’s latest. Now that’s what I call seriously naked vegetables.)

(R3) Photoshop is not enough: Take 2

Now I can appreciate that applying Photoshop to an image can transform it beyond all recognition. It can hide all manner of physical flaws, it can sculpt the body, transform skin. You can even replace body parts.

The problem with this is that there are a growing number of models who now see Photoshop skills not as a means to fix problems on the day of a shoot, but to fix every single shot taken of them, and then they complain if you don’t.

It has created a growing culture of models who no longer care what they look like because Photoshop can fix it. You don’t see any photographs on their ports that are not retouched, and often you get one hell of a surprise when they turn up.

In the last year I’ve had to:

• Remove excess body fat. Not because it looked bad in the image but because the model didn’t think it was flattering enough


• Remove extensive bruising because the model thought it was OK to go kick boxing the night before a shoot


• Fix badly marked legs due to waxing the night before a shoot


• Remove fresh self harm scars


• Fix broken nails that weren’t manicured to take away the breaks


• Fix really, really bad skin

The problem with all of this was the attitude of “It's OK, I know you can fix it in Photoshop!”

While I can fix these things in Photoshop, I should not have to. It takes considerable time to make these fixes and it's time I don’t have. This type of work should be reserved for paying clients who have the right to have any post-processing they desire. Models should present themselves in perfectly groomed condition, especially when being paid.

Is it any wonder why I want to shoot virtual models?

Now don’t misunderstand me. I don’t expect models to be flawless. A surgical scar or a physical difference can add greatly to a photograph, and I don’t mind altering things for which the model has no control. This is not about being flawless but about presentation and not relying on Photoshop to fix things because they can’t be bothered to.

This is the fantastic Pirate Maiden. Perfect, with no Photoshop required!

The Wife-Without-Camera

Because Richard does on average between sixty and seventy hours work every week, this generally means that I am the one who organises shoots, corresponds with models, sorts out travelling arrangement, fees (if any) and so forth. Actually, I really do enjoy this part of the photographic process. Chatting to other models is fun! Plus there is the added advantage that if I am the one who organises the bookings, because I am a woman and fellow model, this generally serves to reassure potential models that Rich is not some axe-murdering lunatic, nor that he is some perv who is solely interested in the cheap (or more usually, rather expensive) thrill of being alone with a naked woman.

I guess I see my role as a sort of photographic airline-stewardess in the background, dispensing occasional beverages, sandwiches and rather tasty home-made cake (I do good cake!), whilst being hopefully useful as an assistant if I’m needed. I’m not around for the actual shooting process for nude shoots (I’m sorry folks but it really is the most boring thing in the world to watch), so I tend to only be around for any fashion or wedding shoots, where I am needed to reposition clothes/hair and so forth.

Richard never hides the fact that Fluffytek is a partnership – we do this together. He is openly proud that we are a team, and insists I am around to say hello, drink tea and chat before the shoot. He says this helps put the model (and chaperone, if present) at ease, plus it makes the whole photographic process more fun!

The whole “shoot procedure” has become a well-oiled ritual nowadays, and models (and clients) have seemed to like this process and enjoyed/appreciated my occasional presence and low-profile assistance (and cake). At least I thought they did.

However, more recently there have been rumblings in the machine, and I no longer feel as certain about my role as I once did. Whereas it seems to be perfectly acceptable, reassuring and professional to have an assistant present during a shoot, this apparently does not extend to where the assistant is the photographer’s wife.

Whereas 95% of models are perfectly comfortable with wives being around, and suitably reassured for their own safety, some potential models seem to regard this as creepy, even somewhat “dodgy”. After talking to a couple of other photographers’ wives in similar situations (i.e. they are assistants and business partners), it seems that wives are increasingly being seen as “checking up” on the husband, making sure he doesn’t do anything untoward. Wives are (usually wrongly) being perceived as interfering jealous spouses, and it appears that some models feel awkward and nervous with the wife around, even if she’s in a completely separate building next door! Simply knowing the wives are there is enough to creep them out!

To some extent I can understand this. There have been several instances on MM and the UK web-models forums that describe a wife coming home in the middle of a shoot and throwing a jealous hippy fit. I have also heard some horrible stories on some model blogs which describe where the wife is clearly bisexual and is as much a WWC (Wife without camera) as her GWC husband (basically where husband and wife get their sexual kicks out of being in the same room as a nekkid chick). Of course these stories are really horrible and mercifully they don’t happen very often, but unfortunately these stories are giving the whole “wife as assistant” concept a really bad name. The minority are ruining it for the majority. A case of a few rare scare stories really spreading like wildfire and resulting in some models being apprehensive about booking photographers if their wives are around.

