Sorry to spam the thread... I pressed post too soon.
Honestly, I didn't know how to feel about the article. On one hand, I felt extremely sympathetic to Emrata (much more than I was expecting) and on the other hand, I felt like she was incredibly naive to believe some of the things she did or expect what she expected with regards to the respect of her body when it's being used in pursuit of fulfillment of another's artistic vision.
Some of the things in the article really rubbed me the wrong way, such as important artists making a ton of money on the "cultural commentary" of less socially capitalized young women/models whose image was used. I find this to be different from a modelling job in that the model posted an instagram to express themselves, and in service to their own image, rather than to sell a brand. This image is repackaged by a (in this case) man with power and pastiche and suddenly it's a critique. This whole exchange of her having to buy herself made me judge her as less narcissistic for having that huge picture, and made me feel like it is actually sort of punk of her to have it.
The article made me really think about empowerment, such as it exists in our society, and the idea of the commodification of sex in the heteronormative context. Beautiful women are considered smart for monetizing their sexuality and looks as a tradable commodity in the context that it is something in demand. However this isn't a market where individual "producers" of beauty have any special power. They aren't "wage setters", rather they are "price takers", and any power they do have is at the hand of the "demanders" or consumers of their commodity (their bodies/ it's image). And who drives demand in this market? In the historical context it has been men, but today is men and women. In this view, while the models (suppliers of beauty/their bodies/ image) are marginally better off getting something rather than nothing for their beauty, and some will get quite alot (thinking of girls for whom modeling provided opportunities to which they would have never otherwise had access), they ultimately have little to no power* in a consumer driven market. When what is being demanded is a body or an image of self, this is a serious statement. The suppliers have no agency over their image in this market. In this sense, the commodification of female sexuality is not empowering but rather regressive, because the females themselves are conducting business in a marketplace where they will always be price takers, and suppliers of what the more privileged are able to demand, not driving the market themselves.
I think many people thought social media would change this structure, and I think to some extent it did. But the structure is still there, and when you sign up to be in this market you have to expect to play by its rules, and I do think Emrata should have known that.
*I'm not talking about certain outliers, even including Emrata who is now more of a wage setter herself, or others who have parlayed modeling into other, more lucrative careers.