Race, purity, ethnic beauty, standards of beauty, racism and more!

Natalia Polish Model Shoot

Just had an amazing shoot with a new polish model with a very pure gene heritage, which you can see in her beautiful bone structure.
Check out the rest of the shoot here Slide Show of Shoot

Some samples:

Hi Gary,

I like the shots and the model, she is a beautiful young lady.

I was wondering what would be the best way to make a remark to your introduction, still not too sure, but allow me to say that I find statements about a pure gene heritage irritating to say the least.

Put it this way, what does it ad to the quality of the model? What does it ad to the quality of the shooting? I was also wondering, how would you know about here gene heritage in the first place?

Don't get me wrong here, but I am really curious why you mentioned this?

Clarification

Ok for clarification,
I apologise I didn't mean to offend anyone.

I have taken images of models all over the world, and have discovered that certain countries in the world, have very narrow gene pools. Examples are Romaina, Sweden, Poland, this leads to bone structure and feature that are very unique to that particular race of people. Where the gene pool is very mixed than this naturally leads to a averaging of unique features to a more generic form, except for some special individuals that stand out, due to the natural disorder of genes that occasionally produces unique outcomes.

Visual beauty is all down to genes and taste at the end of the day.
Discussing about the family of the model (which I do in these cases) lead to an understanding of the gene background and overall features.

Yes there are beautiful people everywhere in all walks of life all ages, but people from very narrow gene pools can produce some unique and amazing results, that you cant find anywaher else due to the genitic makeup.

This is is still not clear that I will remove the comments from the post.

Gary

Hey Gary,

no offense taken and please, no need to delete that remark at all!

I am glad you clarified this, see I really felt this needs further explanation and without that it left the door wide open for some sort of different interpretation, I am sure you understand my concern in that respect.

Your explanation is perfectly valid and I do understand where you come from!

However, I see this slightly different, genes only contribute a fraction of what I see as beauty, but this would be a longer discussion. Then again, the industry also defines what is beauty at a given timeframe, and well, this also differs from what I see as beauty in many cases. <grins>

I don't think there's such a thing as a pure Polish gene pool. After all, the genes in the mitochondria are bacterial, for gawd-sake!

She is a pretty young woman and photographs well and that's what it adds up to. You like her and she reacts well to you, your lighting and how you do things!

The only thing one could say for certainty is whether or not she has a particular variant of a particular gene that only appears in that population, or of several rare variants that are hardly ever found elsewhere.

I photographed a lovely girl from Lithuania who looked quite a lot like her! Well I guess genes do move around.

Asher

Gary,

I just caught your post, written while you were writing too! To some extent, isolated populations will be very different after a long period. However, few populations in Europe have remained so.

There is no such thing as a race of any people in Europe, AFAIK. There are Europeans of various ancestory. Huns, Magyars, celts etc, settled, warred, migrated, massacred, raped, survived. Now there's a girl and she has a great smile. That and the fact that she delivers good pictures is all that counts!

Keep shooting! I was going to link back pics I like of her shoot but I got that "pure genes" notice that meant she was not going anywhere, well at least not until she was dressed!

Asher

Hi Gary,

I have read and re-read this thread three times now. Altough I understand your clarification fully, I am still "bothered" by the term "pure gene heritage". I am certain that there are millions out there who will immediately associate this term with horrible events from our collective past. Many wars have been sparked by discussions about the "percieved purity" of one's own race and the "right that it thus entails" them to elimitante others that are less pure. I abhor this way of thinking. If you ask me it would be in your own best interest, as a commercial photographer, if you'd refrain from using this terminology. You cannot explain your reasons like you did above to every potential customer lost, who will go away forever after visiting your web site and stumbling upon these comments in your portfolio.

I hope you'll understand that this not a rant but a friendly critic since I have absolutely no doubts about your sincerity and intentions .

Cheers,

PS: Asher has said it all very well before me...

