Richard Blackstone wrote:
...implementing minimum standards for new and aspiring members is essential. Photographers who repeatedly produce subpar work and show no interest in improving shouldn’t be allowed to drag down the platform.

Who creates and enforces such standards, how are they set, and why? Isn't art always "subjective"?

Omaroo wrote:
Who creates and enforces such standards, how are they set, and why? Isn't art always "subjective"?

Art is indeed subjective, but there are foundational technical standards that transcend personal style or creative interpretation. If a photographer consistently fails to achieve correct exposure for example—one of the most basic elements of photography—it raises serious concerns about their professionalism and competence.

On a platform dedicated to fostering trust and collaboration among creatives, establishing minimum standards is essential to ensure both quality and reliability. These standards should be thoughtfully developed and guided by experienced industry professionals, with input from the community, to balance technical proficiency with artistic growth. While creativity is inherently subjective, a good foundation in fundamental skills, or at least a bare minimum, is key to preserving the platform's integrity and supporting opportunities for meaningful collaboration.

I’m not sure who should enforce such standards or how it should be done—perhaps through management oversight or a system of peer critique. What I do know is that this site is a shadow of what it once was.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
It’s time for MM to reflect on its original vision and raise the bar. There’s so much potential for this platform to return to its former glory, but that requires a commitment to quality, professionalism, and community growth.

Look who's talking. I think you need to realise that the styles and standards of the 1960s, as epitomised by magazines like Playboy and Vogue, are obsolete today. Obsolete in social terms and also in aesthetic terms. Your work promotes a fixed and very narrow standard of attractiveness which is irrelevant to most people in the real world. And your self-proclaimed commitments to "quality" and "professionalism" are in reality commitments to obsolescence, uselessness and ultimately commercial failure.

Why do people keep retreading these old formulas, when what is needed is innovation? To show you what I'm talking about, here's a link to my recent book, Girls on Film;

https://www.blurb.co.uk/books/12222368-girls-on-film

JSouthworth wrote:
Look who's talking. I think you need to realise that the styles and standards of the 1960s, as epitomised by magazines like Playboy and Vogue, are obsolete today. Obsolete in social terms and also in aesthetic terms. Your work promotes a fixed and very narrow standard of attractiveness which is irrelevant to most people in the real world. And your self-proclaimed commitments to "quality" and "professionalism" are in reality commitments to obsolescence, uselessness and ultimately commercial failure.

Why do people keep retreading these old formulas, when what is needed is innovation? To show you what I'm talking about, here's a link to my recent book, Girls on Film;

https://www.blurb.co.uk/books/12222368-girls-on-film

I rest my case.

JSouthworth wrote:
Look who's talking. I think you need to realise that the styles and standards of the 1960s, as epitomised by magazines like Playboy and Vogue, are obsolete today. Obsolete in social terms and also in aesthetic terms. Your work promotes a fixed and very narrow standard of attractiveness which is irrelevant to most people in the real world. And your self-proclaimed commitments to "quality" and "professionalism" are in reality commitments to obsolescence, uselessness and ultimately commercial failure.

Why do people keep retreading these old formulas, when what is needed is innovation? To show you what I'm talking about, here's a link to my recent book, Girls on Film;

https://www.blurb.co.uk/books/12222368-girls-on-film

Look who's talking, indeed.

Comparing the OP's work unfavorably with his own is quite possibly the greatest expression of hubris in the history of these Forums. The idea that his "work" represents "innovation" while the OP's represents "obsolescence, uselessness and ultimately commercial failure"  is just too damn ludicrous.

As an originator of threads with the sole purpose of having a colloquy with himself, a self-proclaimed expert on all things, including, but not limited to, nuclear strategy, World Wars I and II, the Mideast crisis, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, every weapon system since the slingshot, UFO's, law enforcement, the "Rust" film on-set firearm fatality trial, defending Taiwan, art book publishing, girly magazines, Glamour photography, etc, etc., he is the very definition of "dilettante":

"A person who is or seems to be interested in a subject, but whose understanding of it is not very deep or serious."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio … dilettante

Richard Blackstone wrote:
The “no unsolicited critiques” policy, while well-intentioned, often ends up shielding incompetence. Constructive feedback is a valuable tool for growth and should be embraced, especially when someone’s claims don’t match their output. A supportive community thrives on honest input, not blind encouragement.

The time have a "minimum skill standard" would be at the intake of new members,
Not in the forums where "unsolicited critiques" were used as a means to attack the individual rather than their ideas.

