The mysteries of fashion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

Okay, I'll crawl back into my hole on this one. I think I made a bad job of the wording and of conveying my thought and ended up giving the wrong impression of my views.

---

Then again she is dressed in a way that would get her arrested in many parts of the world. If I walked down the street in a thong with the equivalent of what she is wearing over her bra over my rear end I'd get arrested.

There are many cultures where full cover body art is a functioning part of mainstream culture. Western European and modern North American culture are cultures where body art such as this woman is wearing is not the norm. If it was we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Any adult, male or female has the right to adorn their body as they chose. They don't have the right to partake of behaviour that is overly outside of the norms where they live.

I have to admit that I just find this image interesting for what it is. There can be no gender issues. Anyone that thinks there are should have a close look at the likes of David Beckham - see http://www.davidbeckham.com/

Nor do I believe that a model release is appropriate. In the main, the release is a commercial contract governing the distribution (or not) of any pecuniary benefits derived from the image and I think that is fairly common under most Western legal systems. There might be a Privacy issue and that does depend very much on the applicable legal code but given that this individual was quite happily displaying her art in public and no attempt has been made to demean her with the image, I doubt there is a problem.

Tattoos like graffiti can be works of art or moronic scribble. To an old fart like me they seem to be just another symptom of the current generation's obsession with selfies and 'look at me, look at me!' FOMO phobia. Or am I just a grumpy old man?

For those interested in model releases this might be of interest from Dan Heller. And here is a related piece also from him. The first link also touches on property releases.

A release is definitely not needed in this case otherwise every shot of a human posted here with a face, or a (ugh) tattoo showing would require one!

:)

A couple of good links Terry in that they are particularly easy to read and worth reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DickyOZ

the current generation's obsession with selfies

---

I don't understand what you mean by "the current generation," as any generation that is alive is current. I spent about six hours last Saturday on Washington, D.C.'s mall with about 10,000 people. Many generations were represented and all of them were taking selfies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steaphany

I'm standing with Sharon on this one.

So, I'm curious Donald, what about this gal, the fact that she's tattooed, and her choice of attire leaving a fair bit of skin visible, has the result that she is no longer a person, but is now an object ?

In most western countries, adults dress themselves. Rarely is anyone forced into specific clothing selections and there may be laws regarding indecency, but no one regulates taste. Someone may be seen by others as having a poor taste in their choice of clothing, but it is still their choice. Even if this gal was wearing nothing but a bikini, sufficiently concealing all those naughty bits, she would still be a person and not an object.

In regard to Kim and Robert, does having a tattoo come with a clothing requirement mandating clothing choices must prominently and clearly shows off the tattoo, all the time ?

At my pay the bills job here in North Texas, a part of the bible belt, conservative country folk, has a fair number of of co-workers, at various levels of the company, both female and male, with tattoos. Dress is often casual and the tattoos are evident, but rarely on exhibit by clothing choices to show them off.

Finally, on a photographic technicality, even though we can not see her face, the tattoos that this gal has does provide sufficient ability for recognition, necessitating that a model release should have been secured prior to public exhibition or commercial use of this image.

Granted a thread on CiC is not commercial use, but this is a public forum. As I understand it, guests can access these discussions and view the posted photos, so this should have been a situation where a model release was signed by the gal in this photo.

I wanted to reply earlier this morning when I first saw this thread, but the days discussion have brought additional aspects to light and I'm reminded of a meme from twitter that was posted by, of all things, a clothing company who includes sizes for large framed women:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS8DvdzWoAA4zVE.jpg

We are each here to be true to ourselves, to be respected and not superficially judged, which brings a courtesy of not judging others.

---

Steaphany,
Thanks for taking the time to comment to the extent that you did.
And with respect to issues you raised:
No, I don't believe there is a "dress code" for persons with body art.
Within the parameters of the prevailing laws, those persons are free to wear clothing that covers or reveals as much or as little as they are comfortable with. A point I made when I referred to RBSinTo's Law: Everyone does what they do.
And with respect to the need to obtain a release: In the Province of Ontario in which I reside, the law states that persons in public places have no expectation of privacy such that I do not need their permission to photograph them, and if the resulting images are not used for commercial purposes and financial gain, no release is necessary.
Robert

While I have traveled a bit and agree that when in Rome...do as the Romans, in other words, abide by the local customs. So while the woman in question would stand out in many cultures, here in NYC, she comes off as rather mundane (both in clothes and tats).
Interesting side note, there has been a bit of a fuss up in Times Square where women have been taking advantage of the fact that NYS and NYC have no law, regulation or restriction on women going topless in public And if one has ever been to a public beach anywhere, then you've all seen men who, if it were enforced on women would also be required (begged, pleaded) to wear a bra as well. And let's not talk about men in speedos (and yet the good ol' Naked Cowboy, unsurprisingly also in Times Square has been playing his guitar for years in nothing but tighty whiteys and no one seemed to mind.) So with regard to the image in question here, much ado about nothing, so many other things, like homeless, hunger, bigotry...tats and bare breasts are so 1950's.
Oh and stateside, public space, no model release needed but like so many things, a little commonsense can go a long ways.