I don't know. I think maybe peoples own interpretations are at fault here. We all know that the horrible events that is in our minds where focused on the a pure Aryan race. Would you have had the same objection to the statement had the model been from a remote village in the Amazon or Borneo, for instance?

However, that does not mean that care should not be taken. As Cem said, you can't control what people think, and as can be seen here, things get misunderstood.

PS. I can't see the images now, as the government here blocks flickr via the state run ISP. The private ISP I use at home does not block anything, for some reason

Hi Cem,

This thread was moved to here, the provocative thoughts section, from the fashion/advertising forum. I tend to agree with what you and others have expressed. However, maybe it is a subject that could be discussed. Maybe Gary could have said what he wanted in some other way, maybe he wanted to refer more strongly to some viewpoint from part of Europe that was promoted about 70 yeas ago. It is a shame that some subjects can not be discussed these days, without a 'racist' or 'sexist' cry being raised. In the UK, I am genuinely confused as to how one should refer to people, who are of a different ethnic background, thanks to the legislation, changing stance on the race relations laws, etc.

Our immigration laws have been very lax, we have a number of young folk coming in seeking a better life, from the newer eec member countries. We had, after ww2, deliberately encouraged a number of folk from Jamaica, etc. to come and work. We tend to muddle along. The folk who protest about 'Asians' for example, tend to relish curry, the fact that they have a 24 hour corner shop open, etc. Most of these folk, because of our 'empire' then 'commonwealth', had British passports, so in effect, they had some rights to settle here. Well, they had more rights than we had to go and strip their assets. Most of the recent newcomers are from Europe - folk we used to fight and lose to sometimes. Hang on a minute, how far back are we going. Were not the Romans from Italy, the Saxons from ?, the Danes came, even the French, so who the heck are we?? and does it matter? with jet flight, internet, phones etc, the world is easier to access today, then the next village was a hundred or so years ago. In effect, the world is one country.

The Romans, for example, had African workers. They were not slaves. They were returned home after about five years, with rewards. When the Romans hurriedly left England, there was a large group of these African labourers around Manchester, in UK, who were not returned. Apparently, the African specific genes can still be detected today in some of the 'English' families.

My great, great, great grandmother was the daughter of the 'Squire of Barnstaple', but she ran off with the coachman... that may explain a lot ;-)

None so queer as folk.

However, in returning to the photos, I can't see much bone, but nice skin and meat ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

KrisCarnmarker said:

...However, that does not mean that care should not be taken. As Cem said, you can't control what people think, and as can be seen here, things get misunderstood...

Click to expand...

Precisely! This is the essence of my previous post.

Ray West said:

... It is a shame that some subjects can not be discussed these days, without a 'racist' or 'sexist' cry being raised. In the UK, I am genuinely confused as to how one should refer to people, who are of a different ethnic background, thanks to the legislation, changing stance on the race relations laws, etc....

Click to expand...

How so true, also here in the Netherlands.

Ray West said:

... so who the heck are we?? and does it matter? with jet flight, internet, phones etc, the world is easier to access today, then the next village was a hundred or so years ago. In effect, the world is one country.....

Click to expand...

Yes, it is indeed if you ask me. So far, I have lived in three different countries and have visited many others for work or pleasure. As a matter of fact, I consider myself to be a world citizen.

Cheers,

The thing is, the usage of this term, which obviosuly was removed from the ortiginal thread, is more than unlucky in deed, uneducated at best, and it was my intention to have Gary clarify this, which he did fully to my own satisfaction, your milage may vary.

I see this totally different than Gary, and the bottom line for me is that genes cover only so much of what reflects a humans personality, to capture this is most challenging. I am aware that Fashion shots do not intend to capture this, rather intend to pretend a personality that is acted.

To me visually beautiful is not all down to genes, it is down to a persons spirit and personality, which usually reflects in aspects of face and eyes extremly well.

I have meet people that would be considered as "top material" for these kinds of shots, however, in this particular case spending 10 minutes with them was enough for me. Just too "ugly"! <grins>

Response

Ok, thanks for moving the post,

If anyone wants this post removed then please do so I do not want to upset anyone.