The "no unsolicited critique" rule is solid and necessary to keep assholery in check.

DTP - Photography wrote:
I know good pictures when I see them and the OP has a killer port, that's my critique

I know my work is "OK" and I always strive to get better, so I don't have much to add except for this one thing:

When there are arguments or disagreements here, I always like to think that the avatar is the person posting so the better the picture, the better the argument.

The OP does have some good individual pictures, whereas a lot of the stuff in my port is years old and could be much better I think, my editing has progressed quite a lot since I posted most of those. Here's one I re-edited yesterday;

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48500728

If you do commercial work in advertising or the fashion industry it constrains you in some ways, if for example you have to reproduce colours accurately in your photographs.

The point you make about avatar images is valid in a general sense but I am not literally the person in the picture at left, otherwise I'd probably just photograph myself all the time..

Focuspuller wrote:
As an originator of threads with the sole purpose of having a colloquy with himself, a self-proclaimed expert on all things, including, but not limited to, nuclear strategy, World Wars I and II, the Mideast crisis, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, every weapon system since the slingshot, UFO's, law enforcement, the "Rust" film on-set firearm fatality trial, defending Taiwan, art book publishing, girly magazines, Glamour photography...

And I was even able to point out to you that the Runaways' drummer, Sandy West was female. Given that they were an LA band there's no excuse for your not having that information.

Chris Macan wrote:
The time have a "minimum skill standard" would be at the intake of new members,
Not in the forums where "unsolicited critiques" were used as a means to attack the individual rather than their ideas.

The "no unsolicited critique" rule is solid and necessary to keep assholery in check.

That makes total sense under the current forum structure.

My proposal is to build a more professional and engaged community, where focusing on fostering a positive and constructive environment is key. While a "no unsolicited critique" rule is vital to curb negative behaviour, enhancing member accountability and professionalism at all levels can help prevent issues.

Here are some ideas:

- **Skill-Based Tiers**: Categorize members (e.g., Beginner, Intermediate, Skilled, Pro) to ensure critiques and discussions are tailored to their level.
- **Reputation and Accountability**: Encourage transparency with real names, business profiles, and links to websites while rewarding fair, balanced critiques.
- **Guidelines for Critiques**: Set clear rules for giving feedback to ensure it is constructive and idea-focused rather than personal.
- **Community Recognition**: Spotlight members who contribute positively, such as offering helpful input or participating in challenges.
- **Engagement Opportunities**: Host skill-based workshops or events led by pros to encourage collaboration and respectful learning.
By combining structure, clear rules, and recognition, the community can grow into a space that supports skill development and mutual respect. 

We should establish a system that prioritizes and rewards positivity, talent, and professionalism while encouraging serious beginners who demonstrate dedication and a willingness to grow. Without such measures, the platform will remain overwhelmed by low-quality content from individuals lacking talent or expertise, ultimately driving skilled models and photographers to seek more rewarding and professional environments.

Focuspuller wrote:
On second thought, never mind. Not worth a response.

😎👍

Richard Blackstone wrote:
That makes total sense under the current forum structure.

Here are some ideas:

- **Skill-Based Tiers**: Categorize members (e.g., Beginner, Intermediate, Skilled, Pro) to ensure critiques and discussions are tailored to their level.

If you criticise someone else's work, they are entitled to criticise yours on a comparative basis, that's obvious.

I personally don't think you're quite as good a photographer as you seem to think. You would have a problem if you did a book, because there isn't a huge amount of variety in your work. But if that's "consistency", and it's what the fashion people and the advertisers want you to produce, that may not be a problem to you right now.

Quality in photography is subjective, particularly from an artistic perspective. Some things can measured, but art is not one of them.  And we don't have the same objectives, that's clear. Yours aims are more commercial, but I don't think money is the best motivator. It encourages you to be conservative, even risk-averse.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
As long as freeloading amateurs are allowed . . . to spread unverifiable, blatant nonsense as fact . . .

Welcome to the Internet everywhere.

JQuest wrote:
The only thing that would encourage models to return to this site (which I suspect is far to late) would be to undo the ridiculous rule that you have be friends to PM another member. In throwing up this road block to communication all MM did was hasten the model exodus by making it more difficult to find work for them on this platform. Then they instituted an An app that didn't alert users to messages thereby causing them to lose out on bookings, and now apparently an updated casting/travel  notification/alert that doesn't do what the old one did.

Fix what don't need fixing and let the other problems lie. Remember when Favorites use to work? It does through the search function but that shouldn't be the case.

