Are models useless?

[Emmanuelle]

I really loves models, I like discovering new girls with a very special look and attitude, elegant or edgier. I don't want this to end. I am not a fan of this social medias reign, where girls are hired because of their numbers of followers. I find it absurd. Fame has nothing to do with talent. No offense, but many of them prove it everyday ink:

 

[fashionista-ta]

I think now that brands are trying to desperately target the youth market by getting instagram famous models and celebrity kids and models who are friends with taylor swift or whatever. For a brand like VS, models are important. But for some brands like chanel and dior, the brand is more powerful than the model. I do think the quality of models has gone down, it's all a bunch clones who can't pose or walk and have bland forget able faces and bodies. VS has lost its model prestige, And the big models are fading away

Karlie Kloss has serious cred, and that was true before she was friends with Taylor Swift. She is a great model who has only gotten better with time.


I think a really good model can be useful in building a brand, and successfully building a brand ultimately leads to selling more merchandise. Print exclusives used to be more common, is my perception, and I typically no longer associate a brand with one model. Even though I don't think she's in any current ads, Daria Werbowy/Celine comes to mind.

 

[Aizanara]

I found this interesting and thought that it would fit perfectly in this thread.

In 2014, Dior witnessed a 34% profit growth and Calvin Klein received 2.4 million followers in a short time span of 2 weeks across their social networks. Either the fashion gods were on their side this past year or they found the magic keys to success. We decided to go with the latter statement. And what are these keys you might ask? The answer is celebrities. That’s right! Whether it’s Rihanna to Dior or Justin Bieber to Calvin Klein, fashion houses have discovered the key to boosting sales. While this isn’t a new phenomenon, in fact Anna Wintour, the Editor-in-chief of US Vogue, realized how effective celebrities were in fashion in the early 80s while working as the fashion editor of New York, long before she became the household fashion name she is now. However, in more recent times the use of celebrities in fashion has gone a little “overboard.” Take for instance, Sam Smith, the Grammy-winning R&B/Soul singer, recently being named the face of Balenciaga’s Fall-Winter 2015 Campaign. Now don’t get us wrong, whenever we need to serenade someone with a few love songs Smith’s In the Lonely Hour is full of incredible songs we would pull for our set list. However, whenever we think of fashion, Sam Smith really isn’t one of the first names jumping out in our minds. Outside of knowing that Sam Smith’s brand attracts a worldwide audience what fashion influences has he made that qualify him as a likely candidate to be the face of such an edgy fashion house?

Fashion brands do have the right to hire whomever they want to represent their aesthetic; however, isn’t that the role of a fashion model? We do understand that each fashion house wants to stay relevant but to use the fame of a celebrity, to us, dilutes the authenticity of the brand. In January 2015, Balmain’s creative director, Olivier Rousteing, sat down with Telegraph UK and stated “Celebrity is more important today than it used to be.” Referring to the role celebrities play on Instagram in promoting fashion. But we want to play devil’s advocate and ask shouldn’t the clothes be selling themselves? Fashion brands are known for having notable reputations to bring loyal customers back, so what’s with the extremely constant use of celebrities being used as a tool of influence. Don’t get us wrong, we aren’t knocking these “collaborations” but the fashion industry isn’t standing on its own two legs. Originally, high fashion was supposed to be exclusive not very accessible, just ask Michael Kors!
We want to know what happened to the days of creating the “It Girl” of fashion. Having a celebrity as the face of one’s fashion brand isn’t relatable. Everyone wants to be Beyoncé but it is a lot easier to find a “simpler” girl that makes all fashion lovers envious. Brands need to utilize the foundation they were built on to gain more followers, not take shortcuts. The majority of fashion houses were built long ago when there was no such thing as social media or celebrity coverage. This foundation created the legacy that these brands stand on today, so maybe they should try going back to the basics when the importance was truly on the garments. Because in today’s times we are truly trying to figure out if celebrities are being fashion muses or abused fashion cash cows.

Featuring:
Rihanna for Dior
Sam Smith for Balenciaga
Ciara for Roberto Cavalli
Kim Kardashian West and Kanye West for Balmain
Justin Bieber for Calvin Klein
Blake Lively for Chanel

Written by VIV Fashion Editor opulentmode and featuring aestheticallyrelevant

source: vogue-is-viral tumblr

 

[Aizanara]

The public is interested in models period. Kendall is one of those models. Fact.

As much as I agree with you, I want to emphasize the fact that the public is interested in Kendall because she's part of the Kardashian clan aka the most photographed family in the world.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I wonder what percentage of those pictures they themselves have taken?


Personally I am eager to see the pendulum swing back. South, let's say ...

 

[tigerrouge]

I think that, in the past, editors and so on had a much better grasp of what sets the world on fire, when it comes to models and image-making, but nobody now seems to know how build the same sort of slow-burn momentum, using the tools of today. And nobody wants to put in the hard work any more, of producing images of substance or brilliance.

Instead they choose to rely on the popular people of social media, because they offer a superficial answer, bringing with them their audience numbers - but the attention only lasts for a day, before you're back to the same emptiness that existed before.

Take 99 digital shots, choose one, photoshop the life out of it. That's the extent of the work. And the first step is usually to pick some visual reference that's been done before, so you can do it again, but in a meaningless way. That's the extent of the thought, the creative impulse.

 

[squilliam]

Karlie Kloss has serious cred, and that was true before she was friends with Taylor Swift. She is a great model who has only gotten better with time.
.

