Modelling is something I fell into, it certainly has its ups and downs as all things in life but I do it because I really love it.

Maria, West Yorkshire: Hello Liberty, when u were workin to a hectic schedule at the peak of modelling, how did u manage to still have time to yourself when you're constantly surrounded by people and movement? Did u ever find that it was ever too much ? (Sorry - so many q's!!) Thanks!

Liberty Ross: To be honest I had very little time to myself – only this past year when I decided to have a baby did I really have time for me and my family and friends. It’s been amazing and good for me to have a breather and reflect on the past few years of madness. As a model there is so little planning in ones life – not like a photographer or stylist who have weeks to prep a job – girls can be confirmed literally at the last minute. There have been numerous times when my agents call and say “tonight you are flying to NY for a 9am shoot tomorrow” and it’s the first you have heard of it. Plus you may have only just got back from there, you ping pong back and forth over the Atlantic the whole time, it’s a pretty crazy way of life. You need very understanding friends as you are constantly blowing people out! And yes, being poked and prodded every day by hair, make up, stylists and photographers, as you say, can also be exhausting – I find that particularly during the shows. Tiring yet fun to see so many yous and transform into so many different characters.

Burgundy, Africa: Hi Liberty, what do you think of criticism? How do you take it and do you like it when you are criticised? (since you are a public figure, i assume you do get many people commenting you either good or bad)

Liberty Ross: As you say criticism is something that comes with the job, whether good or bad, I generally don’t mind what people have to say, it’s something you have to distance yourself from in a way and remember that people are judging you simply at face value. If I took every criticism to heart I’m not sure I would still be doing this!

Sarah Doukas, London:  What's your favourite creative medium?
What has the greatest influence on your style?

Liberty Ross: Hi Sarah! My favourite creative medium would have to be photography as that is what I know and love but I think I could get more and more into film particularly after my fragments project! The greatest influence on my style I think is my mum. I totally trust her judgment and only really enjoy shopping when I am with her.

Kiki, London: Hey Liberty, what is your favourite place on Earth? What would you call 'your idea of paradise?'

Liberty Ross: My favourite destination is east Africa, it's the most inspiring, beautiful place full of amazing people - I love it. My idea of paradise would be being somewhere there with all my family enjoying life to the fullest.

Dodie: I just wanted to say how much I enjoy signing in everyday to see what you are up to next in Fragments of Me! The project is so clever,witty and inspiring, how do you do it Liberty how do you have so many ideas?

Liberty Ross: Oh thanks - I am so glad you are enjoying it! The problem is too many ideas and not enough time to do them all - I am really loving this and it's the first proper project I have done since the birth of my baby so it is really refreshing and exciting, thanks so much for your support.

Anonymous : Do you feel erotic in your clothes more than out of your clothes ?

Liberty Ross: No definitely not! When I look at my work that becomes very clear, I always start fully clothed but by the end of the shot I am usually pretty much naked, it's ridiculous.

Chris, Paris: Hi-liberty, six months ago i met a skinny french woman and ran away to paris(we married 2 weeks ago)have you ever ran away from anything or anyone?and was it better at your destination?

Liberty Ross: Great, congratulations! I can’t say I have ever ran away from anything or one but the best feeling of escape I can remember is actually going on my honeymoon, we left after quite a large chaotic wedding and travelled around Africa for a month – it was incredible – like being on another planet altogether, I can’t wait to go back there. It was also really invigorating moving from London to LA 6 months pregnant, I could really focus on my husband, belly and being in one place for more than 24 hours – it was bliss just slowing down completely and not having to answer phones non stop and run from airport to airport. I completely recharged my batteries and got hold of my own life again. It was a great feeling!

Jack Scope, Los Angeles: Andy Warhol once said that 'beauty is a form of intelligence'. I'm not sure exactly in what context he meant that and what exactly he meant by that but it does sound to me that it is logical and makes sense often. what does beauty and intelligence have in common in your experience as a high profile and intelligent model?

Liberty Ross: I think intelligent women are beautiful women but I would say that you have to be pretty intelligent to make it as a model, it’s a big game and you have to know how to play it.

Ignacio, Chile: Hi Liberty, How was your experience working with Ozzy Osbourne?

Liberty Ross: I was only 8 at the time I think but I remember the experience pretty well. I remember him being very large, quite quiet but friendly, luckily as I had to be his bride. I had to hold his hand for a long time, as we shot the video too, and I remember him shaking and trembling and being quite sweaty! We didn’t hang out with him in between takes but Sharron was very much around organising him and everything else. We had a lot of snakes as part of the set which I remember well being carried around in large black sacks. The whole thing was quite surreal but I like Ozzy! He’s cool.

Verity Pemberton, Surrey England:  I'm 16 and would really like to give modelling a go...have you got any tips on how to look good in front of the camera?

Liberty Ross: I would say the most important thing is to be comfortable, if you are comfortable you are confident and that always looks better than not. The best advice I could offer is to know who you are and stick to it! Good luck.

Aureliano, Italy: This is the question, you' re young, nice and rich enough. Are you completly glad of your life or do you feel something is missing ?

Liberty Ross: I am completely happy with my life thanks, I’m lucky – I have a great big loving family plus a very supportive husband and a new baby girl. I couldn’t really ask for much more. I am also lucky that I have a career which I have worked hard at and really enjoy. I don’t feel much is missing but I like to make the most of what I have and not always be striving for more.

Dada, London: Do you think you are prepared for what's coming for this project? In your opinion, is it a dichotomy that models are required to be both self-conscious (when on stage) and not (backstage) about their bodies?

Liberty Ross: I am excited about this project – I have no idea what the actual shoot has in store for us all but it will be an experience and that’s exciting. I don’t think models are ‘required’ to be self conscious about their bodies, on stage you are performing so naturally you are more aware of your body language whereas backstage you are not.

Ali:  in the papers yesterday, you seemed pleased that you get so much mileage per gallon of petrol. do you worry about where your clothes might be made?

Liberty Ross: I am concerned about where my clothes are made even though I think it is hard to know exactly where they come from – even high end couture stuff.

Hosezy Drainpipe, London:  After a long day on set or in front of the camera ,what do you find the best way of winding down is.I'm a traffic warden and am used to being on my feet so i guess we have something in common. I use a hot cup of Milo, but do you have any other tips!

