Fashion with surreal/blank/attitude faces!

This is a daughter topic of the original thread here on the exceptional picture with Ludmilla by Graham Mitchell.



Folks,

This picture is still a favorite of mine, so well thought out and executed, (despite Tom's valid and truthful reports to the contrary from down under). Yes, I admit there's the a sterile dead painted stare coupled with open lascivious thighs to unsettle us and draw us in to the merchandise. But here, in our Vogue-conscious society, it is considered "beautiful, remarkable and artistic". Let me add balance to my strong but perhaps unseeming and unabashed support for this picture. This is the 2012 Fall Season Campaign ad for Ralph Lauren replete with obvious smiles.




Here the smiles are clearly so reserved, modest but enough to be alluring behind a separation space of exclusivity and social rank. They send a challenge to cross this divide by buying into the brands and this be validated as members of some social elite. This gentle conceit of a smile is an tactic to have us reach out the the products as if wearing the fine materials will give women the competitive advantages or status they seek of think they need.

This work is brilliant too. The smiles are indeed smiles, but not really expressions of emotion, just plays in a game, like chess, where a move is part of a chain of events. A real smile, however, is a treasure and does not require anything but genuine emotion and bonding. However, we're so gullible that the posed thin smile works on us anyway!

Asher

Fashion pictures with blank faces!

Maggie Terlecki said:

.............
The pose is fine. I have to admit though, that I cannot get over her robotic expression.

Click to expand...

Expression does not need to come from the face. We can use gestures or even arrangements of clothes, pelvis and legs. Just cover her head, and then restart the process of reading the picture.

Asher

I just got it! Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Asher, you're always so concilliatory with your responses. Don't you ever just want a good barny?
It's all true what you say. Perfect lighting, pose, clothes, setting, framing and composition. It's the perfect world of advertising. Highly misleading as it might be, there are some gullibles out there who think they might escape to this world by buying what is for sale. I've seen a few come out of the shops and it's enough to send a bloke back to the jungle. I suppose it's Ok for a quick perv while waiting for the dentist or having a ****. Good thing there is room on the planet for all genres.

As for the bloke, I'd be telling him he may not look so cool with lung cancer and the chick in the genes, that's no way for a young woman to sit unless she's trying to piss like a bloke.

Asher Kelman said:

Expression does not need to come from the face. We can use gestures or even arrangements of clothes, pelvis and legs. Just cover her head, and then restart the process of reading the picture.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,
Of course I know that you don't need the face to show expression. We see pictures of just hands or just feet and arm on a hip, a hand on a neck and they can tell a lot.

I gather, though, that this image is a fashion shoot intended to sell clothes. Now, who are the people these photos are intended for? Men to look at? or women who want to look like that. I would tend to believe, that they are targeted towards women. As a woman, her treasure between her legs does not interest me. We look at the woman and decide if we are the type of woman that would wear this. Maybe innocent, maybe sexy, maybe sensual and maybe fierce or badass. Oh look, she looks freespirited, oh, I'm am too. Oh, that dress she is wearing really would suit me too. Otherwise, they would just put the clothes on a hanger if we didn't try to identify with the person in the clothes.

I tried to cover up her face and what did it give me. Well, she's dressed in expensive clothes and is sitting like a 5 year old. I don't find the pose sexy or sensual or anything else that would make me want to be like her. Ergo, Im not interested in buying the dress.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the lighting etc., and this model may be very kind and gentle and intelligent etc., but in this exact photograph with her facial expression and I doubt anyone is going to look at this and then put a paper bag over her head, she doesn't come across as having any personality. As I said earlier, I looked at Graham's website and he's a great photographer but this particular photo leaves me cold. I'm sorry, but I have to be honest and it is nothing against Graham or his model.

Maggie Terlecki said:

.................. but in this exact photograph with her facial expression and I doubt anyone is going to look at this and then put a paper bag over her head, she doesn't come across as having any personality.

Click to expand...