I see the subject from a scientific fact base, not from history, race, emotion or any other aspect. Some companies that are looking for a certain look for advertising, hire gene hunters, they trace lineage back generations for whatever purpose the customer needs or the look they want.

In my working engineering role today I have members of my team in Germany, France, Spain, North America, China and UK, including individuals that are russian, turkish and bravarian. I have had UK, French and German bosses which were all great leaders.
I see people as individuals not as a race of people, I see each person on their own merits, what they bring to the team, how we work all together and deliver the task that are demanded of us.

My late grandfather was in the war and suffered badly, also my late father had strong views on the subject after living through the bombing in the UK during the war, but this has no effect or emotional content for me in my work, for me its a case of picking the right people for the right job to produce the best results.

Maybe I am too clinical I dont know but thats just me.
I do like to discuss difficult subjects but only in a professional way to explore the subject and understand different perspectives.

So for all those out there that find it upsetting I am sorry,
for all the rest please take the information as it was intended.

By the way I would love to have a discussion on "What is Beauty" but I will not be the one to start the thread.

Gary Yelland said:

Some companies that are looking for a certain look for advertising, hire gene hunters, they trace lineage back generations for whatever purpose the customer needs or the look they want.

Click to expand...

<shaking head in disbelief> Amazing! My guts tell me that I would hate to work in adverstising, I guess I am not born for this kind of thing.

As for beauty, parts sure are aspects of cultural heritage and education that defines ones taste. Take music, I could not listen for 10 minutes to chinese opera, although I have a diverse taste of music, this is just too much for my ears. <grins>

Beauty

Perhaps beauty is really the individuals emotional response as the viewer, rather than the specific subject itself ?

Georg Baumann said:

<shaking head in disbelief> Amazing! My guts tell me that I would hate to work in adverstising, I guess I am not born for this kind of thing.

Click to expand...

It is all a question of ethic, I do work in advertising... and have already posted about this here

You can always keep your freedom, at least if you're ready to pay for... or not to be paid for!

Gary Yelland said:

Perhaps beauty is really the individuals emotional response as the viewer, rather than the specific subject itself ?

Click to expand...

Very much so, what some tribes in Papua New Guinea consider beauty would at least astonish other cultures. <grins>

What amazed me were the pictures in the wars following the breatup og Tito's Yogoslavia. The sight of Kosovo's separatist Muslims looked so much like their Greek Orthodox neighbors there and mostly to the North. Each acted as if they were separate races, which of course they are not, just cultural communities.

What's even more astonishing is the skill by which some Europeans and Turks can identiy from where strangers originate within moments. To the ininititated, it's a puzzle. I think that part of this is the postures, facial expressions, way a cigarette is held (Russians, French and British are all diiferent). speaking English or Hebrew gives adifferent armature to the mouth and I can sometimes detect this.

However, for most of us, all this is old nonsense and we have no need for it as we want to move on!

Now for beauty, there's a whole range of possibilites and we should explore how to find and express them with people from different races and mixtures. That way, we'll teach people about the richness and diversity of the human form.

Asher

I'm probably wrong, but when we say human race, not human races in plural is because there is just one.

There used to be at least two Human races in the past but one pushed the other in to extinction. They where the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, it seams -- I think there is debate about this -- that you could not marry and have a family with a Neanderthal woman, so that made the two races a "unique gene pool". With us, surviving Cro-Magnon, there has been a lot of cross pollination and gene exchange. The Spanish and Portuguese put this concept in practice seconds after landing in America.

This is a good thing because it makes us all related and/or potential family making partners. On the other side we keep making artificial barriers to this fantastic fact with disastrous results like the holocaust and Rwanda genocide to mention just two. That is probably why some readers here could not let the comments introducing the images so easily.

So, going back to the portrait I think that the first image is a bit more interesting, the pose on the second is too porn-like and not in the good sense --if there is such thing -- and the lighting is specular but not handled as if it was intended to be specular for a reason in particular. The face -- the second image -- is not lit well: the eyes are obscured. In the first one I see a lot of make up and more specular lighting, but most of all I don't see the point other than to show "the nice bone structure of model" in the images.

