Fashion and Us

[sashbar]

I do not like fashion in the same way that I do not like anything that dictates what to do, what is good and what is ugly. So I always wanted to take an image that depicts relation between fashion and humans as I see it.

 

[The_Traveler]

IMO, the image leans much too hard on the title.

 

[sashbar]

IMO, the image leans much too hard on the title.

Thanks Lew. My wife did not need the title or an explanation to get the idea immediately. Probably because she is the victim

 

[The_Traveler]

Tell her she looks great in red.

 

[OrionsByte]

So I'll admit to more than a bit of naivety here, since the sum total of everything I know about fashion would fill about 3 pixels on my camera's sensor, but I just don't get this photo.

You may ask, if I don't get it, why did I decide to comment, and the reason kind of goes back to your response to Lew: someone like your wife, who has been a "victim" of whatever you're trying to depict, might get it immediately, but someone like me, who has not a single fashionable bone in his body, is left clueless without the title and explanation (and even then, I still feel a bit in the dark).

So with that in mind, I have some questions for you regarding your photographic choices. I don't mean these as critiques per se - more as thought exercises for the both of us.

1. The mannequin in focus and the woman passing by is motion-blurred. I can only assume this is intentional, because a higher shutter speed would have frozen the motion, so it would have been easy to avoid if you didn't want it there. What is the message you're trying to convey with that choice?
2. My eyes are drawn to the mannequin's hands. Is that intentional? Is there a significance to the mannequin's "pose" that you found important?
3. Is Valentino a well-known store/boutique? Is it a big player in the issue of women targeted by the fashion industry, or just one of several?
4. Is the reflection in the Valentino sign significant (the bright part of the reflection is particularly distracting IMO)?

I understand that at its core this is basically street photography, but if you're trying to portray something that you've "always wanted to" depict photographically, I think you can probably do better. Just my opinion.

 

[sashbar]

So I'll admit to more than a bit of naivety here, since the sum total of everything I know about fashion would fill about 3 pixels on my camera's sensor, but I just don't get this photo.

You may ask, if I don't get it, why did I decide to comment, and the reason kind of goes back to your response to Lew: someone like your wife, who has been a "victim" of whatever you're trying to depict, might get it immediately, but someone like me, who has not a single fashionable bone in his body, is left clueless without the title and explanation (and even then, I still feel a bit in the dark).

So with that in mind, I have some questions for you regarding your photographic choices. I don't mean these as critiques per se - more as thought exercises for the both of us.

1. The mannequin in focus and the woman passing by is motion-blurred. I can only assume this is intentional, because a higher shutter speed would have frozen the motion, so it would have been easy to avoid if you didn't want it there. What is the message you're trying to convey with that choice?
2. My eyes are drawn to the mannequin's hands. Is that intentional? Is there a significance to the mannequin's "pose" that you found important?
3. Is Valentino a well-known store/boutique? Is it a big player in the issue of women targeted by the fashion industry, or just one of several?
4. Is the reflection in the Valentino sign significant (the bright part of the reflection is particularly distracting IMO)?

I understand that at its core this is basically street photography, but if you're trying to portray something that you've "always wanted to" depict photographically, I think you can probably do better. Just my opinion.

Thank you for your comment. You ask some valid questions. And I agree with you and Lew that the idea might be too obscure. But as I wrote, it was interesting to me.

You said you do not know much about fashion, but really you do not need to know much about it to see that the fashion world (or industry) wants to dictate tastes, trends, the way we want to look, behave etc. You know this phrase "dedicated followers of fashion" for sure. To me this is a synonym of "slaves". That is how so many high fashion people see us simple guys. That is my personal issue with fashion, so to speak. (Not that I am too serious about it, but it is enough to inspire an image )

Regarding the photograph my way of thinking was quite simple. Mannequins are often used to project a "dominatrix" image, same as supermodels on a catwalk. This is intentional - often they use a posture of authority just like the one in the picture with its hands behind its back. (You know - hands crossed on the chest mean a defensive mood and the "teacher's posture" seen in the image means the opposite). So there is an explanation why your eyes are drawn to these hands. So the "pose" of this thing is of course absolutely important.

It is not that I was looking for one on purpose, but that idea was at the back of my mind, and when I saw it in a lobby of a Las Vegas shopping mall, I thought - oops, great setting. And the red color - I loved it -it adds to the "domination" theme. Red is a color of domination.

So basically it is easy - when you see such mannequin and can have a good position, just wait for a subdued person to come by. How do you make it subdued or subservient? Again, easy - find the one with subdued posture and blurr him/her to make this person unrecognisable, "nobody". Add to it some high fashion attributes like "Valentino" name and bingo.