This means that some models actually prefer shoots where the wife doesn’t know about the husband’s photography, or at least if they do, that the wife isn't on the premises at the time of the shoot. We have experienced this rarely, but it has happened. It’s a kind of “pro-guy-with-camera” preference, a sort of bizarre twist of logic. GWC’s with secret agendas (who don’t tell their wives) actually make some models more comfortable than having to cope with possible internal psychological dynamics between H+W.

But, heck, this is supposed to be a semi-pro photography business! Assistants are supposed to be present. Why discriminate against the assistant where she is a wife? Should Richard now only introduce me as an assistant rather than his wife, and should I now leave my wedding ring at home? Should I stay clear altogether, and just go out when he has a shoot?

Sometimes I feel like a creep by association.

Let me state this plainly: I do not have a hidden agenda, I do not get cheap thrills from Rich shooting with models, plus I trust my partner! I enjoy a cuppa, a chat, feeling part of the photographic process. I love the whole process of making art. There’s no jealousy here folks! I’m a nude model too you know!

I’ve been in my day-job business with my husband for nearly fifteen years now, and I can honestly say we work pretty well together as a team. We are certainly well experienced at separating business from pleasure, and we are both trained professionals. O.K. I am a wife, yes, but I can’t help that. I see this as an asset which helps enhance the process of making art, rather than a liability which ruins it.

How can a wife be seen as a professional, rather than a jealous spouse?




Syd and A.J. from a shoot earlier this week. This was a really fun shoot with a gorgeous and talented husband and wife team. They were really good models! Both Rich and I love this image! Such chemistry! Rich says this is the shoot he’s most enjoyed so far this year. Thanks guys! More please!

Models: Meat or Muse?

“When are you going to finish those damn photographs?” I said to my dear photographer this morning. “What is it they say on MM? I need fresh meat for the blog!”

He looked at me sternly. “Models are not meat. They are subjects.”

“Subjects?” I said, bristling.”Hang on a minute. I was kidding, you know. A model isn’t just a subject. Nor is she meat. She makes the art too!”

Him: “Models aren’t the creators of the art. The really good ones can make your life as a photographer much easier, but ultimately you have to tell them what to do, in order to create the image you have in your head.”

Hmm.

I ruminated on this, and ruminated a bit more, debated about whether or not to tell him where to stick his photography, and then decided to put it “on blog” instead.

Despite my poor attempts at humour, I find the idea of models being referred to as meat (or indeed just subjects), as rather offensive.

I firmly believe that a model contributes more to the shoot than just being a pretty slab of flesh. Sure, some models are easier to work with than others. Some models only ever aspire to be just pretty girls prancing around. A lot depends on the personalities of both photographer and model, their attitudes, their expectations, their mutual chemistry. Motivation is critical. Working with a girl who is only “in it for the money” must be a fairly dispiriting experience. I can’t imagine how hard it must be trying to create art with a disinterested model.

Likewise, it’s a very unpleasant experience shooting with a photographer who clearly just views the model as a sex object or slab of meat, who doesn’t communicate properly with her, who is uninterested in her as a person but only sees her as a real-life Barbie doll to pose as he wants. How can this possibly create art? You’d be better off investing in a life-doll, at least then you’d get a malleable tool that bends entirely to your will.

But this is not how good models work. They are human beings, with brains and personalities as well as boobs. They bring so much more to a shoot than just the flesh. And the more they work with the artist, the better it gets.

If you work with the same photographer enough, you instinctively know which way to move, which are his favourite poses, you even get to know what he wants from a pose before he asks for it. You develop a kind of synergy with the photographer, where the ideas flow back and forth between you. Where the model works with a trusted photographer enough, a relationship develops. Friendship, an intellectual connection, often more. Each knows the other, the way their mind works, what the photographer wants from an image, and how to turn this idea into better art.

An experienced model knows a photographer’s lighting styles, she will know which way to pose to get the looks he wants. She even knows what he is thinking before he does. She can picture the image he is seeking in her imagination. If she thinks that his artistic idea isn’t going to work, then she will say so, suggest something new, suggest ways to improve the idea. They work together almost as one creature. It’s an artistic, erotic connection, almost spiritual in nature. Both artists are creating something higher than themselves, more than either could produce individually.