This, Maggie, is an accepted form in the fashion industry. When the most fashionable and expensive stores open for fashion nights on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, there are models, in such poses, and women snap up the costly offerings. Shopping here is not for "needs", but a sort of competitive sport. One has to find a fashion that works. That coat could be $2,500 and the purse twice that, all normal for the crowds that hunt for the highest style. These are items beyond the reach of most folk! Each store has a style of their own "blankness" of the heads. Still, some, as in the ad I showed above, have smiles too. But each is part of their campaign and attempt to brand their season's offerings.

I don't support this picture because I want to defend the photographer. Rather, it is perfect for the intended job in the zone of exclusive expensive clothes, the pinnacle of fashion!

Asher

Tom dinning said:

I just got it! Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Asher, you're always so concilliatory with your responses. Don't you ever just want a good barny?
It's all true what you say. Perfect lighting, pose, clothes, setting, framing and composition. It's the perfect world of advertising. Highly misleading as it might be, there are some gullibles out there who think they might escape to this world by buying what is for sale. I've seen a few come out of the shops and it's enough to send a bloke back to the jungle. I suppose it's Ok for a quick perv while waiting for the dentist or having a ****. Good thing there is room on the planet for all genres.

As for the bloke, I'd be telling him he may not look so cool with lung cancer and the chick in the genes, that's no way for a young woman to sit unless she's trying to piss like a bloke.

Click to expand...

Tom,

I'm so conciliatory but honest! This woman in real life would be cleared away of the throngs of Japanese tourists, and the British lad snapping up her dress) and investigated by a team of Beverly Hills police on suspicion of being stoned, abandoned or soliciting! Outside Cartier, (on One Rodeo Place), the concierge would ask if they could call someone for her or take her back to her hotel suite.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

This, Maggie, is an accepted form in the fashion industry. When the most fashionable and expensive stores open for fashion nights on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, there are models, in such poses, and women snap up the costly offerings. Shopping here is not for "needs", but a sort of competitive sport. One has to find a fashion that works. That coat could be $2,500 and the purse twice that, all normal for the crowds that hunt for the highest style. These are items beyond the reach of most folk! Each store has a style of their own "blankness" of the heads. Still, some, as in the ad I showed above, have smiles too. But each is part of their campaign and attempt to brand their season's offerings.

I don't support this picture because I want to defend the photographer. Rather, it is perfect for the intended job in the zone of exclusive expensive clothes, the pinnacle of fashion!

Asher

Click to expand...

Well, it may not be my personal cup of tea, but if it does the job that is intended, then it's perfect, I suppose.

As for a $5,000 purse, heh, I would rather buy myself a new camera or glass.

Maggie Terlecki said:

Well, it may not be my personal cup of tea, but if it does the job that is intended, then it's perfect, I suppose.

As for a $5,000 purse, heh, I would rather buy myself a new camera or glass.

Click to expand...

Some of the stores, Like Hermes, won't even sell it to you. There, you put your name down and it could put you dow $12,055 for a 6 month wait, they rate in such demand, LOL! In this world, Graham mitchell's work just simply belongs for folk seeking simply the very best of the best!

Asher

I think the socialist in me is choking on all this. Excuse me while I go vomit?

Tom dinning said:

I think the socialist in me is choking on all this. Excuse me while I go vomit?

Click to expand...

Well, Tom, think of Channel. She was a snobby Nazi collaborator and agent and big anti-Semite and homophobic. During the Nazi occupation of France, while others were deprived or deported or joined the resistance, she stayed in a swanky hotel in Paris with her German high command lover. Because of her status, she was never prosecuted! To this day, her brand is associated with good taste and style!

Think also of the fact that we really have a Court of Versailles with nobles belonging to clubs, (entrance fees, if they accept you, $40,000 to $100,000 or more and fees of some $40,000 a year), where members dine in style and invite each other to their Boards of Directors and grant each other salaries of $millions per year! At the same time, workers salaries have hardly risen and jobs shipped to China!