Liberty Ross: I find a hot bath helps and a good film and lovin' from your lover! I
personally am a fan of Horlicks!

Hiski Yoki, Italy:  Hi Liberty, Do you feel that the fashion business is superficial or full of insecure people? Or any comments regarding this question? Thanks and CIAO! Hiski

Liberty Ross: Yes, if I am honest, I would agree with that! Not everybody but a large percentage! But saying that, I have made some of my best friends through modelling and I would guess many other industries are equally as superficial.

Martin B,  Australia: Hey Liberty, I love how you have developed the project with the flick-book idea - If money was not an object, how would you see Nick and yourself taking this project to the extreme?

Liberty Ross: umm...publishing a book would be cool.

Karleigh, Michigan: Dear Liberty, Throughout your modeling career how have you dealt with feeling extremely lonely/homesick?

Liberty Ross: I had a really hard time at the beginning as I am a real home girl but eventually I got used to it and began to really enjoy it! As I am from such a large family I generally don’t like being alone, it feels strange, and that is the side of my job which I find the hardest. Now it is fine as I usually travel to the same cities and I have friends in all of them so it is really fun, plus I now know Paris, NY and Milan really well so it is a lot easier. But being in hotel rooms constantly definitely gets you down however swanky it may be!

Ellis, NY/London:  Something tells me, that you have something to say, or perhaps a story to tell. Do you write? If yes, for yourself or do you have a platform?

Liberty Ross: That’s funny – I do write, write and read a lot but only for myself so far. That is the plus to endless flights and eurostars, you can find peace to indulge in books and journals. Thanks again, Liberty. I spoke to Nick about the films and said that you were favourable. Do let him know if you have any reservations before we post them!!

Dominic: I find you very desirable,erotic and beguiling how does your husband cope having to share you?

Liberty Ross: Thanks for your compliment! Luckily he has always been very understanding and never shown signs of jealousy, I have been with him since before I started modelling and I really respect the fact that he let me go off and do what I had to do. He has never once said, ‘please don’t go’ or ‘ don’t do that’, he has always really encouraged me to make the most of it all. So it’s good, and plus he knows the real me better than anyone!

li-han, Los Angeles: Hi liberty, What kind of music you currently got bumpin' in your car/ipod/cd player/walkmen??

Liberty Ross: My eldest brother Atticus just co produced the new Nine Inch Nails album which is great, I like BlocParty, Bjork, Ali Farka, Keane because my mum used to rock my baby to sleep to them, and a few classics like Nirvana, Prince, Elvis and Madonna! Oh, and lots of reggae.

Booker, New York: What's the story behind your name?

Liberty Ross: I know in my bio on showstudio it says I was born in LA – I was actually born in London. My parents knew we were moving to LA so I think that’s where they got the idea of Liberty from. I was nearly called Lettice first – I am not sure where they got that from but I am happy they used it as my middle name! I am one of 6 and we all have quite original names.

John, South East England: Liberty, is the camera different from the audience?

Liberty Ross: Very different – I find the camera a lot more exciting – it’s a lot more intimate and always interesting seeing the final image and knowing how you got there, it’s fun creating the look and the atmosphere, you don’t get that in the same way on the runway.

London: Has moving to Hollywood made any changes to your sense of style?

Liberty Ross: Yes. I never wear jumpers or socks and hardly ever dress up. It is much more like being on holiday, the weather’s good and you go to the beach and so you never find yourself wanting to dress up and you hardly ever see anyone, so it doesn’t matter anyway. California is all about ‘hanging out’

Illi, Santa Barbara, CA: How is working with Nick Knight any different than working with other photographers?

Liberty Ross: Nick pushes the boundaries of photography, both in fashion and the world of photography itself. He is a furious innovator and embraces all technologies in making images. There is no one like him working today, he is an Artist and few really deserve that title. He also pushes the model to the limits physically and involves them creatively. For me it is more of an actor/director relationship, where we create a character together and then Nick brings it to life and captures it’s essence in a single frame. For me the most rewarding work I have done has been with Nick.

Charles Warren, South Carolina: In later years how would you relate this session titled seductively "Dress me up, dress me down," to the readers of you biography. An aside please descibe how it feels to be an object of intense visual focus and how different this is on the internet as compared to the runway. Thank you so much and the best of luck in everything!

Liberty Ross: Hi Charles, The title 'dress me up, dress me down' relates strongly to what it is like being a model today, both physically and mentally. Physically we stand there being poked and prodded, dressed and re-dressed, often becoming invisible, the French even call models 'mannequins'. Mentally, we are constantly judged at face value, on nothing more than our 'look'. It is a very fickle business and 'looks' come and go overnight. Working on Internet projects is very different to the 'runway'. The runway is a 'moment'. A theatrical 'event' in front of a live audience and obviously there is the buzz that goes with that. The internet is in front of a much larger, 'hidden' audience of interactive participators and that is what is so interesting about this project. People all over the world can have input at a very creative level and be involved in something that usually takes place behind close doors, to me
this makes it very contemporary and very exciting.

Misa, New York: Hey there Liberty! I just noticed that you live in LA-- I was born and raised in Los Angeles, and I've decided to move to London in October. What are your views on the two cities (culture, most or least favorite things, etc.) and do you have any advice about transplanting and re-establishing oneself in a different country?

Liberty Ross: I enjoy both cities for different reasons, they are so different that it is quite hard to compare them. Obviously here in LA the weather is the real bonus - I love being able to drive to the beach one day and the mountains the next. You can live in a really productive city but still feel as though you are in the wilderness in some parts. It's great. London is definitely a lot more sophisticated and has more of a centre and heart to it. I have always lived in west London so I know that area the best, that is my real home and I definitely miss it if I am away too long. We have some of the best galleries and parks and so much going on. As far as re establishing oneself that's the fun part - travelling is exciting and character building - even if things don't go the way you expect them too it's all a good experience and learning process. Good luck!