JSouthworth wrote:
If you criticise someone else's work, they are entitled to criticise yours on a comparative basis, that's obvious.

Clearly, the moderators do not always entertain this notion, there are guidelines we all must follow.

JSouthworth wrote:
I personally don't think you're quite as good a photographer as you seem to think.

Thankfully my tutors at PSC held a different view than yours.

JSouthworth wrote:
You would have a problem if you did a book, because there isn't a huge amount of variety in your work.

You honestly think this is the extent of my work?
And what experience do you have in producing a legitimate book??

JSouthworth wrote:
Quality in photography is subjective, particularly from an artistic perspective. Some things can measured, but art is not one of them

Here are just a few elements that are not subjective and can, in fact, be measured when creating a visually compelling image—****

From my college notes:

1: Strong Compositional Elements. A great photograph needs a deliberate structure that guides the viewer’s eye and enhances the visual impact.
2: Emotional Depth & Mood. A powerful photograph makes the viewer feel something that can be evoked through, Expression & Gesture, Light & Shadow, Color & Tone, Movement & Deliberate Imperfection.
*An artistic photograph isn’t just about what’s shown—it’s about what’s felt.
3: Storytelling & Concept. A truly artistic photograph transcends aesthetics and suggests a deeper narrative or concept which is most commonly achieved through:
- Symbolism – Using objects, poses, or settings to hint at larger ideas. **(models ******** ) 
- Implied Narrative – Inviting the viewer to create their own interpretation through ambiguity. **(A narrative that is too literal is beyond cliche, it's boring and tedious)
- Juxtaposition – Contrasting elements (beauty vs. decay, movement vs. stillness) to create depth.
**(Juxtaposition should only incorporate elements that compel the viewer to look beyond the obvious.)
*Great art photography doesn’t just document—it asks questions, sparks thought or evokes memories
4: Light Mastery. Light is everything in photography. The ability to use it intentionally can separate a snapshot from a work of art.   
*In artistic photography, how light interacts with the subject often matters more than the subject itself! --(************)
5. A Distinct Perspective & Voice. The best art photographers develop a recognizable style, something that makes the work distinct. 
Things that could make up a style include...
- The way you frame subjects.
- The emotions you capture. 
- Your use of colours, tones, or film stocks. 
- The way you portray movement, stillness, or tension. 
**( **** and ****do not equate to a style)
6: Intentional Imperfection. Some of these may include; Motion blur might add energy and emotion, grain might enhance a nostalgic or cinematic feel, overexposure or underexposure might heighten mood or abstraction.
*I would emphasise there must be intent behind deliberate imperfections.  Art photography isn’t about perfection—it’s about resonance!
7. Timelessness & Layered Meaning: A great photograph transcends the moment. Whether it’s surreal, documentary, or conceptual, it lingers in the mind long after being viewed.

A strong artistic image often has layers, that can be read differently depending on the viewer’s perspective, mood, or personal experiences. It keeps inviting interpretation.

A great artistic photograph is not just a well-executed image, it’s a visual poem. It resonates emotionally, tells a story, and invites viewers to engage with it beyond its surface. 

Art photography, at its core, is about creating images that linger in the soul.

** ****


Here is an example of what I’m trying to get across to you....



Are you able to pick out any of the elements mentioned (from my college notes)? Perhaps ****

**** **** ** ****.

JSouthworth wrote:
Some things can measured, but art is not one of them.

Yes, it can be measured,******

JSouthworth wrote:
And we don't have the same objectives, that's clear.

Very true, but that  ***********.

***Edited  --The original version can be found in the SERIOUS CRITIQUE FORUM

Richard Blackstone wrote:

I rest my case.

I read your post and the comments after about the book Successful Glamour Photography by Evans and Kelly (2005): in the General Industry.  A certain photographer continued to violate the rules of NO Unsolicited critique in that section of the forum, but you are fine for posting here to allow a critique if someone is asking for it.  I tend to stay out of critiquing or getting critiqued.

About the quality factor of photographers and models on this website, I think it should remain up to all levels unless someone is willing to create different divisions of memberships.  Really I just think the cream rises to the top!  The rest of us should remain humble, try to learn and do better.  This website was never meant for only the highest caliber talent.  I know I'm not high caliber or "cream" .. I'm somewhere in the middle.  Your work is great by the way!

Omaroo wrote:

Who creates and enforces such standards, how are they set, and why? Isn't art always "subjective"?

Art is and always should be subjective in my opinion.  Our taste, preferences and styles vary which keeps things interesting.

