This sums up my feelings exactly, not only about Paris Hilton, but about models.
Models all look basically the same way (at least after some serious Photoshop work), and the famous ones charge oodles of cash. Why do they keep getting work, when you can’t throw a brick without hitting an attractive woman? Why do ad agencies and whatnot pay these people enormous sums of money, take volley after volley of criticism from feminist organizations and the like (for using models with “impossible” looks), contribute (or at least be suspected and accused of contributing) to eating disorders, poor self-esteem and an all-round poor body image, when they could just hire lookers off the street for temporary modelling stints?
It just seems that the positive PR alone from using “normal” women would make up for any loss caused by the supermodels’ disappearance from store windows, and I seriously doubt there would be any to start with.
I really don’t get this. Who profits from this? Who is making it go on? Why?
Believe it or not, walking down a runway, standing for a moment, then turning and walking away is a skill.
Also, you surely know some people are more photogenic than others. Some people do not photograph well, while others almost always look better in pictures than they do in real life.
And as long as the normal women buy the stuff the models show off, we will have models.
I’m glad you posted this because it allows me to ask my question. Who in hell develped the grotesque walk that fashion models use when displaying clothing?
When it comes to fashion models, part of the explanation is (fairly) reasonable – they aren’t paid to look good, they’re paid to make the clothes look good. This doesn’t require an especially pretty face, but it does call for a tall, slim body.
It’s also easier for everyone in the fashion industry if all the models are around the same size, as that means the clothing samples can all be the same size too. I’m not sure why they don’t favor a more common size, though…I believe the standard measurements for a fashion model are around 34-24-34.
I doubt it, but even if you’re right, this only accounts for the models on the catwalk. What about the models in magazines, store windows, commercials…? And besides, surely you can find women with that skill (or, failing that, the two-digit IQ necessary to learn it) who don’t have the freaky look so detested by political opponents?
I think this effect is hugely overstated and in any case it can hardly account for the low number of people drawing in the really big bucks.
But they’d buy it anyway. Are you telling me normal women would stop buying clothes if the models looked normal?
My understanding is that the sketches fashion designers are taught to make of their clothing in school use unusual female proportions which stretch the lines of the clothing in a way pleasing to the eye, but requiring proportions most real women don’t have. A co-worker of mine who was attending grad school for design told me all her sketches for clothing were draped on women whose proportions were unreal. Very odd; she went to art school undergrad and learned how to draw the human form correctly, then fashion school where she had to unlearn that. Seems as if we’re picking out models retrofitted to an uncommon ideal. If it’s just inertia in the design schools manifesting itself in reality, a question becomes how that started.
I never understood why we pick fighter pilots a bit shorter than average to fit into cockpits instead of just building slightly larger cockpits either, but there you have it.
I’d also suggest that the fashion industry has heterosexual women and homosexual males in leadership positions at a higher proportion than other areas of society. I could very easily see those groups looking at a somehwhat odd looking (to me as a heterosexual male) clotheshorse and thinking she’ll do nicely whereas I’d be way more impressed by some 5’6" cutie with a curve here or there I see walking down the street. Add in the fact a lot of these folks are coming out of art schools and I can see where the aesthetic senses really begin to diverge.
[hijack] I remember a Discovery or Learning Channel show (yeah, I know.) some time back which explained that shorter pilots can withstand the high Gs better than tall ones. Taller people will pass out faster. It was speculated that it has to do with the distance between heart and brain. A few centimeters seems to make a big difference. So, really, the cockpits may have been fitted to the average pilot, not the other way around. I’ll see what I can find to back this up.[/hijack]
I suppose the hijack’s really my fault, sorry. But if this is correct you’ve just answered a Q I’ve wondered about for a long time! Thanks.
Back to topic, this link has a sketch about halfway down the page that illustrates what I was talking about; I think this sketch is typical based upon seeing my former coworker’s sketches. I have to agree Renee Z. looks pretty good there… and would never be used as a fashion model. He gets a bit worked up about gays in the industry, I agree with the sentiment but the tone seems a little mean. This link addresses the fashion sketching phenomenon.
Most of the material on the web about sketching fashion designs stresses getting the proportions correct, which strikes me as delusional based upon what I’ve seen.
Model : The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women, by Michael Gross is the one that talks about the history of the modern modeling industry and how it has changed over the past hundred years. You should find all the answers to your questions in its pages. Good book, too.
I absolutely believe it’s a skill or at least a talent. I’ve worked with professional models a couple of times and, let me tell you, they make life easy on you as a photographer. Some women and men are just very good in front of the camera, can strike very natural poses, have lines and curves that just look “right” on film. I’ve also photographed very pretty women who were just hell to get to look good on camera. You need a certain personality to make a good model, in my opinion. Most girls do not have it.
Other than clothing reasons, tall skinny women are good for photographing because of the lines their limbs form. It’s much easier to get striking, graphic compositions with people with long limbs. Also, the adage that the camera adds twenty pounds to you is sort of true. There are a lot of people who are gorgeous in three dimensions, but when you squash them down to two, they look bigger and fatter. From a strictly graphic design point of view, I don’t like the way the shapes look.
Granted, I think professional models, on the whole, look unattractive in real life — they are certainly not the type of girls I’m attracted to. But photographically, they work extremely well.
Hmmm… but runway models seem to make the 3-D clotheshorse/2-D photographic model jump all the time, at least the high-earnings ones we can all name do. If these women don’t look good in 3-D, why hire them to model clothing in person at the most important fashion events? And vice versa. As far as you can answer an aesthetic question logically, I like the other answers produced thus far.
I am an amateur photog–not a particularly good one. But two things I have learned are:
It’s hard to photograph people and make them look really, really good.
It’s hard for most people to be photographed and look really, really good.
These models are not just good-looking people–in fact, as the OP noted, sometimes they do not have classic beauty. But they are striking, have good proportions, and know how to pose. And being a good model is like being good at any other job–not only do you have to have good skills but you have to show up on time, take direction, etc.
Very, very few models model runway. That’s because in person they don’t look anywhere near as good as they do in photographs; plus, runway models need to fit exactly into the samples, which are all a standard size 8 (that’s 8 in a pattern size, which is the exact same measurements no matter what brand of pattern you buy; not 8 in clothing, which varies according to the designer and manufacturer). Runway models also need to be able to walk correctly, which is somewhat hard to do.
In short, the models you see on the runway either 1) look at least as good in 3-D as in print ads; or 2) they are famous “top models” and even if they aren’t the BEST at runway, they generate a lot of publicity and revenues for the designer, so they do runway work even though they aren’t that great at it. The best runway models are probably ones most people have never heard of.
I would think that what they look like on the runway is far less important than what they look like on film. How many people actually see fashion models live, anyway? Most of us see them in photographs or on television.