The reflection in the Valentino sign was accidental, I was too concentrated on simple things and only noticed it in post production. But it adds something, doesn't it? The man looks at you as if thinking "Another fool?"

Probably this is all just bonkers for some, and as you say I could probably do better, but this is just street photography and I can only be as good as the scene I see. I am not going to stage anything of sort and make it really dramatic, I just want to capture a true moment in life. That moment was real, it will never happen again. That is how I enjoy it. By the end of the day I do it for myself, not for others. If others enjoy the image I am happy, if not - well, I am still happy with this one.

Brian, I hope I have answered your questions.

Probably I am giving away too much here :mrgreen: But those hands are indeed cool: watch your balls man !

 

[The_Traveler]

IMO, the image leans much too hard on the title.

and the explanation.

 

[sashbar]

IMO, the image leans much too hard on the title.

and the explanation.

Sure, any image that has an introduction, a suggestive title or an explanation as a rule is so weak, it can not defend itself Anyway, I highly appreciate your interest Lew, thank you.

 

[The_Traveler]

Agreed.
The picture is nicely done, it just isn't clear what your point is.

 

[sashbar]

Agreed.
The picture is nicely done, it just isn't clear what your point is.

I hope with the 2nd image at least it is clear enough that if the man is not careful enough the thing will grab him by his balls, suck all his money and probably his brain as well

 

[DiskoJoe]

There is no way to get away from fashion design or designers. Even if you make your own clothes you just become what you said you despised, the designer. And is that a Prada bag your wife is carrying? And dude is sitting is a rather expensive designer suit as well. Basically what Im getting at is that you idea may be a bit too complex to be easily displayed with a single image.

 

[sashbar]

There is no way to get away from fashion design or designers. Even if you make your own clothes you just become what you said you despised, the designer. And is that a Prada bag your wife is carrying? And dude is sitting is a rather expensive designer suit as well. Basically what Im getting at is that you idea may be a bit too complex to be easily displayed with a single image.

Thanks Joe, yes, they all can not get away from it.
I do not think we have to make our own clothes. If we just refuse to buy something that fashion says we must wear this year because this year we must wear it, - then it is good enough to me.
And this is not my wife. Just some girl who was told that Prada is the way to go.

 

[limr]

There is no way to get away from fashion design or designers. Even if you make your own clothes you just become what you said you despised, the designer. And is that a Prada bag your wife is carrying? And dude is sitting is a rather expensive designer suit as well. Basically what Im getting at is that you idea may be a bit too complex to be easily displayed with a single image.

I don't think it's a complicated idea. It's a fashionable store, the mannequin is in a position of authority and looking officiously down on the customers, and the woman passing is looking down, dejected, trying to follow and fit in but never feeling good enough. It looks like she has her hand on her heart and is hunched over, feeling ashamed at the disapproving gaze of the plastic woman who is more fashionable than she is. Her bag might be flashy, but the rest of her is trying to hide.

We're supposed to feel inadequate and understand that the only way to feel better is to look like we are told to look. I don't know if men have the same experience, but women are told this every f****** day of our lives.

I'm not a 'victim' of fashion in the sense that I believe what the media tells me I should look like or wear, but I certainly know that I'm one of the targets. Did it influence my interpretation of the picture? Possibly. Even if I ultimately don't give a crap about what the fashion world thinks of me, I do certainly have memories of feeling...small, for lack of a better word...in the face of a tall, beautiful, well-dressed and fashionable woman.

 

[sashbar]

There is no way to get away from fashion design or designers. Even if you make your own clothes you just become what you said you despised, the designer. And is that a Prada bag your wife is carrying? And dude is sitting is a rather expensive designer suit as well. Basically what Im getting at is that you idea may be a bit too complex to be easily displayed with a single image.

I don't think it's a complicated idea. It's a fashionable store, the mannequin is in a position of authority and looking officiously down on the customers, and the woman passing is looking down, dejected, trying to follow and fit in but never feeling good enough. It looks like she has her hand on her heart and is hunched over, feeling ashamed at the disapproving gaze of the plastic woman who is more fashionable than she is. Her bag might be flashy, but the rest of her is trying to hide.

We're supposed to feel inadequate and understand that the only way to feel better is to look like we are told to look. I don't know if men have the same experience, but women are told this every f****** day of our lives.

I'm not a 'victim' of fashion in the sense that I believe what the media tells me I should look like or wear, but I certainly know that I'm one of the targets. Did it influence my interpretation of the picture? Possibly. Even if I ultimately don't give a crap about what the fashion world thinks of me, I do certainly have memories of feeling...small, for lack of a better word...in the face of a tall, beautiful, well-dressed and fashionable woman.

Thank you Leonore ! At last I have a critic for this image that speaks the same language (only more fluent). Have you noticed that the poor girl is CHAINED to her bag?