Crowds of the shoppers are on vacation from China, Japan and South Korea, but there are a lot of the buyers are well healed Americans. Imagine a transformation from the powdered wigs of Versailles to the fashions of Milan, London and New York. This is where we are!

Asher

So what faces do you use for models? I was shooting a series of artistic nudes with a series of beautiful objects, (which I'll share shortly). My son berated me that she smiled in some of the pictures.

"She's not meant to ever engage with us. She must look beyond us or in another direction and never smile. It's not about her feelings or us, but just the beauty of her form."

So what is it with these customs and rules?

Why are there so many fashion images with blank even arrogant stares?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Why are there so many fashion images with blank even arrogant stares?

Click to expand...

Because it sells. Of course.

And I am quite convinced that you will find the obvious reason why the buyer of luxury goods will be less attracted from a picture where the picture shows someone who is friendly than from a picture showing someone with the expression is "I am so much above you that you should not even dream of being a customer".

If you don't, I suggest reading Thorstein Veblen: The theory of the leisure class. Since that immortal book is in the public domain, you will find it here, from the project Gutenberg.

Jerome Marot said:

Because it sells. Of course.

And I am quite convinced that you will find the obvious reason why the buyer of luxury goods will be less attracted from a picture where the picture shows someone who is friendly than from a picture showing someone with the expression is "I am so much above you that you should not even dream of being a customer".

Click to expand...

That works for me as a good explanation!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Well, Tom, think of Channel. She was a snobby Nazi collaborator and agent and big anti-Semite and homophobic. During the Nazi occupation of France, while others were deprived or deported or joined the resistance, she stayed in a swanky hotel in Paris with her German high command lover. Because of her status, she was never prosecuted! To this day, her brand is associated with good taste and style!

Think also of the fact that we really have a Court of Versailles with nobles belonging to clubs, (entrance fees, if they accept you, $40,000 to $100,000 or more and fees of some $40,000 a year), where members dine in style and invite each other to their Boards of Directors and grant each other salaries of $millions per year! At the same time, workers salaries have hardly risen and jobs shipped to China!

Crowds of the shoppers are on vacation from China, Japan and South Korea, but there are a lot of the buyers are well healed Americans. Imagine a transformation from the powdered wigs of Versailles to the fashions of Milan, London and New York. This is where we are!

Asher

Click to expand...

This is where you might be, Asher. I'm locked in my dungeon. There are also conflicts, rape and murder, starving millions, refugees from tyranny and oppression, rising damp and extinction of species. Is that where we want to be as well? One might even suggest that there is a cause and effect going on here.
I'm a bit pissed off that you shifted the discussion again! Seems like you make the decisions as to what is relevant and what is not. Is that a type of censorship? An OPEN forum discussion on a photo can take many directions. The relevance of the conversation is up to the commentator. Graham posted his photo knowing people would comment but not knowing how they would comment. I've certainly been educated in that matter here in this very forum by our beloved Mark. As he said, we comment because we can.
Any photograph may have a point to it. What others extract from the photo is more relevant to the context of the discussion. The context here is not solely directed at advertising and a member should be able to pass an opinion in any direction they wish without fear of being sent to another room because the owner of the site doesn't like the way the conversation is going.
I think I've had this conversation before. Imight even suggest that you continuous interference in the forum discussions, both in your persistence in shifting things and your continued yet subtle moderation of the flow of a conversation with the bipartisan, patronizing and concilliatory remarks may seem a tad intimidating to the unwary.
Give it a break for a while, Asher. Leave things be. Let people have their say. Give them the freedom to know there isn't some ogre watching every move. So what if they get a bit of the track. It's not a regulated debate. It's a bunch (and a small bunch at that) of people with different opinions. Let them loose among themselves. They are only playing, after all.
Cheers
Tom

Tom Dinning said:

Any photograph may have a point to it. What others extract from the photo is more relevant to the context of the discussion. The context here is not solely directed at advertising and a member should be able to pass an opinion in any direction they wish without fear of being sent to another room because the owner of the site doesn't like the way the conversation is going.
I think I've had this conversation before. Imight even suggest that you continuous interference in the forum discussions, both in your persistence in shifting things and your continued yet subtle moderation of the flow of a conversation with the bipartisan, patronizing and concilliatory remarks may seem a tad intimidating to the unwary.