Richard Blackstone wrote:

Art is indeed subjective, but there are foundational technical standards that transcend personal style or creative interpretation. If a photographer consistently fails to achieve correct exposure for example—one of the most basic elements of photography—it raises serious concerns about their professionalism and competence.

On a platform dedicated to fostering trust and collaboration among creatives, establishing minimum standards is essential to ensure both quality and reliability. These standards should be thoughtfully developed and guided by experienced industry professionals, with input from the community, to balance technical proficiency with artistic growth. While creativity is inherently subjective, a good foundation in fundamental skills, or at least a bare minimum, is key to preserving the platform's integrity and supporting opportunities for meaningful collaboration.

I’m not sure who should enforce such standards or how it should be done—perhaps through management oversight or a system of peer critique. What I do know is that this site is a shadow of what it once was.

I agree with you.  Perhaps a system of peer critique would be good, or maybe a mentoring system?

Richard Blackstone wrote:
As long as freeloading amateurs are allowed—worse yet, encouraged—to spread unverifiable, blatant nonsense as fact, once-great platforms like this will continue their slow decline into obscurity. The unfortunate state of this site isn’t accidental; it’s a result of tolerating mediocrity and failing to uphold any real standards.

I disagree.  The site is declining, but "tolerating mediocrity" is not the reason.

Also, Model Mayhem is not an exclusive club for "professionals."

Richard Blackstone wrote:
To turn things around, I truly believe that implementing minimum standards for new and aspiring members is essential. Photographers who repeatedly produce subpar work and show no interest in improving shouldn’t be allowed to drag down the platform. This isn’t about gatekeeping—it’s about protecting the quality and integrity of the creative community here.

This passage sounds like a suggestion to make MM a privileged guild for photographers.  If one wants to be a part of a photography organization with "standards," consider ASMP or Magnum.

On the other hand, MM is a valuable means for both beginners and experienced members to interact and join each other on projects to hone their craft, to network and/or to get paying work. 

Furthermore, MM members are not just photographers.  New models, MUA's, hair stylists, wardrobe stylists, designers, body painters, filmmakers, illustrators and, yes, even retouchers utilize this site for collaborations to improve their skills.  Do you propose to set up separate standards committees for each one of those disciplines?

Richard Blackstone wrote:
From my college notes:

1: Strong Compositional Elements. A great photograph needs a deliberate structure that guides the viewer’s eye and enhances the visual impact.
2: Emotional Depth & Mood. A powerful photograph makes the viewer feel something that can be evoked through, Expression & Gesture, Light & Shadow, Color & Tone, Movement & Deliberate Imperfection.
*An artistic photograph isn’t just about what’s shown—it’s about what’s felt.
3: Storytelling & Concept. A truly artistic photograph transcends aesthetics and suggests a deeper narrative or concept which is most commonly achieved through:
- Symbolism – Using objects, poses, or settings to hint at larger ideas. **(models ******** )
- Implied Narrative – Inviting the viewer to create their own interpretation through ambiguity. **(A narrative that is too literal is beyond cliche, it's boring and tedious)
- Juxtaposition – Contrasting elements (beauty vs. decay, movement vs. stillness) to create depth.
**(Juxtaposition should only incorporate elements that compel the viewer to look beyond the obvious.)
*Great art photography doesn’t just document—it asks questions, sparks thought or evokes memories
4: Light Mastery. Light is everything in photography. The ability to use it intentionally can separate a snapshot from a work of art.   
*In artistic photography, how light interacts with the subject often matters more than the subject itself! --(************)
5. A Distinct Perspective & Voice. The best art photographers develop a recognizable style, something that makes the work distinct.
Things that could make up a style include...
- The way you frame subjects.
- The emotions you capture.
- Your use of colours, tones, or film stocks.
- The way you portray movement, stillness, or tension.
**( **** and ****do not equate to a style)
6: Intentional Imperfection. Some of these may include; Motion blur might add energy and emotion, grain might enhance a nostalgic or cinematic feel, overexposure or underexposure might heighten mood or abstraction.
*I would emphasise there must be intent behind deliberate imperfections.  Art photography isn’t about perfection—it’s about resonance!
7. Timelessness & Layered Meaning: A great photograph transcends the moment. Whether it’s surreal, documentary, or conceptual, it lingers in the mind long after being viewed.

A strong artistic image often has layers, that can be read differently depending on the viewer’s perspective, mood, or personal experiences. It keeps inviting interpretation.