When I see people similar to the first photograph I usually just chuckle and think "does this person not own a mirror?" Dress codes vary with location and with individuals. So do laws governing what is legal to take photographs of. Social norms also effect what pictures to take. It's perfectly legal to take non-commercial photos that include other peoples little kids in a playground but just try it sometime.

Different people have different standards for many things. Tattoos and showing underwear are pretty tame compared to many no matter how sloppy some of us think they are. Also the situation needs to be accounted for. For some she may be dressed OK for a NASCAR race but it certainly wouldn't fly at a job interview in a large company with a dress code. I would suggest that Donald's norms are just a bit more formal than what people in other places consider routine. Donald, not to drop your jaw or expectations of people, you should take a look at http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ . It's meant as a humorous site but the people are for real. If you've never seen this stuff before I'll apologize in advance.:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steaphany

I'm standing with Sharon on this one.

So, I'm curious Donald, what about this gal, the fact that she's tattooed, and her choice of attire leaving a fair bit of skin visible, has the result that she is no longer a person, but is now an object ?

In most western countries, adults dress themselves. Rarely is anyone forced into specific clothing selections and there may be laws regarding indecency, but no one regulates taste. Someone may be seen by others as having a poor taste in their choice of clothing, but it is still their choice. Even if this gal was wearing nothing but a bikini, sufficiently concealing all those naughty bits, she would still be a person and not an object.

In regard to Kim and Robert, does having a tattoo come with a clothing requirement mandating clothing choices must prominently and clearly shows off the tattoo, all the time ?

At my pay the bills job here in North Texas, a part of the bible belt, conservative country folk, has a fair number of of co-workers, at various levels of the company, both female and male, with tattoos. Dress is often casual and the tattoos are evident, but rarely on exhibit by clothing choices to show them off.

Finally, on a photographic technicality, even though we can not see her face, the tattoos that this gal has does provide sufficient ability for recognition, necessitating that a model release should have been secured prior to public exhibition or commercial use of this image.

Granted a thread on CiC is not commercial use, but this is a public forum. As I understand it, guests can access these discussions and view the posted photos, so this should have been a situation where a model release was signed by the gal in this photo.

I wanted to reply earlier this morning when I first saw this thread, but the days discussion have brought additional aspects to light and I'm reminded of a meme from twitter that was posted by, of all things, a clothing company who includes sizes for large framed women:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS8DvdzWoAA4zVE.jpg

We are each here to be true to ourselves, to be respected and not superficially judged, which brings a courtesy of not judging others.

---

Steaphany,

I do believe your basic assumptions are wrong.

'In most western countries, adults dress themselves. Rarely is anyone forced into specific clothing selections and there may be laws regarding indecency, but no one regulates taste.'

Try wearing a Burka for a week. Every day in every western country people are forced to wear culturally acceptable clothing. From outlaw bikers to presidential candidates you got to wear the uniform.

'Even if this gal was wearing nothing but a bikini, sufficiently concealing all those naughty bits, she would still be a person and not an object.'


What makes you believe that people are not objects? Of course we are. She has chosen to flaunt societal norms. Fair enough. One of her ways of doing it was to turn her body into a canvass. Again fair enough. Then she decides to flaunt her choices in public. You say it is her right. Fair enough. But I say you are objectifying her just as much as someone who says the opposite.

A society is a gathering of people into a common politic. Anyone who steps too far outside of the body politic will be forced to correct their behaviour or in some way be removed. This is reality. A reality the lady in question submits to. If she didn't we would get to see all of her tattoos.

Donald has the right, even the obligation to voice his opinion as you or I do. But none of us do it without objectifying what we comment on.
Brian:)

I'll paraphrase it simply, as the original quote does not apply, and many here will know where this comes from.

I'm not a number, I am a free individual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFh6Yy-rIB8

Individualism vs Collectivism

( Emotional out-burst subdued )

Friedrich Nietzsche:
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steaphany

I'll paraphrase it simply, as the original quote does not apply, and many here will know where this comes from.

I'm not a number, I am a free individual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFh6Yy-rIB8

Individualism vs Collectivism

( Emotional out-burst subdued )

---

No, like the rest of us you are a number. from your birth certificate to your death certificate you are identified and categorized by numbers.

You are neither free nor an individual.

You live under the laws of your community, your state, your country and the world court.

Your individuality is totally dependent upon your ancestors and the relationships they had with others.

And with that I have said all i shall.

Quote:

---

She has chosen to flaunt societal norms.

---

Hasn't she just chosen a different set of norms? Does she move in circles where other people dress like this?