Click to expand...

Tom,

There's no censorship, just a custom of putting great daughter topics in a new thread to boost that line of discussion. Sorry if it seems controlling and all other untoward qualities it earns. That's not intended, I assure you!

All opinions are welcome and nothing is deleted and yes, let everyone speak freely. No ogres!

Asher

Advertising photography traffics in "the command to look".

Arranging strange tableaux of people acting oddly is a good, if unsubtle, way of going about it. If the eye can be held long enough for the product image to soak into the brain and create a desire for possession then shopping therapy follows as a reliable means of exorcism. I seriously doubt that extended analysis of these pictures will unearth a higher purpose.

Maris Rusis said:

Advertising photography traffics in "the command to look".

Arranging strange tableaux of people acting oddly is a good, if unsubtle, way of going about it. If the eye can be held long enough for the product image to soak into the brain and create a desire for possession then shopping therapy follows as a reliable means of exorcism. I seriously doubt that extended analysis of these pictures will unearth a higher purpose.

Click to expand...

this comment no longer exists other than being quoted below

Mark Hampton said:

this is where i am at on this.

Click to expand...

Or a lower intent?

Maris Rusis said:

Advertising photography traffics in "the command to look".

Arranging strange tableaux of people acting oddly is a good, if unsubtle, way of going about it. If the eye can be held long enough for the product image to soak into the brain and create a desire for possession then shopping therapy follows as a reliable means of exorcism. I seriously doubt that extended analysis of these pictures will unearth a higher purpose.

Click to expand...

Maris,

An excellent analysis of how the images work works except, a higher purpose might indeed be found in evolutionary anthropology. It must be tapping something very powerful that some of the best designers on the planet and artists as well as millions of dollars are committed to this powerful haute couture industry. Could be that it relates to persistent and powerful primitive traits we have of getting rank. Not at al trivial!

Asher

Tom dinning said:

and the chick in the genes, that's no way for a young woman to sit unless she's trying to piss like a bloke.

Click to expand...

Spread eagle Sally

I think that is a wonderful ad shot in every way. The purpose is achieved in my opinion. All other discussions are useless, if the client sees it fit for the target audience.

To others..well it was never intended for them anyway. Not the target market.

Asher Kelman said:

Several posts have been moved, for now, to an administrative storage space as they seemed readily interpretable, at the very least, as personal disrespect or ridicule. Obviously we don't want to censor or interfere with free speech. Such unfortunate errors do very rarely happen, almost always, unintentionally; but still, according to the TOS, we have to deal with them immediately. ADK

Click to expand...

Asher,

i will give you a quote;

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

extract - Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion - John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). On Liberty.

As I have indicated the Joke i used exposed a statement that employed a circular logic and insulted all other posters who were not in the "Target Market" - I have not asked for this post to be removed because I don't believe in censorship - it seems that since the TOS were not in breech (as I have explained in PMs) then this exchange should be reinstated.

where are we on this?

cheers

Mark,

You are perhaps right in your argument of circular logic. I eventually arrived at some comfort after the circuitous route. Meanwhile, just reading the face, the direct meaning of what you wrote, without undoing the knots, it appeared very insulting and not fitting. I did appreciate the intelligence and logical craft behind your statement, but you must admit, it required several attempts from you to explain it's underlying real meaning. Since I'm still well in command of my faculties and probably more educated in English than many others, this means that at least some of us here would only find the obvious meaning and consider your remarks far more than disrespectful and hostile.

You have impressed me with your linguistic acrobatics and humor. That should be enough in this multicultural room of folk trying their best to be amicable. So, if you let this be, I'd be appreciative. Being right, but hurting people is not what we want.