A great artistic photograph is not just a well-executed image, it’s a visual poem. It resonates emotionally, tells a story, and invites viewers to engage with it beyond its surface.

Art photography, at its core, is about creating images that linger in the soul.

I've found that attempting to define "art" is a perilous/futile endeavor.  I can make valid arguments against each one of those points.

Every photographic criteria one can mention is subjective, including technical properties such as exposure, focus, contrast, color, etc., and the same can be said of criteria for the non-photographers on MM.

So, who are we to exclude others based on our opinions of their work?

Of course, no one is forcing MM members to visit other profiles.  If you encounter someone's work that you don't like, don't dwell on it.

I've seen plenty of images here over the years that I didn't care for, but not once has it ever occurred to me that I should cancel my account because of some notion of "standards."  No doubt, many of the non-photographers at MM are likewise unfazed by other members' photos they may not like.

Having a "Critique" section of the forum is fine, but we shouldn't gate-keep MM members based on our opinions of "quality" or "standards," because it's all subjective and because many beginning members have blossomed from using this site.

The Other Place wrote:
I disagree.  The site is declining, but "tolerating mediocrity" is not the reason.
Also, Model Mayhem is not an exclusive club for "professionals."

I totally appreciate your perspective, but I want to clarify that I am not suggesting Model Mayhem should become an exclusive club for professionals. My concern is not about restricting access but rather about establishing a structure that encourages both models and paying members to return—one that fosters an environment built on reputation and trust. 

The decline of the site is undeniable, but I believe that a lack of accountability and verification has contributed to its downturn. A platform that incentivizes professionalism—whether from seasoned professionals or newcomers—can help restore its value for all members. 

I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on what you believe is driving the site’s decline. What do you think would help reverse the trend? 

The Other Place wrote:
This passage sounds like a suggestion to make MM a privileged guild for photographers.  If one wants to be a part of a photography organization with "standards," consider ASMP or Magnum.
On the other hand, MM is a valuable means for both beginners and experienced members to interact and join each other on projects to hone their craft, to network and/or to get paying work. 
Furthermore, MM members are not just photographers.  New models, MUA's, hair stylists, wardrobe stylists, designers, body painters, filmmakers, illustrators and, yes, even retouchers utilize this site for collaborations to improve their skills.  Do you propose to set up separate standards committees for each one of those disciplines?

You are, of course, free to interpret my suggestion as you see fit, but that is not the intent behind introducing "minimum standards." The idea is not to create an elite guild but rather to ensure that those who participate in the platform have a genuine interest in photography beyond simply snapping shots of models. Priorities in this area are likely more important than you may realize when it comes to maintaining a thriving creative space. (models talk)

I fully acknowledge that MM is home to a diverse community that includes models, MUAs, stylists, designers, and other creatives. However, without a strong and steady supply of dedicated talent—including photographers who are serious about their craft—the foundation of that community weakens. The goal is to encourage an environment where professionalism and commitment support the success of all members, rather than allowing the platform to be diluted by those with no real investment in the art itself.

Would you agree that fostering a culture of dedication and accountability benefits everyone involved?

The Other Place wrote:
I've found that attempting to define "art" is a perilous/futile endeavor.  I can make valid arguments against each one of those points.

Every photographic criteria one can mention is subjective, including technical properties such as exposure, focus, contrast, color, etc., and the same can be said of criteria for the non-photographers on MM.

So, who are we to exclude others based on our opinions of their work?

Of course, no one is forcing MM members to visit other profiles.  If you encounter someone's work that you don't like, don't dwell on it.

I've seen plenty of images here over the years that I didn't care for, but not once has it ever occurred to me that I should cancel my account because of some notion of "standards."  No doubt, many of the non-photographers at MM are likewise unfazed by other members' photos they may not like.

Having a "Critique" section of the forum is fine, but we shouldn't gate-keep MM members based on our opinions of "quality" or "standards," because it's all subjective and because many beginning members have blossomed from using this site.

I absolutely agree that 'art' is subjective—there’s no universal definition of what makes an image “great.” However, the fundamental elements that convey meaning through photography must possess a certain level of clarity and intent to ensure the message can be understood by the viewer. Otherwise, we end up with GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)—a phrase that perfectly encapsulates the issue of allowing anything and everything to pass as "art" without consideration for its effectiveness in communication.

Art, in any form, is a means of communication. While interpretation is subjective, there must be some intent behind the work that allows the audience to engage with it. Without context, structure, or a guiding element, the message—if one exists—becomes inaccessible.
Take, for example, a pile of excrement presented as art. Some might argue that anything displayed with artistic intent qualifies as art, but without a means to convey why it should be considered as such, it remains just that—a pile of shit. Art requires more than raw material; it needs context, symbolism, or technique to make it resonate.