I’ve seen this happen many times. Combine one exceptional model with a talented photographer, introduce friendship, season lightly with a bit of chemistry, stir up, and leave to rise for a bit. What do you get? Better art certainly. A kick-ass image which is the result of two minds working together. Could the photographer get this shot with any model? No. It’s wasn’t entirely his idea. It is a combination of talents, of each person’s art.

This is not meat. This is a muse.

Or am I just kidding myself that I contribute to the art?

Is it all him, or is it me as well?

Or am I just meat?





“We will no longer hang women up like pieces of meat"-a comment by Larry Flynt, after posting the infamous “meat-grinder shot” on the cover of Hustler magazine in 1978. Although intended as self-parody (Flynt had just become a born-again Christian), such irony was clearly beyond the general public, and it provided great ammo for the anti-porn movement.

Not the best grinder shot I’ve ever seen, but this was certainly the first.

The Love-Fest

O.K. I'm posting it anyways, and to hell with the consequences, namely either flaming, or total silence...

For the last year I have spent an inordinate amount of time on Model Mayhem, web-models forums, photosig and the like, chatting and networking with like-minded souls and exploring the vast world of internet modelling and photography.

And this world really IS vast. Model Mayhem for example, has approximately 436,000 members at last count. That’s nearly half a million models, photographers, MUA’s, stylists and wannabe versions of the categories. You don’t need any qualifications to be one of these – enthusiasm and desire are enough. Anyone, even myself, can realise their dream, or delude themselves that they can. Whereas maybe a few hundred of these folks possess the actual capacity for talent and the potential ability to produce fantastic art, the majority are just wannabes like myself, and there’s no way in hell they will ever achieve their dream of ultimate fortune and glory. And yet they kid themselves that they can. They don’t want to hear the truth, they don’t want to hear honesty, they just want to be told that they are fantastic, beautiful, talented, gifted artists. They just wanna be loved.

Although I'm as guilty of this as the next model, I've been re-evaluating my thoughts on the matter.
I am tired of it all. Really, completely bone-tired of this fantasy world, the hypocrisy, the “being in with the in-crowd”, the having to be so bloody NICE, no matter what I really think and feel. If I see a crappy snapshot of a young model, taken on her home instant camera, where she’s just got up in the morning, looks like shit, malnourished, and so ill and starved that frankly she should be in hospital, even though I feel genuine concern for her wellbeing, then nevertheless I still have to say instead, “Darling, you look gorgeous. You’re a babe! How beautiful you are!

These are the unspoken rules of internet modelling. You have to be nice, kind and supportive, no matter what. Sod honesty. It’s not important. You have to be polite at all costs, you have to network in order to be part of the “in-crowd”. Say what they say, dress (or undress) like they do, shoot in the style that they shoot, do lighting as they do lighting. You have to fit in and BELONG. You have to LIE.

But hang on a minute, acting like this makes me what I most despise. It’s no different than me trying to join the alpha-mother/yummy mummy set, no different from Richard trying to fit in at the local camera club and having to praise as “high art”, those awful snapshots by members of the committee which frankly should never have seen the light of day, all in the name of being polite, kind and sucking up to the right people.

Now there’s nothing wrong with being encouraging, or with kindness. Everyone’s art is different after all, and is a matter of subjective opinion. I get this. But there’s a fine line between kindness and sycophancy. And this line is crossed every single day in the online modelling world.

Kind is good. Everyone has been unbelievably kind to me over the last year. They’ve praised my images even when they plainly suck, told me to keep on going with a particular style, when God knows I should never have shot like that in the first place. I’m grateful for their kindness and encouragement, and they are lovely people who are generous by nature and who mean well, but it’s all an illusion, a fantasy. And we are all perpetuating that fantasy. I know some of my images are terrible (I’m learning) but I even get praised for those too.

By all means praise me for my courage to attempt internet modelling when I’m disabled, because that is genuine feeling, but I would far rather people were honest with me, rather than this continual “Love, love, kiss, kiss, you look fabulous” when even I can tell I don’t. Unless you criticise my images openly and constructively, how else am I supposed to learn? Unless you’re honest, how can I become better?

Mercifully the photographers and models who comment on this blog, and are linked from here, are real and honest folks. I learn as much from their silence as I do from their comments. That’s why I respect them as artists and genuine people. When they talk, I listen, because I know they say what they think, rather than what they think I want to hear. I believe this makes them better artists.

If I’m completely honest with myself, I don’t fit-in to this online photographic love-fest. Neither does Rich. We are both rebels, and we always will be. If that means we are perpetual loners, then so be it, but at least we are true to our convictions. At least we are honest.

Just because the camera often lies, doesn't mean you have to...




Feline Infektious.