Going back to this statement: "Some companies that are looking for a certain look for advertising, hire gene hunters, they trace lineage back generations for whatever purpose the customer needs or the look they want."

Can you substantiate this? Links, quotes with references, names of companies offering or requiring such services?
Because I think this is utter nonsense. Why would any company be interested in a particular 'genepool' - several generations back (!) - if they just want a particular look. Images provided by a model agency would give enough information to get the idea about 'a look'. The only ones I know of who are interested in such things are breeders of certain types of animals (breeding registry for genepool exchange in Zoos, purebred types of dogs, cats or horses, breeding livestock for certain traits....).

But with people? The last time I remember someone trying to 'optimize' people along similar lines was 70 years ago right here in Germany.

I would very much appreciate if you could explain the usefulness of this approach in advertising. The industry has enough to do as it is to be bothered with things like that and scientifically you are slipping on thin ice as well (Asher pointed that out). Or could it be that the companies in question are interested in other purposes way beyond images of 'purebred examples of young females'?

And yes: To me, the description of the girls heritage in the original post seems strange to put it mildly.

Angela

Genes?

leonardobarreto.com said:

I'm probably wrong, but when we say human race, not human races in plural is because there is just one.

Click to expand...

The term "race" is probably no longer useful, except for speeding or competitive sports!

Wikipedia has an unusually clear and thorough look at the sociological, political and cultural uses of the word. The summary I found very useful:

The term race describes populations or groups of people as distinguished by various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1]
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept. Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[2] Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races observed vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity;[3] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation." Many scientists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs.[4]

The source is here

Asher

leonardobarreto.com said:

So, going back to the portrait I think that the first image is a bit more interesting, the pose on the second is too porn-like and not in the good sense --if there is such thing -- and the lighting is specular but not handled as if it was intended to be specular for a reason in particular. The face -- the second image -- is not lit well: the eyes are obscured. In the first one I see a lot of make up and more specular lighting, but most of all I don't see the point other than to show "the nice bone structure of model" in the images.

Click to expand...

This I've copied to the thread on Glamor.

Ability to turn on a dime, that's the most important characteristic, I think!

Leonardo,

I can argue that nearly all the obvious racial difference we observe are pretty well unimportant except for identification of competing tribes and communities. One can't argue that certain rather isolated peoples and tribes don't have some obvious physical and cultural distinctions. However, these, like eye color, are pretty superficial genetic characteristics. Adaptions like being able to use muscles aneerobically for long-distance running or having red blood cells that can deliver more oxygen and get rid of more carbon dioxide on demand would be useful genetic differences with possible survival advantages.

leonardobarreto.com said:

There used to be at least two Human races in the past but one pushed the other in to extinction. They were the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, it seams -- I think there is debate about this -- that you could not marry and have a family with a Neanderthal woman, so that made the two races a "unique gene pool". With us, surviving Cro-Magnon, there has been a lot of cross pollination and gene exchange.

Click to expand...

There appear to have been many branches of the proto-human tree that simply didn't survive for one reason or another. They might have been best suited for conditions X and happened to be overcome by appearance of condition Y for which they were not sufficiently adapted or prepared to survive.[/quote]

In any good adventure story or drama, the protagonists have goals and make decisions, but each time they do, they are met with unexpected opposition, but they succeed by swift re-evaluation and appropriate response and a new even more ambitous effort until they either succeeed or fail or come to a truce of some sort. That ability "to turn on a dime" and adapt fast enough to change in circumstances is the key to survival of any population, including all of us!

Asher

So the hansom girl in question could be described as having good "clinal gradation genes" or something like that.

It is interesting to see that my instinct was correct, -- I did not know that the term "race" applied to humans is not used scientifically anymore, but it makes sense, no??

Anyway, thanks again Asher for backing me up with your research...