As I mentioned earlier, establishing a bare minimum of commitment to the craft extends beyond simply buying a camera and inviting a model to an abandoned building. Trust and reputation are crucial in this industry, and I firmly believe that Model Mayhem should take a greater interest in protecting all parties involved. If someone is just a random person with a camera, showing no talent, no dedication to improvement, and possibly questionable motives, should they be given the same access and credibility as those who are genuinely invested in the art and industry?

Is it really unreasonable to expect a platform like MM to take a more active role in ensuring the integrity of its community? I believe the site has far more potential than you give it credit for, but that potential can only be realized if there’s a balance between inclusivity and accountability.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I read your post and the comments after about the book Successful Glamour Photography by Evans and Kelly (2005): in the General Industry.  A certain photographer continued to violate the rules of NO Unsolicited critique in that section of the forum, but you are fine for posting here to allow a critique if someone is asking for it.  I tend to stay out of critiquing or getting critiqued.

Trolls in general have many undesirable traits. 

And yes, regarding critiques—generally, I love hearing others' opinions, as there is much to learn from feedback. However, I pay little attention to critiques from anyone whose work, shall we say, leaves much to be desired.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
About the quality factor of photographers and models on this website, I think it should remain up to all levels unless someone is willing to create different divisions of memberships.  Really I just think the cream rises to the top!  The rest of us should remain humble, try to learn and do better.  This website was never meant for only the highest caliber talent.  I know I'm not high caliber or "cream" .. I'm somewhere in the middle.  Your work is great by the way!

Thank you for your kind words about my work—I really appreciate it!

I agree that talent exists at all levels and that the best work naturally stands out. However, looking at where things stand now, it seems that this open-ended business model hasn’t worked out as well as many of us had hoped. All I’m suggesting is that establishing a baseline—somewhere above the "GWC" level—wouldn’t be a bad thing.
A little structure could go a long way in fostering a more trustworthy and productive creative space.

Mark Salo wrote:

Welcome to the Internet everywhere.

LOL

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
First having minimum standards are by their nature subjective and would prohibit new members who are in the process of learning and are far from any Professional standards , indeed that is the reason they joined.

GWC's have been here since the beginning and will be till the end.

You do not improve things by reducing but by increasing participation  and in today's social media climate I dont see that happening here with a mobile platform that is a joke. A model has 125 image on their port and only one can be seen. Yes I know the reasons and why it will in all likelihood never change

Minimum standards already exist on the site, no close ups of genitals and/or butt holes, I'm merely suggesting these guidelines be adjusted in order to attract more members.
What do you think would help improve participation Bob?

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Trust and reputation are crucial in this industry, and I firmly believe that Model Mayhem should take a greater interest in protecting all parties involved. If someone is just a random person with a camera, showing no talent, no dedication to improvement, and possibly questionable motives, should they be given the same access and credibility as those who are genuinely invested in the art and industry?

Is it really unreasonable to expect a platform like MM to take a more active role in ensuring the integrity of its community? I believe the site has far more potential than you give it credit for, but that potential can only be realized if there’s a balance between inclusivity and accountability.

This would be essentially impossible to implement now, but I wonder how people would have engaged if MM was structured like Peerspace or AirBnb, where shoots had to be booked through a platform on the MM site itself, one in which there could be some accountability/refunds for no-shows, and you would be required (or at least heavily incentivized) to leave honest, current feedback. 

In terms of how things actually function here, I know that people are frustrated by the inability to message non-friends when you only have a free account, but that is a measure of control, and I'm sure it has reduced the number of messages that models receive from questionable photographers. 

The biggest issue with implementing any sort of quality control (other than the amount of work it would require) is that no one will agree on what those standards should be.  I thought that the most embarrassing thing about MM was how the 18+ Pic of the Day Contest had devolved into the "Most Spread-Eagle Pic of the Day Content", but as soon as the mods instituted rules to address that, it caused no end of arguing and complaining about what violates the new rules.

Midnight Picnic wrote:
This would be essentially impossible to implement now, but I wonder how people would have engaged if MM was structured like Peerspace or AirBnb, where shoots had to be booked through a platform on the MM site itself, one in which there could be some accountability/refunds for no-shows, and you would be required (or at least heavily incentivized) to leave honest, current feedback. 