Eucinpyos, Canada:  I'd like to know some of your favourite highlights from your years of modelling. Whether they be good, or bad, or funny; anything in particular that pops up in memory once in a while? And also, what do you think you'd be doing if you never got involved in modelling? Thanks, K

Liberty Ross: Probably my most embarrassing moment was early on in my career during the New York shows. I have really small feet which still to this day is a real problem when it comes to catwalks! This particular designer was sure that I could make it down the runway and back in a pair of shoes 4 times too big if he put enough tissue and selotape in them. As much as I said it wouldn't work they insisted, so sure enough on about step 4 my right shoe flung off into the front row followed by a mass of stuffing of all sorts. No one cheered or laughed or anything - quite the opposite actually! SO I calmly knelt down and took my left shoe off, slung it over my shoulder and proceeded barefoot. The designer was not amused and straight after the show a journalist ran up to me and the next thing I knew it was in page 6 of the NY Post! Highlights are doing projects like this one where I can have as much say and creative input as anyone else. I was asked to guest edit Vogue a couple of years ago and Nick agreed to shoot it for me - that was a real privilege and still my most memorable project along with the Dior Addict work we did together. I also loved shooting the Dior Addict commercial in Budapest with Jake Scott, it was very long hours [through the night} and I was extremely wet and rather cold but it was amazing, I loved doing it. Another highlight was shooting my first British Vogue cover in a hammock on a beautiful beach in Mexico, and also working with Mario Testino and Kate Moss both of whom I love.

Clementine, USA:  i hope you know you're really fab. now, be honest, who's your favourite designer?

Liberty Ross: Hi Clementine, my favourite designer of all is John Galliano - I love and respect him and his work, I always look forward to seeing what he does next and I have had some of the most memorable modelling experiences in collaboration with him. I consider myself very lucky. I love Manolo for shoes and I am enjoying knickers by SPANK at the moment - check them out.

John, South East England: Liberty why do you do it?

Liberty Ross: Hi John, I often ask myself the same thing! Modelling is something I fell into, it certainly has its ups and downs as all things in life but I do it because I really love it. It pushes me in all directions and has opened my eyes to so much. I have travelled the world, learnt languages, had outfits sculpted to my body by some of the best designers of our time and been shot by some of the worlds leading image makers. No 2 days are the same, each one throwing a new challenge at you, so that's why I do it, plus you never know how long it is going to last so you better enjoy it while it does!

This project is more like performance art, recorded photographically, with the model dressing up, like Leigh Bowery or Cindy Sherman, except the viewer can influence the outcome of the piece.

Susannah Frankel: Why does this project in particular interest you?

Liberty Ross: All the projects I have worked on with Nick have really pushed the boundaries both creatively and in what is expected of me. I respect Nick for involving me in the creative process. SHOWstudio is an amazing forum for art, a virtual gallery that draws inspiration and contributors from many fields. It is also a worldwide forum and most of the questions that I have been asked through the site have been international. A friend of mine at art college in California told me that SHOWstudio was part of their coursework because it was such a cutting edge breeding ground for ideas. I am excited to work with them on such an in depth project and we are all very interested in throwing open the creative control to people who use the site.

Susannah Frankel: Are you not nervous about the idea of people 'directing' you in this way? It's very different from the trusting relationship between photographer and model because complete strangers will be asking you to do things and presumably, there will be some dodgy hits...

Liberty Ross: To be honest I am not worried at all, there are far more exciting sites if you are looking for titillation. Furthermore, there are a few photographers who I wouldn't trust any more than an evening with Ron Jeremy.

I like the idea of the anonymous direction, it is like a photographic peep show, sometimes we try and control everything too much and as in film it is sometimes the events that are out of control that make the magic.

Susannah Frankel: Where would you draw the line?

Liberty Ross: If someone asks me to do something that I don't want to do, I won't do it.

Susannah Frankel: What is the difference between this and the pornographic sites that inspire it?

Liberty Ross: Although the porno sites have a link to this project, it is not only exclusively inspired or based on that, it is more to do with control and voyeuristic content.

Susannah Frankel: How important, in the end, is fashion to the project?

Liberty Ross: This is a project that is just trying to do something different and fashion is a part of it, it could exist with no links to fashion at all and still have the same relevance. Like all creative media fashion borrows ideas from the others. This project is more like performance art, recorded photographically, with the model dressing up, like Leigh Bowery or Cindy Sherman, except the viewer can influence the outcome of the piece.

Susannah Frankel: I think it's interesting that you tend to take on far more challenging projects than many models - I'm thinking about the mask in 'Transformer' for example as well, of course, as this. Why do you put yourself through it?

Liberty Ross: The best work for a model is with the most interesting photographers. These photographers challenge photography and therefore challenge you. In today's commercial world, the best photographers can survive as artists by being paid commercially, photographers like Nick live, sleep and breathe photography.

Susannah Frankel: The fashion world is perceived as very glossy. Do you see yourself as challenging that when you take on projects like this one?

Liberty Ross: As you say it is 'perceived' as very glossy, and the end product usually is. However, it is normally gruelling and exhausting and with this project SHOWstudio is giving the people the opportunity to see what it is really like. The project has been documented from the start, by the end of the shoot it shall be complete, giving the audience the chance to see how an initial idea evolves into something greater.

Susannah Frankel: So, do you not care about whether you are portrayed as 'pretty' then?

Liberty Ross: No, I never really have, I see myself as a blank canvas and it excites me to be able to have the opportunity to become someone different every time I shoot.

In my 'Fragments of Me' piece, I am showing people the real me. I didn't once think, shit, I should make myself up! Each fragment was very spontaneous and real, it was all done at home, just an idea and a camera.

Susannah Frankel: You've worked a lot with Nick, what is the appeal of that? What makes him special?

Liberty Ross: Nick pushes the boundaries of photography, both in fashion and the world of photography itself. He is a furious innovator and embraces all technologies in making images. There is no one like him working today, he is an artist and few really deserve that title. He also pushes the model to the limits physically and involves them creatively. For me it is more of an actor/director relationship, where we create a character together and then Nick brings it to life and captures its essence in a single frame. For me the most rewarding work I have done has been with Nick.

Susannah Frankel: Would you describe your relationship as quite equal?

Liberty Ross: I think our relationship is like that of painter and muse; we both work off each other. There is a special moment when everything is finally set, stylists, assistants, light meters and hair and make-up all drift back into the studio and leave silence.

Nick and I are alone and we just work together, he speaks and I move, I move and he reacts. Also, as the model, you cannot see anyone else in the darkness, past the glare of the lights, just Nick and the capturing shutter. Nick only sees me through the viewfinder as the shutter opens and closes, capturing the image.

