HOME | DD
shauntiamodel β Stark
[NSFW]
Published: 2013-04-25 03:11:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 14351; Favourites: 691; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
One of my favorites from this set
Photo: Jim Fury Hesterman,
Model: Shantia Veney
Makeup: Lizzy Campbell
Hair: Wade Lee Richards
Lets make it popular, haters
Related content
Comments: 84
Thank you so much
π: 0 β©: 0
Amazing work! The lighting in this image is perfect.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, Jim is a master
π: 0 β©: 0
You look very beautiful!
And I love the pose, too ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
No problem ^^
Um.. Is it ok if I use the pose for some art work? I'll credit you
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, just please credit
π: 0 β©: 1
These pics of you in the headdress are awesome, very well done and above all.. *sexy*
π: 0 β©: 1
Because I know you and Jim... kinda 
π: 0 β©: 1
Beautifully done. Great pose, expression, and styling.
π: 0 β©: 1
oh my god this is gorgeous *0*
It's been a long time since I have found a photography so beautiful
Treatment of light and dark on the skin is particulary amazing
I'm in love
π: 0 β©: 1
Aw yay
π: 0 β©: 1
You're very welcome!^^
π: 0 β©: 0
This whole series is so stunning
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome
π: 0 β©: 0
Very dreamy gaze there
Lovely pose and lighting too
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks! 
π: 0 β©: 1
Welcome and very cool indeed yep
π: 0 β©: 0
Really looking the part and a fave for me.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think this is the best lighting I've ever seen on a nude. And the addition of the headdress...what a great "pop" of costume and texture, especially with your hair fading into the costume.
Fantastic photo. The inner silhouette...priceless.
/salute!
π: 0 β©: 2
Jim is fantastic with his lighting.
Thanks so much
π: 0 β©: 1
Yup-looking forward to more. I'd "fave" a photo of paint cans if Jim lit them this well!
*haha*
π: 0 β©: 0
It's not "pop" culture. It's insulting the heritage of a people and very racist.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's so hard to tell on The Internet whether I'm getting punked or not.
Just in case you're that foolish, I suppose I'll explain "pop".
The context and use of the word "pop" in my statement defined the visual excitement of the prop that compliments and expands the nude. It's the sole costume element in the work, and thus "pops" out at the viewer as an interesting visual element.
It's a term that's used thousands of time every single day in design and art circles. It has no pejorative meaning whatsoever.
As for being "insulting to the heritage of a people", I strongly suggest you find something constructive and powerfully yours to do with that energy. Wasting it on hunting for things to be insulted about is, frankly, boring me to death.
It's a fantastic photo with a great prop that culminates in a brilliant image. End o' story.
π: 0 β©: 1
I was under the assumption that you meant "pop culture" which has latched onto the idea that headdresses are accessories. And yes I know what something means when it "pops." You don't have to explain it to me like I'm a 3rd grader.
I wasn't wasting time by hunting. It was just pointed out to me by someone. You're making assumptions like I did. I was obviously wrong. You shouldn't tell someone who is of that heritage to find something else to do.
You calling the headdress a prop in and of itself is insulting. You can't respect a person when they aren't respecting you.
π: 0 β©: 1
In this case it is a prop. Same as a crown, or a pope's tiara, or a sailor's dog food bowl, or an army helmet, or a lampshade would be. Nothing wrong with any of the above, and nothing wrong with this.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm just going to respond with a quote from [link]
HEADDRESSES IN NATIVE CULTURES
For the most part, headdresses are restricted items. In particular, the headdress worn by most non-natives imitate those worn by various Plains nations. These headdresses are further restricted within the cultures to men who have done certain things to earn them. It is very rare for women in Plains cultures to wear these headdresses, and their ability to do so is again quite restricted.
So unless you are a native male from a Plains nation who has earned a headdress, or you have been given permission to wear one (sort of like being presented with an honorary degree), then you will have a very difficult time making a case for how wearing one is anything other than disrespectful, now that you know these things. If you choose to be disrespectful, please do not be surprised when people are offended⦠regardless of why you think you are entitled to do this.
Even if you have βnative friendsβ or are part native yourself, individual choices to βnot be offendedβ do not trump our collective rights as peoples to define our symbols.
TRY REAL CELEBRATION INSTEAD OF APPROPRIATION
It is okay to find our stuff beautiful, because it is. It is okay to admire our cultures. However I think it is reasonable to ask that if you admire a culture, you learn more about it. Particularly when the details are so much more fascinating than say, out-dated stereotypes of Pan-Indian culture.
You do not have to be an expert on our cultures to access aspects of them. If you arenβt sure about whether something is restricted or not, please ask someone who is from that culture. If people from within that culture tell you that what you are doing is disrespectful, dismissing their concerns because you just donβt agree, is not indicative of admiration.
If you really, really want to wear beaded moccasins or mukluks or buy beautiful native art, then please do! There are legitimate and unrestricted items crafted and sold by aboriginal peoples that we would be more than happy to see you with. Then all the nasty disrespectful stereotyping and denigration of restricted symbols can be avoided, while still allowing you to be decked out in beautiful native-created fashion.
If you are an artist who just loves working with aboriginal images, then please try to ensure your work is authentic and does not incorporate restricted symbols (or perpetuate stereotypes). For example, painting a non-native woman in a Plains culture warbonnet is just as disrespectful as wearing one of these headdresses in real life. Painting a picture from an archival or modern photo of a real native person in a warbonnet, or in regalia, or in βstreetβ clothes is pretty much fine. Acknowledging from which specific nation the images you are using come from is even better. βNative Americanβ or βIndianβ is such a vague label.
π: 0 β©: 1
So... crowns aren't restricted to royalty? The pope hat isn't restricted to the pope? Pieces of military uniforms aren't restricted to those who serve in the military? Why should one specific group's internal rules about clothing be applied to everyone else? Especially given the fact that no one else is given that privilege? Piss off, and take your precious snowflake mentality with you.
π: 0 β©: 0
A stunning composition. Every aspect is spot on !
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>