After seeing how her eyes glowed in that video, I think you’re right. Hell, all she’s missing is the whiskers.
Actually most of us never see them at all. The general public isn’t the target audience at those events, and I doubt 1% of the label consumers see video of the events. They are staged for wholesale clothing buyers and fashion press and I suppose other designers.
Maybe freakishly tall, thin boy bodies photograph well, but that still doesn’t explain why the same body type is used for live audiences where the live attendees are the target, nor why the entire industry learns to design clothing that won’t fit nor flatter the vast majority of women. Seems we have to go to cultural reasons for this and not technological ones.
…but this just brings us back to the question in the OP. I don’t know offhand what a pattern size 8 is, but I’m fairly certain from context the average woman isn’t it. How did that become the standard? Someone had the notion that’s the best way to display clothes, on body types a lot of women find impossible and a lot of men find odd. Surely there are pattern size 6 or 10 women who can walk properly that look like the girl next door and a whole lot more people would be happy with. Why don’t we have that? I think that’s what the OP is asking…
Remember that the most important audience to the people who hire models is not me, standing at Saks browsing and deciding which clothes to buy. It’s the person who decides which lines of clothing will be offered to me at Saks this year.
(Actually, I mostly shop at Sears. But the argument remains the same.)
I interpreted the OP’s question as much broader than that. Basically, what separates a model from the run-of-the-mill looker off the street? And from my perspective, professionally there is a lot that separates a model and another pretty face. I don’t deal with the runway aspect of modelling, but photowise, I’ve answered the question as best I could and from my experience. Professional models (in a range of sizes) simply are much easier to work with than your local beauty queens. Modelling is much more demanding than most people think.
Okay, but why? This isn’t art, it’s clothing. Why design something that isn’t going to look good on most people, so you thus limit your market?
I have the suspicion that the OP does not regularly see fashion models face to face. Which means that what he’s seeing is photographs of them. And it’s the photographs of models which he doesn’t find particularly attractive. In other words, saying that they’re unattractive in person but photograph well doesn’t answer the question at all, because these are apparently women who don’t photograph well.
How many people do you see walking down the street wearing the sorts of clothes that they wear in those shows? It’s pretty obvious that your average woman isn’t the intended audience.
If that’s the case, then it’s a matter of personal taste. I can’t really say I’ve seen any models who don’t photograph well. That’d be kind of missing the point, wouldn’t it? And, to be fair, I didn’t mean that models are unattractive in person — they usually are — just not the body type I’m personally attracted to.
Whenever I see a photo spread of an amateur model, I can usually tell it’s not a professional. For example, Rachel Ray (of the Food Network) recently had a photo spread in FHM and while I totally dig her, she looks ever-so-slightly awkward and stiff in her photos. She’s clearly not used to it and not particularly skilled in modelling. This is where being a good model comes in.
Do you get models from a service, and can you tell quickly who has it and who doesn’t - not just on looks, but on the other factors you touch on? The reason I ask is that after my daughter started acting, I could tell the difference between a kid who had the qualities they were looking for and ones who didn’t. Not well enough to be an agent, but the differences, once someone else did the sorting, were very striking.
The few times I have done it, it has been through an agency. The first time I did it, I was absolutely surprised at how much easier it makes life for you as a photographer. I wouldn’t necessarily say I quickly could tell who has it and who does it because this is not my normal area of photography, but I expect any model from any reputable agency to have it. But as a photographer, I could tell within about fifteen minutes how easy somebody will be to photograph.
I’ve also worked with wannabe models, and I can’t tell you just how frustrating it can be sometimes to capture a good posed picture of a great looking girl. Some people just don’t stiffen in front of a camera and can project charisma and personality. A good photographer should be able to coax these characteristics out, but in a professional setting where time is money, there isn’t the luxury.
Another aspect of using named models. fame sells. Thats why actressess are frequently signed on to be the “spokesperson” for a particular clothing or cosmetics line. The thinking is customers will go “Miranda Otto uses Rohanco cosmetics, if I use them, I’ll look like her” or at least “… so it must least be a decent brand”
Brian
You might notice the difference between runway/couture models and catalog models - people actually buy clothes looking at catalog models, and they generally look totally different from the models discussed here. They’re still thin and attractive, often “quirkily”, and chosen to appeal to the target demographic - a J Crew model dosen’t look like a Victoria’s Secret model dosen’t look like a Lane Bryant model - but much more in the “__ want them, __ want to be them” vein. There’s a girl on the cover of the new J Crew catalog that if I swung that way… and since I don’t I want to buy what she’s wearing. 
Well, I think that’s an incorrect assumption.
Haute couture is certainly art, and not clothing. While there may be a handful of women in the world who buy and wear haute couture, the point of the show is not to be buying tips for your average consumer.
This also applies to the average designer show. Unless the show is pret-a-porter the clothing is not designed to be worn by ever Tom, Dick or Harry (or Susie, Claire and Jane, as the case may be).
The perpose of your average runway show is to demonstrate a particular designer’s Phat-Designing-Skillz - that’s why the clothing is unwearable for the majority of shoppers, the hair is insane, and the makeup makes the models look like crack whores - everything is exagerated and over the top - hence the exagerated, over the top appearance of runway models.
As has been mentioned, catalogue models look infintely more like real people, albiet on the small side.
I think that’s a big part of it, and it probably works on some level for male shoppers vis-a-vis male models.
On a purely practical note, I think models serve a valid purpose in print ads or Internet sites of stores or clothing companies. In that context, I’d much rather see a picture of the clothes being worn by somebody. It’s a lot more helpful than just seeing an empty pair of jeans, laid out as if on a table.
Levi Strauss took an interesting tack with the latest upgrade of their website. There are no models, but the jeans look filled out, as if they’re being worn by invisible people. I suppose the advantage of this is that they don’t have to pay real models.