Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoK
Rupert Daines = generic alias
|
Yes, you've suggested that
earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoK
so that is why.  |
Why is it why? What does it actually
explain?
To me saying that Rupert Daines is a generic alias raises perhaps more questions that it purports to answer. As you suggest, it
looks like it is being used in place of many other photogs'. credits, but what does that really tell us?
There was a
generic alias in (a subset of) the film industry, 1968-2000, but that served a specific purpose: to allow directors to remove their name from projects with which they did not wish to be associated. But we're finding examples of sets of pictures that were credited to
both Rupert Daines &
other photog. names, so why "disown" the set in one mag. but not another? Everything's a matter of taste but they're not terribly
bad picture sets (unlike the films) that are being credited to Daines.
We can see mag. pictorials that are
not given
any photog. credits--e.g. several sets by Hans Larsson in mid-1970s Mayfair, among others. That was at the same time that other of his pics. were published elsewhere under his name, as well as elsewhere again under the Rupert Daines name. And I don't think it was
only Mayfair that sometimes gave no credits.
Who decided on using the Rupert Daines name in this way, and when? I'm not aware of there being some sort of skin photogs' union working behind the scenes, creating committees to organise naming conventions, or whatever. That's more like a James Bond world conspiracy fantasy. I'm not certain but I suspect the name Rupert Daines
may have only been used in Paul Raymond stable mags.--Men Only, CIUK, Club (US), etc.?
It's not
only the Rupert Daines name turning up in credits "mix-ups"--e.g. sometimes Peter Flodqvist & Serge Jacques' names seem to have been switched in the credits for related pics. in different mags., and there are other such examples noted above--i.e. I don't think they're
all examples of aliases/akas.
Although it's possible to
imagine mags. being a bit careless about photog. credits, how believable is that? I would have thought the photogs. themselves, at least, would be fairly particular about receiving due credit as their name(s) are part of their brand. Yes, there are possible reasons for having multiple aliases but that's still different from the seeming mix-ups.