I think you could make a convincing argument that the farther east you go in Europe, the more attractive the women become. This is just from my personal experience.

Ask the Beach Boys

I am following this thread with great interest. Considering that I am of Polish/Russian/Latvian descent, I look nowhere like the blonde svelte subject - Asher can attest to that.

I am a California Girl - and yet not the one you find on Santa Monica Beach with a bikini and long blonde hair! (Well 30 years ago, yes I was there - in a bikini - riding the waves with my long hair parted in the middle and baby oil slathered to have a California Tan).

All these stereotypes can do nothing but create issues among the world and lead to horrific consequences. No different than saying all male Muslim men are terrorists and all males from Texas think one way! Not all Germans thought like Adolf Hitler.

Race, purity, ethnic beauty........

"I think you could make a convincing argument that the farther east you go in Europe, the more attractive the women become."

And I think, you can make a convincing argument that this kind of nonsense should have no place in a forum concerned about photography.

I sincerely wish that you guys return to sensible topics and most of all stop classifying human beings along racial and/or national or what ever lines.

Angela

Angela Weil said:

"I think you could make a convincing argument that the farther east you go in Europe, the more attractive the women become."

And I think, you can make a convincing argument that this kind of nonsense should have no place in a forum concerned about photography.

I sincerely wish that you guys return to sensible topics and most of all stop classifying human beings along racial and/or national or what ever lines.

Angela

Click to expand...

Hi Angela,

I think you have exposed my being in the "hot seat" for allowing such discussion. One distinguishing feature of a free, non-totalitarian society is the concept that with adequate expose, vile stereotypes and lack of decency and other evils will be seen for what they are.

So why should we tolerate such discussion? After all you and I would not have to debate it! However, it was brought up, so I believe it must be addressed. After all, if that's what decent photographers think, then we are not yet where we should be.

In most other fora, the threads would be deleted, especially if there were manufacturers paying for advetisements! Here, we have caqrved out a safe, protected place for discussion of photographers ideas. If someone truly believes in racial stereotypes for beauty, for photography, don't you think this is something to deal with?

In an authoritarian society, the state decides what is right and wrong. Germany, in my experience has moved itself ahead of many other European nations in understanding how racism and ethnic prejudices must be confronted and overcome. By facing the past head on, German society is better off. (Austria, by contrast, was never ever guilty, it seems! The image is of Julie Andrews with Austrian gentlefolk in the mountains singing to the sounds of music. The popularity of Chancellor Waldhiem, in spite of his Nazi past, argues otherwise.) Germany is ahead of France, which still has not rid itself of its anti-Semitic past. That I say as a major Francophile.

In Europe with shadows of the sins of the past still remembered, this thread so this discussion is especially worrisome. However, I felt that the subject, once raised for whatever reason, should be addressed so people who take these things for granted get to face reality of one’s own prejudices and archaic values.

In the USA, for all its shortcomings, there is a great respect for open discussion.

I hope you will see that we are not naive and have intend to steer debate with responsibility. You, from Germany have been informed. Others have to a lesser degree I believe.

I see photography and photographers as having an opportunity to show beauty set a mirror for our behavior and not only caputre light but deliver it too!

I hope that I have satisfied you valid concerns.

Asher

Bonjour Asher
As I fearly agree with your post kust above, there is an assertion that I cannot leave uncommented!

France, which still has not rid itself of its anti-Semitic past.

Click to expand...

This is simply completely false.
We have one extreme right leader "Le Pen" that is anti-semitic and more generally racist.
This guy had some great days, but now has been reduced to the minimum (a few %) during the last election (presidential, a month ago).
France has, despit what you say, a long story of anti-racism.
We simply are not racist toward North-African Arabs and Arabs in general, and so we have a more balanced views to the Middle-East "problem".
But we are not anti-semitic at all.

Of course I talk here generally, as in any country we have some nazis, some racists, etc. but not more thant that and above all not more anti-semitic than anti-arab.

I know you will argue with thousands of words to this post. But on this point, believe my dear friend Asher, YOU are WRONG.