A version of this interview was printed in The Independent, 23 June 2005

Liberty is somebody who intellectually takes on roles. When you're working with her she understands the person you're making her into, not just the looks, but the person, so she portrays that.

Susannah Frankel: What were your references for this story?   

Nick Knight: The main subject that I wanted to deal with was the issue of control and that emerged from me talking to some of the models. You know those photographs of models that I took for the Millennium issue of British Vogue, of Penelope Tree, Twiggy and all the models of the past fifty years. Some of the models I spoke to, particularly those who were models in the fifties and sixties, spoke to me a lot about control. They were saying, often quite plaintively, that they hadn't had any control over one of the most creative periods of their lives. That got me to thinking about how models get themselves into the position where really they don't control their own image. On the other hand, personally I feel better when I lose control than when I know exactly what I'm doing. I purposefully allow an element of chance to come into my work because otherwise you end up using the same creative steps and you get a similar vision at the end of the route. So really I wanted to articulate, through a series of projects, different points of control.

Susannah Frankel: And how does the reference to live, pornographic video chats fit in?

Nick Knight: I was thinking there's an odd comparison to be made. Essentially we're handing over control to our audience and they have a girl in a room and they're telling her what to do, in fact, they're dressing her, and it did make me think 'well, this isn't actually that far away from those rooms where men and women tell other people what to do'.

Susannah Frankel: Do you not think that the format might attract the wrong sort of viewer?   

Nick Knight: It's only sex in the end. But the funny thing is we don't attract on SHOWstudio the kind of sinister, violent comments that you see elsewhere on the internet. We did a project with Simon Foxton at the beginning of this year where we asked him to do living stills of men's fashion. We asked him to dress a man and then have him sit as if he was having his picture taken, just like a living still all day long and next to him was a telephone and the phone number was printed alongside so anybody could phone him up and ask him anything. And we just thought 'oh God, it's just going to be loads of guys phoning up and saying these lewd things', but not one was like that. People would phone up and ask very polite questions. Obviously, there's a chance that people might phone up and say rude things to Liberty but to be honest everybody has to register. We'll see.

Susannah Frankel: And if you did?

Nick Knight: Penny will be moderating this. It isn't just a free for all. I think it's just a question of what is considered normal behaviour. Your wouldn't go into a meeting at the Natural History Museum and start talking about lewd things or about sex. Nor would you do it on Question Time. I just think it's about appropriate behaviour.

Susannah Frankel: And how does Liberty feel about this? 

Nick Knight: Liberty has control over all of this. If she doesn't like what people are asking her to do, she doesn't do it. Obviously we've spoken about this project and she's quite at ease with the vision of herself clothed and unclothed. She's just had her first child but she's still quite prepared to do this and I think there's a certain amount of power to her for deciding to do this at this point in her life. I know that with all these projects, part of the reason that I do them is because they're close to the edge.

Susannah Frankel: How important is fashion to the project?

Nick Knight: Well, it's our collections piece. In the same way that if Vogue did a collections piece or if anybody did a large collections piece they'd look at what was presented in London and Paris and Milan and they'd cut them down into themes. That's what we're doing: presenting nine different themes. Jonathan Kaye has looked at the collections and said, 'well, okay, ecclesiastical is one of the themes that has been picked up by Saint Laurent and by so-and-so, dandy is another one, tomboy's another one.

Susannah Frankel: How will the project actually work?

Nick Knight: What happens first is that we've had all the clothes from each theme on SHOWstudio so you can look at ecclesiastical, and the audience is already getting to know the clothes you can dress Liberty in. It's three hours on each theme, three themes a day, for three days.

Say the first theme is dandy or tomboy. First you look at all the clothes for tomboy, then you register yourself as a participant and then you're held in what is almost a chat room where you can talk to other people about what Liberty might wear and Liberty will select who she wants to dress her based on what that person is saying. They have fifteen minutes to dress her and then she goes onto the next one. Jonathan Kaye decides who's done the best combination from each theme and then that's what Liberty wears.

I film Liberty in that outfit and then we deconstruct it. I take all the clothes back off her which is interesting because when you're taking the clothes off they become different garments. A Rochas skirt when it's being lifted above your head, becomes a new piece of clothing. It's not the same skirt. And at different points while that's happening I'm taking freeze frames then Danny Brown, who works with us, is making the sequences into animations based a bit on a pen that you tip upside down and the model's clothes fall off. It won't be as literal as that, though. You can go onto the site, take these patterns, recombine them in a semi abstract way and load them onto your mobile phone. It's quite a long sequence of events.

Susannah Frankel: And it's all live online?

Nick Knight: Yes. Yes. Everything's live both with sound and vision.

Susannah Frankel: You were talking about control, this is taking the passive side of modelling to the extreme.

Nick Knight:What we're doing is providing the control that a stylist would normally have to our audience. We've chosen a range of clothing from the collections but we're allowing them to combine them so I think what you're going to get is a lot of young, would-be stylists.

Susannah Frankel: There is something about Liberty that is quite brave. She doesn't necessarily want to be portrayed as conventionally pretty. She's prepared to go further than most models.

Nick Knight: I think she is very courageous. She's very at ease with how she looks, she's very at ease with her image. And she's interested in pushing that. Not all models are. Not all models are that aware of how they look. Liberty is somebody who intellectually takes on roles. When you're working with her she understands the person you're making her into, not just the looks, but the person, so she portrays that. She's quite at ease so it's a little bit more like working with an actress in a way.

Susannah Frankel: Is that what you like about her? You've worked with her a lot.

Nick Knight: I have worked with her a lot. Just taking the actress analogy further, you know, one would work with the same actresses again and again because you enjoy finding out more about their character and putting your vision through them because you know they can use it and they can interpret it. You work with people who are, or you hope are, like-minded to you and are also interested in the type of work you want to do. I work a lot with Gemma Ward. I work a lot with Kate Moss. You work with different girls for different roles. Liberty is quite unique in the way she works.

Susannah Frankel: Can we talk about SHOWstudio in general.