In terms of how things actually function here, I know that people are frustrated by the inability to message non-friends when you only have a free account, but that is a measure of control, and I'm sure it has reduced the number of messages that models receive from questionable photographers. 

The biggest issue with implementing any sort of quality control (other than the amount of work it would require) is that no one will agree on what those standards should be.  I thought that the most embarrassing thing about MM was how the 18+ Pic of the Day Contest had devolved into the "Most Spread-Eagle Pic of the Day Content", but as soon as the mods instituted rules to address that, it caused no end of arguing and complaining about what violates the new rules.

I get that enforcing quality control is tricky, especially when no one can fully agree on the standards. But if MM doesn’t at least try, then we just have to accept that the site will continue to decline—or at best, stay a place where professionalism and trust seem to take a back seat.

The pushback over the 18+ POTD rules isn’t a reason to give up on standards altogether—it just shows that clearer guidelines and better moderation are needed. Plenty of other photography platforms have figured out ways to introduce standards without completely turning people away.

At some point, MM has to decide what it wants to be. Does it stay an unregulated free-for-all where the lowest common denominator sets the tone? Or does it evolve into something that creatives and professionals actually trust? If the site doesn’t make an effort, the outcome is obvious—serious people will move on as many have already.

Wouldn’t it be better to at least try for a balance rather than letting MM drift into irrelevance?

Richard Blackstone wrote:
My concern is not about restricting access but rather about establishing a structure that encourages both models and paying members to return—one that fosters an environment built on reputation and trust.

Reputation and trust are not a problem.  We already have a "Verified Credits" system in place.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
... I believe that a lack of accountability and verification has contributed to its downturn.

I completely disagree.

Lack of accountability and verification are not the issues responsible for MM's decline.  MM members are flocking to Instagram and Only Fans -- which have even less accountability/verification than MM.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
A platform that incentivizes professionalism—whether from seasoned professionals or newcomers—can help restore its value for all members.

What you seem to be suggesting would likely discourage people from joining MM, and also piss off a lot of the current MM members.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on what you believe is driving the site’s decline. What do you think would help reverse the trend?

The problem lies primarily with transformations in the online landscape providing more popular venues for both new and experienced models (and crew members) to easily and directly monetize and promote their work to a wide audience.

Additionally, HDR processing in cell phones and cameras has made it easy for models (and novice shooters) to take their own "acceptable" images.

As the mass use of HDR has been going on for years, the practice has also shifted the generally accepted notion of what constitutes a "quality" image.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
The idea is not to create an elite guild but rather to ensure that those who participate in the platform have a genuine interest in photography beyond simply snapping shots of models.

Attempting discern and rank the intentions of MM photography members is just like trying to define "art" -- it's perilous and futile.

Let's hope that we never slide down the slippery slope of judging MM members (or prospective members) on their perceived degree of "genuine interest."

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Priorities in this area are likely more important than you may realize when it comes to maintaining a thriving creative space. (models talk)

Setting up a hierarchy of "ranks" or "ratings" would likely discourage creativity.  Furthermore, I think that there is an MM rule prohibiting lists that rate members.

Also, MM isn't exactly a "creative space."  It's mainly for networking and for booking sessions.  The real creativity usually happens outside of MM, with the prior ideas and planning of the photographer and other crew, and with the model's poses/expressions during the shoot.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
I fully acknowledge that MM is home to a diverse community that includes models, MUAs, stylists, designers, and other creatives. However, without a strong and steady supply of dedicated talent—including photographers who are serious about their craft—the foundation of that community weakens.

There never was and there will never be a "strong and steady supply of dedicated talent."

There will be a few who are dedicated and some who are dabbling.  Some of both the dedicated members and the dabblers will blossom into notable talents.

There were greater numbers joining in the beginning, but that was when things were new, before Instagram and Only Fans.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
The goal is to encourage an environment where professionalism and commitment support the success of all members, rather than allowing the platform to be diluted by those with no real investment in the art itself.

Again, attempting to rank and/or "weed out" those "with no real investment in the art itself" is a perilous, stifling, slippery slope that has no place in a venue such as MM, a site which serves interaction and networking between both new and experienced practitioners.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Would you agree that fostering a culture of dedication and accountability benefits everyone involved?

No.  I disagree, and the "accountability" aspect is troubling.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
However, the fundamental elements that convey meaning through photography must possess a certain level of clarity and intent to ensure the message can be understood by the viewer.

No, art need not posses clarity nor intent.

