Jeanette Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 I've worked as a life model at art school before, so maybe I'm being hypocritical, I don't know. So yeah there are a fair share of folk in Aberdeen who have seen my bits, but I liked working there and it was to help fund my way through uni. Is that the same?I think that's completely different. You're not posing in a provocative way in order to bring enjoyment to people. You were doing something that was improving the skills of the artists that were drawing/painting you. The artists aren't interested in your body so to speak, not in the way that those looking at the SG girls are. They're interested in the form of the human body and how they put that on paper, or in a photograph.My friend has just finished Gray's and she's taken photographs of the human body which are entirely arty... Not flashy and brassy like SG or Page 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 I think that's completely different. You're not posing in a provocative way in order to bring enjoyment to people. You were doing something that was improving the skills of the artists that were drawing/painting you. The artists aren't interested in your body so to speak, not in the way that those looking at the SG girls are. They're interested in the form of the human body and how they put that on paper, or in a photograph.My friend has just finished Gray's and she's taken photographs of the human body which are entirely arty... Not flashy and brassy like SG or Page 3.arty is such a non-phrase. it's either art or it's not. you can take pictures which look 'arty' but if they're a meaningless picture of a side boob then it's not art. art is about meaning not the look.not saying your friend's pictures aren't art like, not seen em so i can't judge. just venting about psuedo-fineart photography in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovers_spit Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 not whores, models. exhibitionist ones perhaps but models nonetheless. if she had a cock in her hand while taking the cash then you can start debating the whole pornography/prostitution thing. would it be any different if it was a guy in that pose? As Phil said, we are the target audience, we have a right to bitch about them.Well exhibitionism, whatever, they show themselves in what are meant to be mildly arousing poses for money. Still the same in my book.No. I'd think the guy was a cunt as well. Beyond me why a boy would wear a corset anyway.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanette Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 arty is such a non-phrase. it's either art or it's not. you can take pictures which look 'arty' but if they're a meaningless picture of a side boob then it's not art. art is about meaning not the look.not saying your friend's pictures aren't art like, not seen em so i can't judge. just venting about psuedo-fineart photography in general.I get what you're saying, but for the simplicity of this debate, the pictures of the Suicide Girls are not arty! Thus not art... However, my friends photos are art, because well that's what she got her 1st for! Anyway, I know that wasn't a direct rant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted June 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted June 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 It concerns me that some women just want to be rich and famous for the sake of it, I think this is the motive for these kind of shots.I think it's less about money and fame (because nobody becomes rich and very rarely becomes famous for doing that kind of modelling) and more about raging narcissism. AFAIK sites like SG actually try to solicit photos from the general public, so you have a situation where vapid self-obsessed girls are actually in a sense competing with each other to be featured. None of them make money out of it, but the pictures will be re-licensed and resold/distributed globally and continue to earn the license holder loads of money.I've worked as a life model at art school before, so maybe I'm being hypocritical, I don't know. So yeah there are a fair share of folk in Aberdeen who have seen my bits, but I liked working there and it was to help fund my way through uni. Is that the same?Nah that is quite different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 The human body is art. I fucking love Suicide Girls. I appreciate art though. Pornography is art, albeit in a crass form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouse Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Guys like boobs, girls love attention Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewCat Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 The artists aren't interested in your body so to speak, not in the way that those looking at the SG girls are. .i dunno like - i'm at art school and i would'nae mind chuggin' off to a photo of janes naked body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcn Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 LMAO you are a slut bag Stew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jake Wifebeater Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 It's no big deal, it's just the way of the world. A woman gets paid a shitload more for wiggling her arse around a pole than she would working as a nurse.Equality? Nope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Von Mondragon Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 That bog photo was well funny. This has all been covered by the Cosi Fanni Tutti/COUM debacle in the 70s, when at least it genuinely did shock the public standards of the day, now its so humdrum. If nothing else I suppose it tries to avoid 'dead-eyed model syndrome' but thats probably a niche that some people love.In short; women take off clothes out of personal choice-fair enough, but how many have been manipulated into it by some dodger, too many, probably. Damn our hardwired visual responsiveness.Its a sticky problem(WahWahWaaaahh) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 too right, I've never met one that could wall paper yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 I do think that SG's are exploiting girls (subtley). If you are photographed for SG's you have to sign a contract so you cannot model for anything else. So much for freedom...So pretty much like many corporate sponsorship deals then...they may receive a decent enough cash sum for their modelling shoots for SG....who knows? It's a pretty slickly run empire they have built up, not exactly back alley stuff as far as I can tell. The fact that many actors and musicians are happy to associate themselves with the SG brand to me says a lot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tam o' Shantie Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 I don't think it's trying to be arty, it's just trying to cash in on the type of person who thinks that they subscribe to some obscure subculture, when really they're just boring assholes like the rest of us who happen to have some tattoos or a piercing. The idea of empowerment is bullshit, it's no different from any other soft porn and I very much doubt the girls are any less exploited than on any other site with 'normal' girls on it.Goth/Emo/Punk/Indie/Metal/Rock fashion aside, I actually find a large proportion of these girls to be genuinely ugly. Yes, the style might be 'different' and 'refreshing' to the average 'punker' who just wants to stick a middle finger up to the corporate media and drones of society while paying $20 a month to jerk off to pictures of a nude woman with pink hair and a tattoo on her stomach, but I genuinely don't see the sex appeal in half of these girls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim.. Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Owl PhD Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 This is more my sort of thing:Women in Waders TM 2008 Calendar-Beautiful Women In Waders TM and bikinis fishing in beautiful scenery, a great gift for the fisherman!Beauty and the Bass 2006 Calendar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teabags Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 I thought Suicide Girls were naked chicks. And that was it.Everyone of you has read far too much into this. Its naked chicks. Perhaps naked chicks that aren't your usual naked chick models cos of tattoos and piercings and hair styles that page 3 naked chicks wouldnt get away with. But still naked chicks.All this talk of empowering and arty nonsense is making a mountain out of a mole hill.Its naked chicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neutral Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 SG is for weirdos to meet weirdos who like gawping at other weirdos who have problems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teabags Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 didnt notice it before, but she has a fucking ace jaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.