Nick Knight: We've changed it in the last three or four months because what we're doing is concentrating much more on one project at a time, Previously, we had much more of pop approach to it: we'd approach perhaps twenty projects in a month. We've already been working on this with Liberty for two months and you've seen the development. As I say, it is our collections piece so it's allowed us to talk about the clothes. We asked Jonathan Kaye who's a key designer who you feel epitomises this season and he says okay it's Junya Watanabe, so we've got a Junya Watanabe download, and of course that'll be part of the clothes that Liberty will be wearing. It's a way of doing these projects in a much fuller sense than we used to.

Susannah Frankel: You once described yourself to me as the enemy within. Is that still how you see yourself?

Nick Knight: I do try and stay in the mainstream because then you can operate in a much more powerful way. If you try and work from the outside you do just become slightly side-tracked, people will marginalise you and therefore what you say isn't relevant. I think you have to operate in the mainstream.

Susannah Frankel: Do you mean ad campaigns and Vogue?

Nick Knight: Yes. If my work only appeared in i-D magazine, or Self Service one would think, well, he's fine but in the overall scheme of fashion nothing's really changing and it's therefore just his particular oddness. If I'm operating in the mainstream then it's very hard to ignore what I do and what I say. It's much easier for me to get my point across.

Susannah Frankel: And how do you do that with your work for Dior, for example?

Nick Knight: There are things that you do when you photograph people that people wouldn't notice. For instance, if you look up to a person you are putting them in a position where they are looked up to, if you look down on them you make them look dominated. There are all sorts of things that, although they're very slight, you will do naturally.

You can't have a huge political agenda going way out in front of you that you arrive on a shoot and blast onto a shoot but John knows I don't like photographing fur so we tend to not get much fur on the shoot. It's those sorts of things. It's more a way of looking at the world which my clients understand that I have. John knows I'm interested in performance. He knows I'm interested in the process. So we tend to push things in those sorts of ways. He knows who I am. He knows what I believe in.

Susannah Frankel: Process is very much about what this is about.

Nick Knight: I've always thought that there's a certain arrogance to the way pictures are presented or in fact any art form is presented without explanation, without interference, almost as a trophy at the end of a quest. I don't feel like that about my own work. It's an ongoing investigation, an ongoing exploration of the world around us. I don't see it in a finalistic way. So showing the process is a much more appropriate way of trying to explain and show how you work. It's beneficial for the artist and beneficial to the audience.

Susannah Frankel: What's your role in this particular project?

Nick Knight: We're broadcasting it as it happens and once Liberty's been dressed by her audience then I will deconstruct her, or undress her and I will produce a series of images. So the role is hard for me to define. I'm part photographer, part film maker, part broadcaster, meteur en scene, it's a directorial role and that's what I find quite exciting at the moment. The move into new technologies made the definition of being a photographer quite irrelevant. I'm making things that are in three dimensions now because of 3-D scanning and conceiving pieces that look more like theatre than they do photography. I'm not so restricted by the role of being a photographer any more which has always been something I haven't particularly enjoyed.

Susannah Frankel: Do you like the separation of the lens being between you and something else?

Nick Knight: No. No. In my mind. When I work, I tend to work with a plate camera and you don't look through the back of the camera. You look just to begin with but then you stand next to the model, or next to the sitter, just holding a cable release in your hand. Thinking about what I do now I feel almost freed up from the camera which is an object that I've never liked. I've always felt it's a slightly aggressive piece of machinery that you put between you and your sitter.

Susannah Frankel: Is the relationship between model and photographer equal?

Nick Knight: No. I think mostly it's not an equal relationship. That's partly why I've been trying to do with this, by trying to get Liberty to generate her own imagery and by giving her platform from which she can voice her opinions throughout a shoot. Liberty's not participating in the end image in Vogue. For this project, she's made video clips over the past two months of how she sees herself, so the audience has been watching those and getting to know her through the generation of her own images, they've been discovering her as a person. She's been answering their questions. She's been showing visions of herself.

I think for the large part models haven't had much control. They do have a bit more now but not a lot. Even in the day of the supermodel, ultimately they controlled their fees and when they would turn up but still as a photographer, you're a director, you issue a set of instructions. A good model will interpret those instructions and push them back towards you so it becomes like game. More often than not a model is being given a set of instructions. Do this, do that, do this, do that. You listen to the sort of patter a photographer has I mean different photographers do it in different ways but most people have a similar sort of thing and it's like a rhythmic set of reassurances, 'yeah, great, good', and so forth. It's all that inane babble which is sort of rhythmically punctuating but also encouraging people to just carry on doing what they're being asked to do.

A version of this interview was printed in The Independent, 23 June 2005

The word pornography, derived from the ancient Greek porné and graphos, means 'writing about whores'. Porné means 'whore', specifically and exclusively the lowest class of whore, which in ancient Greece was the brothel slut available to all male citizens. The porné was the cheapest (in the literal sense), least regarded, least protected of all women, including slaves. She was, simply and clearly and absolutely, a sexual slave.

The word pornography does not mean 'writing about sex' or 'depictions of the erotic' or 'depictions of sexual acts' or depictions of nude bodies' or 'sexual representations' or any such euphemism. It means the graphic depiction of women as vile whores. In ancient Greece, not all prostitutes were considered vile: only the porneia.

Contemporary photography strictly and literally conforms to the word's root meaning: the graphic depiction of vile whores, or in our language, sluts, cows (as in: sexual cattle, sexual chattel), cunts. This word has not changed its meaning and the genre is not misnamed. The only change in the meaning of the word is with respect to its second part, graphos: now there are cameras-there is still photography, film, video. The methods of graphic depiction have increased in number and in kind: the content is the same; the status of the women depicted is the same; the sexuality of the women depicted is the same. With the technologically advanced methods of graphic depiction, real women are required for the depiction as such to exist.

