At Fendi Couture S/S 21. She looks different from what I remembered and a bit different from that video in post #342.
Lila also walked the show.
Lila also walked the show.
At Fendi Couture S/S 21. She looks different from what I remembered and a bit different from that video in post #342.
Lila also walked the show.
Kate looks botched, which is sad since she looked absolutely stunning in her British Vogue video from November 2020.
Upon seeing this post and the photo of Kate, I wondered why you were posting some random model in Katie's thread.At Fendi Couture S/S 21. She looks different from what I remembered and a bit different from that video in post #342.
Lila also walked the show.
I agree with skinny2skin; I also thought Kate looked really good in that recent Vogue video. Perhaps this is just some unfortunate makeup and lighting?
I think the face lifts were an artistic choice by Fendi. Maybe a comment on the beauty standards for woman in a post postmodern world.
Not to dissimilar the Gucci cyborg we saw in Fall 2018. They both frame beauty as a social construct.
But good on the models for agreeing to massive reconstructive facial surgery for the sake of art. Why else would they do it?
Attachments
Just read in an article that Kate is auctioning a video of herself sleeping online? I'm really not savvy with cryptocurrency web stuff, I have never even heard of an NFT before, but to me this seems so fucking odd and creepy. Anybody care to enlighten me here? 
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion...s-sleep-with-kate-video-as-non-fungible-token
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion...s-sleep-with-kate-video-as-non-fungible-token
Just read in an article that Kate is auctioning a video of herself sleeping online? I'm really not savvy with cryptocurrency web stuff, I have never even heard of an NFT before, but to me this seems so fucking odd and creepy. Anybody care to enlighten me here?
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion...s-sleep-with-kate-video-as-non-fungible-token
The article you linked explains NFTs pretty well imo:
Bitcoin etc are types of fungible tokens, they can be exchanged/substituted for other bitcoins (the same way that normal currency can). NFTs are basically tokens that attach to unique, one-of-a kind assets, i.e they are non-fungible. Think of it like a digital receipt /proof that you own a particular asset People think buying and selling NFTs will be like a new form of art collecting: you want to own the original asset (whether it be a meme, photo, tweet etc) and will pay a high price for it.
The one thing that I don't quite get about NFTs is why people would want to pay so much money simply just to call themselves the "owner" of a particular asset. From a copyright/intellectual property perspective, unless the laws change, the owner of an NFT doesn't own the copyright in the item that the NFT attaches to. So they don't acquire all the rights that the copyright owner has, such as the right to control the distribution and reproduction of the asset. I understand why people buy physical works of art even though they don't own the underlying copyright but when we're talking about digital assets, it doesn't make sense to me. Digital assets are easily distributed across the internet. Like the "overly attached girlfriend" meme which was sold as an NFT for over $400k according to the article. What is the point in owning an original digital asset if you don't also own the underlying copyright in the asset?
Anyway back to the article: emrata had me rolling my eyes once again:
OMG. She's a "model"! The whole point of which is to enable others to profit from her image. Models pose for photos, and then the photographer/company that commissioned the photo gets to decide how it is used. She was compensated when the original photo was taken (for her time), does she expect to receive ongoing compensation every time a photo of her is used? No, that money (quite rightfully) goes to the photographer or whoever the photographer sold the image rights to. Argh she's so annoying.
I mean it’s perfectly reasonable for a model to expect additional compensation if her image is used past the agreed upon terms. It really depends. If the contract didn’t include an unlimited buyout in perpetuity then the agency/model should absolutely receive further compensation if the client wants to add on additional usage. A lot of clients will sneakily try to get around this so I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to want more control and autonomy over the use of your likeness.
If the image is used beyond the agreed upon terms, then yes, agree. I suspect though that emrata is talking about having control over her image regardless of whether or not she assigned all her rights away. Though admittedly this assumption is based on how vocal she has been in the past about wanting to control the use of her image, despite having signed a release to the contrary.
Regardless, from what I understand about NFTs, I fail to see how they will necessarily allow models to control the use of their image as emrata suggests. Theoretically, only the copyright owner should be able to tokenise the photograph. So unless emrata owns the copyright in the photo of herself, she shouldn't be able to tokenise it. At least, that's how it should work under current copyright laws I believe. In any event, the photograph can still be shared online, and as we saw with the whole Khloe Kardashian un-retouched photo saga, once a photo is published online, it's near impossible to control its distribution. I understand that every time the NFT attached to emrata's photograph is sold she will receive a cut of the price, but she doesn't get to control who can use and reproduce the photo.
Here is an interesting article on copyright issues in NFTs in case anyone is interested.
Thankyou!
The whole concept still dumbfounds me. I think it's the whole possessive nature of it, of course Mossy is consenting but somebody willing to pay £10k+ for a video of a person, purely exclusive to them, is disturbing surely?
What surprises me is that Kate of all people is doing this, it's something you'd expect a model of the social media generation to partake in, not a 90s supermodel (who clearly doesn't need the cash either?).
I've got a headache trying to understand it all but whatever in the black mirror episode this shit is, she can do what she wants. I hope she doesn't snore.
It’s no different to buying a physical piece of art though. Think of it like buying a physical photo. You wouldn’t batt an eye if someone paid a lot of money to own say, the original physical photo of Kate shot by Mario Sorrenti. NFTs work in the same way.
These are recent ones...
I can't believe how old she looks. My mom is a couple of years older than her and looks a hundred times better.
Kate was such an inspiration when she was younger...
I can't believe how old she looks. My mom is a couple of years older than her and looks a hundred times better.
Kate was such an inspiration when she was younger...
I love how her face is so versatile and can carry both heaps of makeup and is also stunning in a more natural look. Kate's face appreciation post!
