[flagged]
As recently as earlier that year, her views were much closer to my own [0]:
>When I asked [Lena] if she had heard anything about the recent controversy around her image, she seemed alarmed at the thought that she could have a part in hurting or discouraging young women. I sent her some articles about the Lenna and later gave her a call to see what she made of them. The photo, she said, doesn’t show very much—just down to her shoulders—so it was hard for her to see what the big deal was.
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/finding-lena-the-patron-saint-of...
"presumably paid for her time" is an interesting insinuation, as it disenfranchises her of her voice just because somebody put a camera in front of her. Do you think she wasn't paid some consultancy fee for dealing with that Wired journo? Do we have to figure out now who paid more?
One of the reasons IEEE mentioned is that it's a bad representative for contemporary digital imagery (resolution, color range, etc), so that alone is reason enough to look for alternatives. The most recent statement of the model is "let's retire [it]," even before she didn't seem to care much.
I suppose the interesting question is why you're so hung up on having that photo in new scientific publications.
Well, she participated in a documentary, knowing that its premise is that the photo is a big deal.
>Do you think she wasn't paid some consultancy fee for dealing with that Wired journo? Do we have to figure out now who paid more?
I agree that it would be interesting to know how much she was paid in both cases, as how much someone is paid before offering their opinions is always relevant in interpreting what they are saying. My feeling here is that the Wired reporter was also fishing for offence, but found such a stark absence of it that she did the noble thing and reported Lena's near-indifference accurately. If that's what happened, then Lena overcame whatever temptation might have been created by the consultancy fee, so there's no reason to be interested in how much it was. But I suppose you could make the case that the Wired reporter was actually fishing for indifference, in which case the amount becomes relevant again. Is that the case you wish to make? Because if so: It's curious how far the Wired reporter went to try to elicit offence from Lena, don't you think?
>I suppose the interesting question is why you're so hung up on having that photo in new scientific publications.
Interesting insinuation. Another explanation might be that I'm not very interested in whether the photo is used in publications or not, but that I'm quite interested in why some people are so hung up on it not being so used. If that reason turns out to be solely that the woman in question asked for it to be removed from circulation, I'm also interested in exploring whether that appears to be a position she has consistently and vociferously held over the years, or whether it might be a recent change of heart. And if turns out to be a recent change of heart, I'm interested in exploring what might have prompted it.
It’s been controversial vigorously years a symbolic of much wider problems; this is an overdue, but decent, decision.
Would mention a this comment from the actual Lena in a 2019 film about all this, “ "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me."”
That being said, I support OP's sentiment, because the only other person quoted in the article is a man, who gets offended in the name of women.
Let's not pretend low-budget documentary have the money to make somebody talk shit about something they like. There's also no contradiction between the two quotes: she is proud of the picture, but not very happy to see it being used like this decades after.
It's the perfect angle to cause division and cause endless discussions about irrelevant BS. Congrats Psyop successfully deployed! (Probably CCP behind this in order to weaken western Engineering)