The word pornography does not have any other meaning than the one cited here, the graphic depiction of the lowest whores. Whores exist to serve men sexually. Whores exist only within a framework of male sexual domination. Indeed, outside that framework the notion of whores would be absurd and the usage of women as whores would be impossible. The word whore is incomprehensible unless one is immersed in the lexicon of male domination. Men have created the group, the type, the concept, the epithet, the insult, the industry, the trade, the commodity, the reality of woman as whore. Woman as whore only exists within the objective and real system of male sexual domination. The pornography itself is objective and real and central to the male sexual system. The valuation of women's sexuality in pornography is objective and real because women are so regarded and so valued. The force depicted in pornography is objective and real because force is so used against women. The debasing of women depicted in pornography and intrinsic to it is objective and real in that women are so debased. The uses of women depicted in pornography are objective and real because women are so used. The women used in pornography are used in pornography. The definition of women articulated systematically and consistently in pornography is objective and real in that real women exist within and must live with constant reference to the boundaries of this definition. The fact that pornography is widely believed to be 'sexual representations' or 'depictions of sex' emphasizes only that the valuation of women as low whores is widespread and that the sexuality is reduced to one essential: 'cunt... our essence, our offense'.(1) The idea that pornography is 'dirty' originates in the conviction that the sexuality of women is dirty and actually portrayed in pornography; that women's bodies (especially women's genitals) are dirty: instead pornography embodies and exploits this idea; pornography sells and promotes it.

In the United States, the pornography industry is larger than the record and film industries combined. In a time of widespread economic impoverishment, it is growing: more and more male consumers are eager to spend more and more money on pornography-on depictions of women as vile whores. Pornography is now carried by cable television; it is now being marketed for home use in video machines. The technology itself demands the creation of more and more porneia to meet the market opened up by the technology. Real women are tied up, stretched, hanged, fucked, gang-banged, whipped, beaten and begging for more. In the photographs and films, real women are used as porneia and real women are depicted as porneia. To profit, the pimps must supply the porneia as the technology widens the market for the visual consumption of women being brutalized and loving it. One picture is worth a thousand words. The number of pictures required to meet the demands of the marketplace determines the number of porneia required to meet the demands of graphic depiction. The numbers grow as the technology and its accessibility grow. The technology by its very nature encourages more and more passive acquiescence to the graphic depictions. Passivity makes the already credulous consumer more credulous. He comes to the pornography a believer; he goes away from it a missionary. The technology itself legitimizes the uses of women conveyed by it.

In the male system, women are sex; sex is the whore. The whore is porné, the lowest whore, the whore who belongs to all male citizens: the slut, the cunt. Buying her is buying pornography. Having her is having pornography. Seeing her is seeing pornography. Seeing her in sex is seeing the whore in sex. Using her is using pornography. Wanting her means wanting pornography. Being her means being pornography.

Reproduced with gracious thanks to the Andrea Dworkin estate and to Perigree Books and The Women's Press.

Few would dispute that the sexual content in the photographic depiction of fashion has increased dramatically since the early seventies, and perhaps most evidently in the last decade - and today we are often talking 'in your face' as opposed to innuendo.

Fashion photography and pornography have in common the objectives of stimulating desire and firing the imagination. This has always been the case. What has changed over time is that fashion imagery has evolved a new set of reference points and sexually charged scenarios, choreography and styling are far more predominant than was once the case. Up until the sixties, fashion photographers for the most part used their cool, attenuated, white marble-skinned models as ciphers for style, elegance and social status. The desires that they sought to stimulate where aspirational rather than erotic. Fashion was nothing if not hierarchical. The world of fashion was so polite, so formal. The sixties marked a turning point, though the imagery of those years tended to be rather more chaste than one might expect from the decade's associations with sexual liberation.

It was in the seventies that fashion magazines first significantly explored the powerful sexual as well as social codes that are of course implicit in dress. Helmut Newton, Guy Bourdin and Chris von Wangenheim led the way in using fashion photography to present overtly sexual narratives. Their provocative pictures probed the erotic aspects of dress and gesture and deliberately presented their models as objects of considerable sexual interest. The term 'Porno-chic' was used to define this new tendency. As fashion magazines became ever more sexy, pornography, soft or hard, was in danger of appearing increasingly conventionalised. Newton used to berate Playboy for not allowing him the same creative freedom that he enjoyed with French Vogue. The styling and production values of mainstream erotic-pornographic imagery meanwhile became as polished as anything to emanate from Condé Nast or the Hearst Corporation - look at Lui, Oui (to which Newton was a contributor), or their tougher counterparts Hustler and Chic.

We live in an increasingly visually sophisticated and crowded world in which a vast publishing industry spews millions of photographic images each month in the overlapping fields of fashion, celebrity and the erotic, each trying to catch our eye. Attention spans are short. Appetites are strong and swiftly jaded. Sex is an obsession, and sexually compelling pictures - be they banal or slick, sublime or disconcerting - are a staple ingredient of the visual culture. The barriers are down. Ours is the knowing Post-Modern world in which image-makers sample and plunder ideas across the genres and from the past. Fashion photographers are as likely to draw inspiration from Larry Clark or Nan Goldin, or the imagery of porn, as from Beaton or Horst. And they recognise that the great erotic-pornographic photographers sure understand two ingredients - high shock value and intense sensuality - that can be crucial in grabbing the eye from a page or a hoarding. Fashionista Steven Meisel is the archetypal photo-DJ, spinning, mixing, tasting, sampling, able to do sexy or elegant, or a cocktail of both as required. Nothing is disallowed. Terry Richardson has been perhaps the most confrontational, arguably the most honest in using pornography as an ideas-bag for his fashion and advertising pictures. Richardson's Sisley catalogues v. Hustler: the jury is out on which is the more provocative. Where do we go from here? Your guess is as good as mine. Watch this space.

Isn't the standard dynamic of fashion pictures a female model presented as an object of male desire?

From the viewer's point of view; fashion photographs can mostly be seen to make the following claim; 'Wear these clothes in this way to make yourself desirable... oh, and here's who made them and where you can buy them.' Straightforward surely, and neatly tied to commerce. Except that on the one hand, desire encompasses a lot of things that can be dreamed or imagined and on the other hand, consumption of fashion imagery is not so reductively commercial. Perhaps to advertisers' regret, glossy magazines are not only read as catalogues but can also be entertainment, social comment, even critique. These two open-ended aspects to the whole business expand horizons immensely, opening up space for much of the extraordinary stuff that has been produced in fashion photography's name over the years.

