Wow, I've joked about magazine poses being ridiculous before, and it's really nice to see someone pointing it out.  My coworker and I had a laugh over this (the poses that is, not the message and meaning of the video), especially the one with the lady in the pink shirt and blue shirt with the police walking up to her and talking to her.  Is modeling a disturbance to the peace now?

LOVE IT. Reminds me of Cindy Sherman's Centerfolds, only more jarring. I love that the photos are clearly taken out among an "unsuspecting" public.

I think it would speak to me more if they used non-models but still in a photo studio, or posed models in public. The combination of out-of-context placement and changing who is doing the poses muddies the message.

It's thought-provoking, but loses something because the poses aren't faithfully reproduced. I think the models are meant to look as if they've been caught in an
intense, sexual moment and are engaged with their props or the viewer.
That sexuality and intimacy is lost by placing the mirroring models in
public spaces (eradicating the viewer) and clumsily reproducing the
poses.

For example, the model in black is suggestively smearing a purse across her face, as if it might be a lover's body (phallus, thigh, or belly). Her fingers are arched and the tips are lightly poised over the knee. I see a lot of tension and anticipation in the pose. The woman attempting to reproduce this pose is holding a smaller purse, and clutching it closer to her face. Her fingers are somewhat lazily relaxed against her knee and the thumb is stuck up awkwardly. As a result, instead of sensuously smearing a long object down her face, she looks to be hiding fearfully.

The photo of the woman in the grocery store has been similarly altered. The model is leaning into the purse, again, like it was an erotic object, while the mirror model is looking away from the purse, as if it has nothing to do with her.

The model with her fingers in her mouth has her head cocked and inclined toward the viewer. We can't read her expression, but we are led to assume it's sexual, since she's penetrating her mouth invitingly and her gaze is fixed on us. Compare that to the woman in the street who is wearing a slightly victimized or horrified expression on her face, head held high and is looking at no one in particular.

To the extent that they are attempting to show how male models aren't posed this way, I think it could have been illuminating to do that: pose male models this way.

This is profoundly stupid. This is just like saying, "normal, every-day people don't identify with art and we also totally miss the point, so let's make fun of it and show how silly we would all look if we all tried to imitate these paintings in public".

High fashion isn't SUPPOSED to represent so-called "real" women (which, by the way, models are just as much "real" women as anyone else). High-fashion photography is intended to be artistic, and its real intention is to help make the clothes look exceptionally beautiful and create a fantasy surrounding them.

I definitely agree that these could have been done better, especially the one in the McDonald's (actually kind of annoyed that that's presented as a ridiculous pose; all people don't sit back straight, knees crossed at the ankles!), but the last one especially is FABULOUS.  I see that and similar poses in magazines and to me, it doesn't look dramatic or oversexual.  The rest of the poses convey some sort of message or emotion, even if it's a silly pose.  But that pose looks, frankly, unnecessarily painful and unattractive.  There's nothing sexy about it.  It doesn't make the dress look appealing.  I wonder why they'd use such a completely unnatural pose for a human body to sell anything, whether it is the dress itself or some bizarre concept of sex.  Even with the model's extreme features (she looks like she's 115 pounds and nearly 6 feet tall), I'm not entirely sure how she could be doing it sans photoshop.

While this is hilarious, I do think it misses a point. Fashion photography of the sort pictured above does try to be a sort of art, to create shapes/positions that are not what you see every day, while also attempting to create a sort of fantasy. I'm a big fan of dance as art, but people don't move through their lives with the same sort of practiced effort as a dancer mid-performance! And modern dance has just as many weird shapes/poses as fashion photography does.

I guess my issue isn't the poses, it's the fact that there's no masculine equivalent.

I find the combination of both pictures very good, the purpose of art is that it makes you start to think and to feel and to talk about it, to share your thougts and this is exactly what is happening  right now. GOOD!!
I hope I'v been able to explain what I meant because my Englisch is not very good. Next time I will express myself in mij own language Dutch, and you can translate it for yourself if you want to. Bye Bye 

Thanks, this made me actually laugh out loud, especially the McDonald's one

Very well done.  I've often thought it would be a great project to do pose men in the same ridiculous postures that we find women models.

Absolutely. I mean, my body doesn't look anything like that woman in Guernica,and somebody should have told Dali watches don't really bend like that.

Speaking honestly, this analysis comes out sort of silly, by myopically ignoring the parameters of the art it is trying to critic. As for those who state this is nothing but marketing anyway, well, Painting too can be constructed as being nothing more than marketing and PR (case in point, Dali).

I think the real issue should be of why do people insist in using the admittedly fantasy setting of high-fashion as a mirror for reality. Forcing art in to some kind of reality dictatorship does not seem like a solution to me.

"typical model poses are reproduced in real life by real people"

"We don’t identify with this type of woman – we are much more."

There is something problematic with these statements. As thought models aren't real people and speaking as if women are some universal mass that only identify a certain way. That is what high fashion is supposed to do--people are the hooks for the clothing, male and female. You aren't looking at the model, you're looking at the watch, the shoes, the piece of clothing. That doesn't make the model any less real, and it doesn't mean that no woman identifies with this art or these models. Its a funny idea, but it seems a little...I don't know what the word to use here is.