I'm not referring to Karlie, I'm referring to the likes of Gigi and Martha Hunt and other lookalike models. Models who have celebrity friends like Miley or Taylor have get more attention. I know karlie has been a big model long before she even knew taylor swift, I've been following her career since she started

 

[maimon]

I think that, in the past, editors and so on had a much better grasp of what sets the world on fire, when it comes to models and image-making, but nobody now seems to know how build the same sort of slow-burn momentum, using the tools of today. And nobody wants to put in the hard work any more, of producing images of substance or brilliance.

Instead they choose to rely on the popular people of social media, because they offer a superficial answer, bringing with them their audience numbers - but the attention only lasts for a day, before you're back to the same emptiness that existed before.

Take 99 digital shots, choose one, photoshop the life out of it. That's the extent of the work. And the first step is usually to pick some visual reference that's been done before, so you can do it again, but in a meaningless way. That's the extent of the thought, the creative impulse.

so sad but true…


also a new article on vogue:

Here’s a Goal for 2016: Let’s Fix the Modeling Industry
Modeling careers are known for their brevity: Looks fade, bodies change, and fashion is fickle. Most models who enter the industry and experience some degree of success can expect their career highs to last anywhere from a few seasons to—at best—a few years. The girls and guys who stretch their success into decade-spanning careers and serious paydays are few and far between: For every Naomi Campbell or Linda Evangelista, there are hundreds more who leave modeling for careers that don’t hinge on their ability to look good in a sample size or to be prepared to fly off to far-flung locations at the drop of a dime. The revolving-door cycle where newcomers test the waters, burn out, and are subsequently replaced by even newer faces has become the norm—and social media as a never-ending casting source has made models themselves seem even more replaceable—but what does this lack of longevity mean for the fashion industry as a whole? Models used to be more than just mannequins, remember: They would develop relationships with the designers and serve as a sounding board and de facto muse. Now, it seems, an average designer barely has time to introduce him or herself, let alone get personally invested in a fresh new face.

The unique pressures of modeling are often downplayed—most people can imagine that having to adhere to a strict set of physical requirements is stressful. But so, too, are long hours spent in fittings or on set at photo shoots or in less-than-ideal conditions (swim shoots in winter, anyone?). Add in the rigors of fashion month—where it isn’t unusual for models to work 16 to 20 hours per day—and the fact that pay for most editorial work is middling to nonexistent, and you have an environment in which it is extremely difficult to prosper. As such, many models opt out, choosing instead to step away from the spotlight to focus their energies on their personal lives, outside interests, or careers within other segments of the fashion business. While the constant stream of former models makes for interesting where-are-they-now stories, something feels awry about the high level of turnover. Even supermodels—Cara Delevingne and Gemma Ward among them—have stepped away from modeling for a time, speaking critically about the industry’s expectations and their own feelings of fatigue.

As it stands, the current cycle is in need of revision. Any industry where high percentages of employees are treated as disposable could use a moment to re-evaluate itself. With the federal child entertainer labor bill introduced earlier this year, the time is right for other changes. From getting new models educated about their rights and their finances to developing careers with the goal of longevity rather than hype, the bill is among one of the countless ways that the modeling industry could make things just a little easier on the models themselves. Fashion as a whole is suffering from a bout of instability, with high-profile departures from major fashion houses and the concept of job security seeming less and less viable. Here’s a goal for 2016: If we give models the tools and education to further themselves in the fashion industry—and as people—everybody wins.

http://www.vogue.com/13381695/model-burnout-hurting-fashion/

 

[DelicateFlower]

I'm starting to see modelling as an industry that exploits and uses young females. Young women and girls are encouraged to spend time and money trying to build up a modelling career, and for the most part won't see the big bucks.

The competition is fierce, the pay is crap until you hit a certain level, and in the meantime they need to pay rent in top cities in order to have a chance at the lucrative jobs, they need to spend money on cosmetics, hair, clothes etc to keep on projecting a certain image. Then once they hit their mid twenties, if they have't 'made it' by then, they get spit out by the industry for being too old.

The late teens and early twenties are a crucial time for young people to start studying and building actual careers - this is time that, for those young women who try and 'make it' in modelling, is being wasted.

 

[NathalieM]

I disagree. I think models, and the fact that people have more access to their lives via social media, is crucial to the fashion market.

People are interested in the lives of these people, and therefore interested in the fashion they represent.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Are they buying, though, or just liking? I'm sure these things are being studied ... would love to be a fly on the wall seeing the results. I suspect the average Kendall Jenner fan buys nothing Karl's half-gloved fingers have touched.

 

[gius]

This is the first year I found myself really enjoying the cast of a show ink:

 

[eugenius]

Hey, remember when Gaultier tried a runway show w/ mannequins and not models? He later went on to say that even though the collection was good, the retailers at the runway show couldn't SEE how the clothes work on actual bodies, and it showed in that season's orders. So you tell me: are models useless?

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Interesting point. You would think that that would be an argument for using models with more diverse body types as well ...

 

[eizhowa]

^Thats what I thought as well! Although I doubt every size and shape needs to represented. You'd need like 1500 models per show.

Edit: and when every shape and size is allowed to be a model, the face of the model becomes even more important, which would just create another kind of crazy standard.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Designer clothes are typically only available through about size 46 or 48 at most--plus sizing buying is a whole other thing--but there's still a lot of diversity among women in a normal size run. There's so little diversity with most models that yes, you can see the clothes moving on a human body, but only a tall, thin body with (generally--there are a couple exceptions) few if any curves. Not sure whether this is something buyers think about or no ... I imagine some must.

 

[Carmack]

I think the lack of sales is more so a casualty of the current state of the world. It is a struggle in a ton of industries right now.

In my opinion models are important. Not only do they show how the clothing falls on actual human beings but they also help catch the eye of the average consumer.


***Edited*** Please do not post links or videos from your own sites.