And pornography? As an aid to masturbation it is surely a substitute for imagination. In so far as sexuality is about the smelt and felt and dreamed about, pornography acts as a colonising force of visual objectification. It annexes the whole domain to the most cognitive of the senses, impoverishing and reducing along the way. Pornography lights up and makes precise and repeatable a realm whose liberating expansiveness lies in its hazy, fallible subjectivity. The desirability that fashion imagery speaks of, however, can be much more open-ended and indirectly sexual than pornography must be by definition. (Sure, all sorts of things can serve the function of pornography but pornography proper has a job description that is uncomplicated and specific).

It seems to me that the fashionability of pornography occurred not only because of its sudden pervasiveness but also because of its apparent risqué authenticity. But pornography isn't the bald truth of sexuality; it only starts to become so with the consumption of pornography. (On a more basic level, men are undeniably attracted to porn and are happy to find excuses to look at it and, better still, produce it. If they can avoid making themselves look unattractive by dressing things up as cut-the-crap rebel honesty or meta-examination then so much the better).

Fashion: Alicia wears black scaled leggings and top by Mada Van Gaans. Joy wears a white tulle dress by Angelos Bartis.

I'm angry with the media for turning me into a freak. I'm equally turned on by and disgusted by fashion and pornography. So, for my own sanity, I'm trying to present another ideal with my clothes and another woman. Maybe someone who doesn't need to identify with the man to be turned on.

Just next to my bus stop in Dalston someone has painted over the advert featuring the bikini-clad bum of a young woman on a Lilo. I find that very encouraging. I'm not sure if it's the lesbians or the Muslims who did it. I disagree with the sexualisation of society as a whole and the way women are portrayed in media and fashion. I don't want a picture of someone's peach bum in my face on the way to work and I feel humiliated by men looking at page three girls on the tube. But I find the fashion variety (or sanitized porn that can pass as 'art') far more disturbing. I prefer Pretty Woman to Betty Blue and Page Three girls to a fashion shoot by Terry Richardson. However, if I think about it from a man's perspective (this happens automatically), I'd like to lick that bum and bend her over and you know... This ability that I can fantasize about that is quite disturbing. It's a bit like how they say that children who are molested identify with their perpetrators to survive the humiliation and later on become molesters themselves. I'm angry with the media for turning me into a freak. I'm equally turned on by and disgusted by fashion and pornography. So, for my own sanity, I'm trying to present another ideal with my clothes and another woman. Maybe someone who doesn't need to identify with the man to be turned on.

If it's going to be in a porno mag, it's going to be porno, if it's placed in a gallery, then it's art. It's the same with fashion.

I was looking at a magazine of a shoot in which the guy was in the water up to his hips: you could see his crotch hair. There was a model coming out of the water. She had her hands on something and her bare butt was sticking up at the back. I thought 'you know, I know that model and she's fucking fifteen!' Fashion, can do that. If I did that, it's off to jail for child pornography.

They passed a law in the United States yesterday - number 2257 - that's going to affect all kinds of photography. It's just insane. If you are a United States photographer you are no longer allowed to shoot any woman that doesn't have United States documentation in anything that could be interpreted as a 'sexual manner'. According to this, I can no longer shoot foreign women! I had to cancel a whole bunch of shoots, as I travel places and shoot foreign women. The law is obviously set up to go after all kinds of hardcore pornographers. There are all these sites on the web that are just out of control and that's who they aim to target. Anywhere the imagery will appear needs to be backed up with all sorts of documentation. The problem is that they don't define what 'sexual' is. It's just another Bushism: a law to ensure that if someone wants to make trouble for you, then they can.

If I'm shooting for a sex magazine, there is a set of rules you have to adhere to. You have to show: 'girl with clothes on'; 'girl undressed'; 'girl showing her butt'; 'girl with her panties a little bit down'; 'she's looking over her shoulder, sticking her butt out'; she's laying on her back with her boobs squeezed together and you're shooting right up her crotch. All sorts of variations of that. You could pick up any kind of porno magazine and find one of those poses. In fact, one of the photographers I work with has a big book of all the possible poses, composed out of tear-sheets. Fashion has the same thing. I just did a shoot for Purple and the stylist was telling me about all the poses we could do. I picked up a magazine and referred to a pose I thought interesting - a girl holding her foot - and he said 'oh, no, that's a very common pose'. I thought it was a new one!

Guys want to see naked women and will do anything - including inventing new technologies - to achieve that. I think ninety percent of people producing pornography are totally unaware of fashion and couldn't care less about it. Pornography is for one reason. However, I do notice that if you look at the style of figures like Paris Hilton, that is straight out of the LA porno scene. The way they dress, the hair; she made porn too. But fashion, it certainly influences other people, but I'm not sure about porno people. Pornography is a lot more acceptable now. Here, Howard Stern is listened to by millions of people and he talks about porn all day. Literally, you hear about it all day and all night. It's no longer a taboo subject and that definitely influences people's acceptance of it.

I hardly ever shoot for porn any more, but when I do, it's strictly for money. When I'm doing it, I think 'this is going to cover me for a couple of weeks'. Then I try to get something on the side, for my own art work. Usually, when I'm shooting I have several different things that I'm working on, in my head, but the model doesn't necessarily know that. She knows if it's going to be for porn. Most of them will only shoot for galleries and books: they want to work with me for that reason. The first thing I ask them is 'would you be in magazines?' and some of them say 'yeah, I don't care, it's all the same' and other ones say 'no, and I don't want to be in Vice magazine either!'. You have to have these conversations if you don't want to end up in court.

There is something very mercenary about pornography. It's astonishingly to the point. The notions of narrative engagement don't really matter in serious pornography. Attempts at them are always inept. Actually, it's better to not bother.

Pornography and Narrative

There is something very mercenary about pornography. It's astonishingly to the point. The notions of narrative engagement don't really matter in serious pornography. Attempts at them are always inept. Actually, it's better to not bother. If I want to watch a film, I'll watch a film. I'm not looking to pornography for a narrative experience. Beginners tend to. But anyone with any intelligence can't really bear the ineptitude of the filmmaking.

That said, aspects of convincing reality can improve the stimulation enormously. The best example of this in contemporary photography would be the films of Rocco Siffredi. There is a sense of a real-time scenario in Rocco's films. They're not set in an entirely abstract neutral zone of a room set or studio somewhere. When there is documentary quality to it; something that actually transcends the set, it's much more powerful. There are elements of context but not unnecessarily. There is some pornography, which to me is a quite valid art form. I'm not saying whether it's high or low as art, but an art form.