Also, the artist might not want the "message" to be understood by the viewer.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Otherwise, we end up with GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)—a phrase that perfectly encapsulates the issue of allowing anything and everything to pass as "art" without consideration for its effectiveness in communication.

No.  GIGO is a matter of opinion.

Again, trying to judge what "passes as art" is perilous and futile.  Whether or not art "communicates" effectively is irrelevant to the fact that it is art.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Art, in any form, is a means of communication.

Not true.  Art does not have to "communicate" anything.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
While interpretation is subjective, there must be some intent behind the work that allows the audience to engage with it.

No.  With art, there does not need to be intent that allows the audience to engage with art.  Some art never even has an "audience."

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Without context, structure, or a guiding element, the message—if one exists—becomes inaccessible.

No.  Art doesn't require a "message," and if the art has a "message" there is no requirement for the message to be accessible.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Take, for example, a pile of excrement presented as art. Some might argue that anything displayed with artistic intent qualifies as art, but without a means to convey why it should be considered as such, it remains just that—a pile of shit.

That's just one's opinion.  Art doesn't require "a means to convey why it should be considered" to be art.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Art requires more than raw material; it needs context, symbolism, or technique to make it resonate.

No.  It doesn't, and it doesn't need to "resonate."

Richard Blackstone wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, establishing a bare minimum of commitment to the craft extends beyond simply buying a camera and inviting a model to an abandoned building.

Nobody on MM should ever rank nor exclude others based on perceived "commitment to the craft."

Furthermore, everybody has to start at some point -- including models.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Trust and reputation are crucial in this industry,

Among its functions, MM is a venue for members to build a body of work, along with facilitating the growth of reputation/trust (ie. Verified Credits).

Richard Blackstone wrote:
... and I firmly believe that Model Mayhem should take a greater interest in protecting all parties involved.

Things are fine the way they are.  MM already protects members from scams and harassment.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
If someone is just a random person with a camera, showing no talent, no dedication to improvement, and possibly questionable motives, should they be given the same access and credibility as those who are genuinely invested in the art and industry?

Absolutely.

In regards to the "questionable motives" if a member behaves "inappropriately" or commits a crime within a project that was originated through MM, of course that member should be kicked out of MM.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Is it really unreasonable to expect a platform like MM to take a more active role in ensuring the integrity of its community?

Except for Critique section of the forums in which members volunteer to have their work rated, we are not here to judge others nor should we ever do so.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
I believe the site has far more potential than you give it credit for, but that potential can only be realized if there’s a balance between inclusivity and accountability.

Oh, I think that MM has a lot of potential, but the "accountability" that you seem to suggest would likely stifle and discourage members and prospective members.

The Other Place wrote:
.... being quite lengthy and complex, I'll just post my reply. Others can refer back if they wish....

If Model Mayhem had fewer abandoned profiles and a vibrant forum community like it once did, I might be inclined to agree with you. While I understand the importance of a platform that remains accessible and welcoming, it is evident that Model Mayhem has become a shell of its former self. Once a thriving hub of creative exchange, it now resembles a deserted town bypassed by the digital age. Most of the models and photographers whose work I admired have long moved on, seeking more rewarding communities elsewhere.

Regarding the notion of art, I stand firm in my belief that a discerning approach benefits the community. Encouraging an environment where the dedication to craft is valued does not stifle creativity but rather elevates it. If everything is accepted as "art" without any critical examination, we risk diluting the very essence of creative expression.

While you argue that art requires no context or intent, I maintain that effective art communicates—whether in abstraction or controversy. "A pile of excrement displayed as art without context remains just that—a pile of shit." Artistic intent, context, and technique are not barriers to creativity but bridges that allow art to resonate and provoke thought.
Consider Piero Manzoni’s Artist’s Shit (1961)—by canning his own feces, labelling it as artwork, and selling it, he transformed waste into a critique of the art market’s absurdity. Without a statement or a conceptual foundation—whether addressing environmental degradation (a commentary on waste and pollution) or political critique (corruption, decay, societal dysfunction) for example—it remains nothing more than fecal matter.

Model Mayhem could indeed have the potential to rise again, but it requires a recalibrated approach—one that balances inclusivity with accountability. This is not about restricting access but rather fostering an environment that inspires growth, respect, and professionalism. Such a foundation is essential if the platform is to reclaim its status as a meaningful space for creatives.

Shouldn't we aim for a community that uplifts its members, providing them with the support and structure necessary to flourish? Without a commitment to fostering genuine artistic endeavours, the platform risks becoming a repository for mediocrity, or worse, rather than a beacon of trust and creative development.