Asher

Asher,

I guess the point of this is Humour is powerful - what I am worried about is we know have to censor what we write or picture to the lowest common denominator and that is not directed at anyone as at given points in time that can be anyone who is offended.

I will give you an example of an images that offended me - any image of the celebration of a religion - any image that is not critical of religion I find personally offensive. I have never asked for any image in this contexts to be removed. I think people have a right to offend me. I am big enough to let others be as they are and also as Mill points - I could be wrong.

This site is just a microcosm of what is happening around us - where offence is used as an excuse for censorship we must be on the lookout - people of my fathers generation died in their millions to for these rights.

Dinny re-instate the thread, its your call - and as you requested I will leave it be on this topic.

cheers

Mark Hampton said:

Asher,

I guess the point of this is Humour is powerful - what I am worried about is we know have to censor what we write or picture to the lowest common denominator and that is not directed at anyone as at given points in time that can be anyone who is offended.

I will give you an example of an images that offended me - any image of the celebration of a religion - any image that is not critical of religion I find personally offensive. I have never asked for any image in this contexts to be removed. I think people have a right to offend me. I am big enough to let others be as they are and also as Mill points - I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Mark Hampton said:

This site is just a microcosm of what is happening around us - where offence is used as an excuse for censorship we must be on the lookout - people of my fathers generation died in their millions to for these rights.

Click to expand...

Here you are 100% correct. Napoleon's paradoxical spread of the Rights of Man, albeit by his brutal expansionist campaigns, brought these precious advances at a high cost. The unresolved memic hatreds, still allowed the dogmatic devaluation of fellow humans to finally precipitate the eruptions of systematic multinationally supported cleansing of Europe of Jews. Sure, it had a label, "Nazi" but that is merely a wonderfully self-protective way of disowning what was essentially a predictable pan-European sentiment, bred by the persistent religious teaching and prejudices in almost every state, in every community, in every Church and school and home, even before the Nazis ever decided to organize that underlying evil. We must go back in time. From the debates, treatises and bloodbaths of the French Revolution came the notion that "All people deserved recognition for their human worth, not just some elites!" Predating this monumental change, the Catholic Church dominated Europe. Gradually, many sacrifices in wars and uprisings made possible the hard won freedom for Hindus, Janists, Jews and Muslims in European countries to worship according to their conscience without the threat of being imprisoned or burnt at the stake or exiled! We now have have freedom of religion and theoretically, from religion too. (This is a new and most difficult subject as what offends could be a kippah worn by a Jew, a crucifix by a Christian or a veil by a muslim woman said to be "imposing" religion on others.) Then these disparate currents have to be balanced. These rights, embedded in "Freedom of Speech" in the Western cultures, even extend to an astounding paradox. In the USA we not only allow but also protecting even the most vile hate speech! This shows how valued these hard won freedoms can be viewed in the West. Have we worked out a good balance yet? Not at all, but we are far more open and tolerent than many other places in the world and in the past history of Western civilization.

So I don't take your views lightly as they resonate so strongly with mine, and for that matter, I'd estimate with pretty well most of other readers here.

Mark Hampton said:

Dinny re-instate the thread, its your call - and as you requested I will leave it be on this topic.

cheers

Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, for your kindness in this regard!

I do not take lightly the issue of freedom of speech. I do not have the right or authority to censor opinions on pictures, unless it's personally demeaning, pornographic and especially promoting abuse of children, minorities or other powerless people). However, this is a forum of friends in a social setting. I just want to make sure we are for real, open but are kind to each other too.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Mark,

You are perhaps right in your argument of circular logic. I eventually arrived at some comfort after the circuitous route. Meanwhile, just reading the face, the direct meaning of what you wrote, without undoing the knots, it appeared very insulting and not fitting.

Click to expand...

If it may be of any help in this discussion, for me, the argument was always about circular logic and did not appear outrageously insulting. So, indeed, people read the same argument differently, according to their personal background.