The Mercenary Eye

The mercenary eye is a trained habit. You learn quickly how to find the codes of pornography. If you go into a sex store you are confronted with thousands of titles. People learn how to navigate their way towards what they're interest in, how to read a sort of visual code of signs. It's connoisseurship, but it's fast track. This ability then spreads over to other things. You learn to spot the sexual potential, the erotic, in all kinds of things. I can scan a newsagent for sex potential; that's when it spreads over into fashion. I used to buy fashion magazines for their sex potential. It would quite often be a determining fact in my buying them. I read it all in the way that I read everything. I can't help it.

You just learn to do it. First you begin to identify the titles that are going through a sexual phase. So you won't bother with Marie Claire, but you will try Italian Vogue. You begin to know which magazines are pushing the boundaries. So 10, for example, might have something sexy in it; Numéro probably won't. But you might check anyway because it's borderline. Interestingly, it's much more erotic when sexual material is found in another place. A tiny amount of nudity or sexually-orientated styling in a fashion magazine is far more erotic than the dumbed-down, blatant material in a sex magazine.

The difference is that it seems more real out of context. A girl showing her breasts in Vogue, yes that's exciting. The male psychology towards sex is so totally and utterly different to the female one. You know, Liberty Ross suggesting a bit of bondage in Vogue magazine is so much more transgressive. You think 'oh, she must really be like that'. When we see a girl doing that in the porn industry we think 'oh it's the next kind of work, is it?' Most of what's at work in pornography is the individual's own imagination.

The System of Pornography

Pornography very rarely delivers on the voyeur's expectation. The industry hinges on that; the fact that the mind's eye is far more persuasive than the content received. This is how porn works. Yet with some people, their mind's eye's optimism takes years to diminish. You are always able to convince yourself that this video, this DVD, this magazine that's wrapped, this magazine you can't open, that this girl, this boy, this scene that you are looking at: this is the one that is going to deliver exactly what you want. And it never does. But you believe it's going to. It's always projection.

I know from being at the shops that if you let the customer look at the material, nine times out of ten they don't buy it. So when you go into video shops, they will not let you watch the material. They say it's because it's against the law, but the truth is that once you can see what the product is, you don't buy it. Why magazines are taped up or they are in a bag, that there is never a counter copy to look at, is because if you see what you are going to get, you then don't want it. Pornography is ninety-nine percent disappointing. Once a year something sort of delivers. That fuels the search for another year.

Hazards

Pornography is a kind of a surrogate for performance anxieties that men have. But unfortunately, it also compounds them. And there is an avoidance-of-other-people aspect to it. It's a very undemanding way to indulge sexual stimulation and entertainment. It can cause problems. It can become an end in itself. Some people get completely obsessive about it. You can completely lose track of reality by conditioning your sexuality to the sex product. These hazards aren't exclusive to imagery that is pornographic, but pornography is the purest version of this.

In this country the term by which something was deemed 'obscene' or 'pornographic was whether the material was likely to 'deprave and corrupt'. I can say categorically that porn depraves and corrupts. Absolutely. Frequent exposure to pornography changes your sensibility about personal behaviour. I am fascinated to see the gang rape scenario puzzling local authorities, health workers, care workers and the police. I'm astonished that they are puzzled by this. It's very easy to explain. Go and look at any contemporary pornography. Gangbang is the contemporary sex style. That's what happens with pornography: these things become really normal after a while.

Fashion's Influence On Pornography

The best example of fashion influencing pornography is in the work of a guy called Andrew Blake. He makes the most boring films, but you see it on all of the most glamorous porn labels, though. It's the influence of styling: the people who make porn are part of the 'trickle down' process and the way that their haircuts and jeans change, the styling of their films change. The problem with this is that it misses the point. They are so styled that there is nobody there: just an outfit walking. But to someone that has never seen a porn film, they are fantastic. Basically, it's like Elle, hardcore.

Pornography's Influence On Fashion Imagery

To be a good fashion photographer you need to put something of yourself into the picture. There are two types of fashion imagery. The first is achieved by what we might call 'the Mario approach', where the photographer identifies with a women, with her personality, with how she looks, with a dress. The other side of fashion is created by what might we call 'the aggressively heterosexual approach'; the Bailey/Donovan approach. Those are the two types of men making the strong statements about women in fashion. The latter type, those that want to fuck the girl more than identify with her, is an obvious contender for a consumer of pornography.

The weird thing about pornography is that for years and years is that it's been an influence that people have imagined was pretty much their own territory. Artists and image-makers have believed that that they are tapping into was, not necessarily a secret, but a relatively unshared image bank. I quite frequently take stills from porn films, quite confident that most people wouldn't have a clue where that came from, or would be surprised by that content, since it's not commonly accessible. It's quite easy to look at pornography and see fashion shoots, the more heterosexual ones, all day long. It's brilliant. There is no point in looking through Italian Vogue when you're shooting for Numéro. The history books, which were once a fabulous source, are now commonly available and everybody's got those. Watch a Seymour Butts film, though, and you think 'hang on, that would make a really great shoe shoot'.

We have seen phases of quite non-commercial editorial in magazines recently. Italian Vogue goes through cycles of cult positioning. The work that Guy Bourdin was doing in French Vogue in the 1970s was a case of using editorial to do whatever he liked and believed in at that time: not an attempt at selling frocks. It is now totally different. There is no Condé Nast magazine on earth that is engaged self expression: that's how the business has changed. Quite clearly, Bourdin and Newton were on a mission to challenge social stereotypes and barriers. Nobody is doing that now. The work that pastiches their photography is meaningless, it's just karaoke. It's the comfort zone of retro or nostalgic. It's familiar. Most of our popular culture these days is based on familiarity. It's good business. Challenging is not good business.

I don't think that there is anything of any interest whatsoever in fashion media now. There is nothing for it to pioneer. It's done. The audience has learnt it. As pretty much with music. It's on auto repeat. I feel that fashion is on auto repeat. Pornography has gone through its phases of challenging moral codes. I think it's past this in any kind of liberating way. My engagement with pornography now is occasional. More than anything, I got bored with it because it's in a lull stage. It's difficult to know what its next stage could be. Currently, it's in a phase of degenerating social behaviour.

Notes from a conversation with Peter Saville