And yet on the other hand I was going to disagree with this:

Quote:

---

No, like the rest of us you are a number. from your birth certificate to your death certificate you are identified and categorized by numbers.

You are neither free nor an individual.

You live under the laws of your community, your state, your country and the world court.

Your individuality is totally dependent upon your ancestors and the relationships they had with others.

And with that I have said all i shall.

---

because I think if that were true we'd all be identikit copies of each other following the same life path.

Maybe I'm just in argumentative mood this morning.

(And I messed up the quotes, sorry - so rather than wrongly attribute them I took the names out)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBW

Steaphany,

I do believe your basic assumptions are wrong.

Try wearing a Burka for a week. Every day in every western country people are forced to wear culturally acceptable clothing. From outlaw bikers to presidential candidates you got to wear the uniform.

A society is a gathering of people into a common politic. Anyone who steps too far outside of the body politic will be forced to correct their behaviour or in some way be removed. This is reality. A reality the lady in question submits to. If she didn't we would get to see all of her tattoos.

Brian:)

---

Brian you mentioned the wearing of the Burqa?

In France where they banned the Burqa?
Are they right or wrong?

Quote:

---

Anyone who steps too far outside of the body politic will be forced to correct their behaviour or in some way be removed.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...erinhijab.html

OTOH, What if we replace that image of girl/tattoo with a woman wearing a Burqa, will the other previous posters' arguments still apply?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rider in the Sky

Brian you mentioned the wearing of the Burqa?

In France where they banned the Burqa?
Are they right or wrong?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...erinhijab.html

OTOH, What if we replace that image of girl/tattoo with a woman wearing a Burqa, will the other previous posters' arguments still apply?

---

My personal opinion is that they took the action to ban out of fear. To me that makes the banning wrong. For the answer to your second question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rachel

Hasn't she just chosen a different set of norms? Does she move in circles where other people dress like this?

And yet on the other hand I was going to disagree with this:



because I think if that were true we'd all be identikit copies of each other following the same life path.

Maybe I'm just in argumentative mood this morning.

(And I messed up the quotes, sorry - so rather than wrongly attribute them I took the names out)

---

Of course she has chosen a different set of norms. that is what happens when you flaunt the generally accepted norms. Do others in her circle look like her? probably. When i was in college there were many groups. One particular group that always made me smile was the theatrical group. to prove their one of a kind don't give a damn about society or fitting in mindset they all wore the same hairstyle, leather jacket, black jean and running shoe look.

Are we all identikits of one another? ask yourself a simple question ~ is there now a world wide pan culture? If there is then we are. look through the web and aside from ethnic minorities wearing regalia can you tell one person's nationality from another by their clothes? or the food they eat? the music they listen to? or the camera they shoot with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

Okay, I'll crawl back into my hole on this one. I think I made a bad job of the wording and of conveying my thought and ended up giving the wrong impression of my views.

---

I am sayin' nuffin' because I'll get into more trouble than I can pray for...good for you, Donald...I think your opinion came with upbringing. And so will mine. Zzzzzziiiippppp! Click!:D

I have difficulty with the concept of several norms. To my mind, by definition, in any given situation there can only be one. However I understand what is being said. In any statistical distribution there are areas on either side of the "norm" in which thank goodness, in a free society we are each free to inhabit. This individual tends to one extreme and whereas I don't particularly admire her taste, in a democracy, we should defend her right to make that choice. If all that is wrong with this world is the way some people want to dress, I would happily embrace it.

Having said that freedom has to have limits if society as a whole is to work. IMHO, the Burqa is a particular case because it falls on the divide. I have no problem with it per se as a religious preference but in a world where identity is so important, the Burqa provides a level of anonymity which has sometimes been abused and generally not by those that value it's religious significance. The French have opted to fall on one side of that divide. So far we in the the UK have chosen to remain on the other.

Ethos might be a better term.

1. Sociology. the fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs, or practices of a group or society; dominant assumptions of a people or period:
In the Greek ethos the individual was highly valued.

2. the character or disposition of a community, group, person, etc.

3. the moral element in dramatic literature that determines a character's action rather than his or her thought or emotion.

I've followed this thread with interest.

Two points to be made:-

1) I agree with Brian, the focal point of the image is confusing. The Body Art (tattoos') is at odds with the eccentric dress choice and leaves the viewer unsure what to focus on. If the intent was to capture the young woman as an example of the eclectic fashions one can encounter these days, then a longer shot, showing more of the young woman in a larger street scene would have been more successful. I do understand though that the circumstances of the capture did not give much time for capture.

2)

Quote:

---

In the end everyone does what they do (RBSinTo's Law) and this photo is the result.

---

Over the years I have often answered' my wife and friends with RBSinTo's Law, (although I thought it was JGE's Law ;)).
I'm pleased to find another 'like-minded' person/philosopher who see's the world much the way I do. :) :)