I am still laughing out loud.

High fashion as art? Yes, I can see and understand that. When high fashion stops being art is when our girls identify with the model, not the product, and we have a society of women (men, too) with distorted and limited beliefs of what it means to be beautiful. 

Personally, I found this hilarious and love the point being made. And, that was the idea, not to criticize the art it can mean, but the objectivity of woman it also represents. 

Usually really enjoy your sight and the articles, but this one didn't really do anything for me.  I felt the "mock" photos lacked any artistic depth, and actually agree w/ Natasha's comment (below).  High fashion is very artistic.  Agree completely w/ Natasha! 

I watched the video here http://www.yolandadominguez.com/Poses/index.html and really love this project. Women posing in ways that pass unremarked in fashion photography will make people call the police when presented in public! It does a great job of showing how we get very desensitized to images of women in bizarre, uncomfortable poses depending on the context. 

This is amazing. I love it . So many things are wrong with the fasion world now a days .

If models just stood and did the same one straight pose, it would be boring.

The poses bring different angles, lines and shapes. It's interesting.

Lol I'm sorry but I think this is fucking brilliant. 

Hahaha! This is great!

And Natasha, you're wrong! High fashion is not "art" (that is insulting to artists everywhere). There is no point to high fashion except to uphold a ridiculous and unobtainable image of femininity. This standard only serves to keep women in their place- a place carved out by a misogynistic, patriarchal, capitalist culture.

Way to go on this project!

You make my day!!
Want more please!!

This is good.  It's essentially a discussion of cultural relevance as related to art, and I think what Ms. Dominguez is saying with this is that in the fashion industry (which then spreads to a cultural perception through advertising) beauty is too narrowly defined.  Every fashion-picture here criticized have two things in common: the models have thin body types, and the models are posed in such a way as to sexualize themselves, including throwing their hips, arching their backs, and even sticking their fingers in their mouths, all of them giving dazed "bedroom eyes" to the camera.  Ms. Dominguez, I feel, is criticizing the exclusivity of beauty as it is represented by the high fashion industry.  Thin women are over-represented, when in reality theirs is not the only body type that is beautiful--this is why Dominguez's photos focus on curvy and overweight women: because they are already under-represented, not because she is trying to exclude thin women.  That would be silly, seeing as thin women are already glorified as the only type of beauty worthy of high fashion.  (On a side note, this exclusionary paradigm is what makes high fashion industries appear snotty to the everyday woman).  Once she has criticized the accepted body image, Dominguez then criticizes the sexualization, (and therefore degradation) of models.  By placing her "real woman" models in realistic situations, rather than in front of a screen, Dominguez accentuates the silliness of the sexualized poses--who makes bedroom eyes while eating fast food, or sitting outside, or doing any number of things that regular women do?  This is a critique of how women are portrayed in high fashion situations--right now, women are generally glorified for being thin and portay themselves without any characterization beyond sex appeal, and what these photos are saying is that neither of those things are okay, and that while they are art, there are whole demographics being ignored by the fashion industry, and whole ways of characterization (outside of sex appeal) that would appeal more effectively to everyday women.  (As a side note: sexualizing the women that are trying to sell something to men makes sense, even if it is degrading--sexualizing women trying to sell something to women--the majority of whom, in the world, are straight--is just stupid.) 

I found this quite amusing.  I also think it's great it has stirred up a debate which is the original point of the piece. 

This is brilliant. Fashion is so obscenely ridiculous. 

Why do the models have to be put in such ridiculous and clearly not common everyday poses in order to portray these high fashion outfits at their best? If you have to stand (or contort) yourself into such a position in order to make the clothes you are wearing look good, then maybe they aren't practical as a garment to be worn whilst doing normal things like sitting, standing, reaching for something, etc. But there are people out there who will buy these outfits because they are told to (ie advertised in high fashion magazines and elsewhere) and they believe that if they wear them they will also be transported into the fantasy of being popular and beautiful. Or they just like to wear a popular label so they can brag about how fashionable and stylish they are. Ultimately most women are smart enough not to buy into the hype. It's a shame that the majority of people are swept up by all this. They need to be told how we should think of beauty.... And it's amazing how many people think their opinions are fact! We are all different with very different tastes. That's why someone will look at a painting and love it and others will hate it. Art (and beauty) is subjective not objective, meaning one person thinks a toilet seat is disgusting whilst someone else thinks it is art (see Marcel Duchamp - he turned a mens urinal upside down and called it art). And please think back to the Ruebenesque women. They were considered the height of beauty in their time. So when we stop being told that thin (and very tall) women are the only form of beauty that is acceptable, I wonder what body shape will be next? Hopefully healthy.
And thats not to say that thin women are not healthy, but most people are not naturally thin and they have to go to extreme lengths at times to maintain that shape often with consequences to their health. Such a shame I have to put in this disclaimer hey?

Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!

I have been looking for this again. Funny stuf