Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pepper II
They're all made up stage names but I personally feel a photographer's website should take precedence over a magazine name most of the time. The exception being if the same name appears in different shoots in different magazines then that may be more acceptable. But no matter what criteria we may choose it is always a judgement call.
|
OK, not wishing to disagree with you,
but perhaps just to provide another perspective?:
prior to the web, photog. catalogues/portfolios are "published" only of a sort/in a limited fashion: they're generally
not widely/publicly known (though with some exceptions, e.g. perhaps Caye), whereas mag. names are (comparatively) much more widely & publicly known, so I think on that basis I'd regard 3 different mags. all using the one name as stronger.
I like "clear" principles/rules, usually,
but because of the above I'm slightly wary of making the idea that a photog. catalogue/index name == an id too hard/fast a principle for MIR. In some cases yes, agreed, but I'd want some leeway for discretion/context as in this case. & yes, that makes things more complicated/difficult in MIR.
It also gets complicated "later" with more prevalent photog./agency web "catalogues"/indexes & similar (DD, SuzeR, etc.), or e.g. modern models some of whom may perhaps
never have been in a mag. but only on vid. &/or websites, & who may otherwise have a long list of e.g. single-names only. Then I would generally agree with the relative simplicity of favouring the photog. catalogue/index site name over others.