Thanks Ngolf.
Also apologies to any who may have taken my passionate words as anything other than a strong opinion about a subject. I started thinking the other day that while this site has 99% of the discussions in English, if not more, the actual make up of the participants have a differing native tongue, this combined with the fact that words are only 10% of communication, and body language and tonality which make up the rest are absent, it is always easy to misread posts.
This topic can also be a very personal issue to some, and as such often can be more closely linked to identity. Criticism and discussion thereby sometimes unintentionally strikes far closer to home than intended. Abstract concepts to one can be more personable to another.
Ngolf also raises a great points. I will not dive deeply into this matter, but know of one person for example who is championed as black, when in fact two other races comprise 50% and 44% of their makeup. Where is the line drawn, as well as where should others really fall. Popularity and desired outcome can often warp the true reality.
The issue is confounding, any law or quota your bring forth generally only complicates things with the exception of the simplest one... race shall not be considered and enforcing anti-discriminatory practices.
The issue is also not easy because race and identity is often linked. This is the biggest irony of all. Whether the image has positive or negative connotations, it is often embraced and thrust to the forefront. This duality creates an unresolvable conflict.
The larger point here as well though, what is a model? Is it just a face? Some have said that it comes down to blonde hair and blue eyes, but I think of Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Ines, Yasmeen Ghauri... As much as there are Claudia Schiffers, out there... what about the Gia Carangis of the world as well.
We see shows like ________ Next Top Model, Make me a Supermodel, and most recently I watched The Model Agent. Some of the contestants were there because they had a different look. Some were there because they had classic beauty. But in all of these contests there is a strong set of factors that are undeniable:
1) Does the camera like them?
2) Can they walk?
3) Can they bring out the beauty of their clothes?
4) Can they find the range of emotion that is needed?
5) Do they have presence to capture attention?
While models do have a face, and generally a beauty to them it is also clear that some of what I consider to being strikingly beautiful took awful pictures that were empty and unimaginative. Others just bounced on the runway, looked pained or out of place, and some were just evident that it was not more experience was needed, they just did not have it.
I do understand some of the underlying meaning of what many see as a positive and away to supposedly speed a perceived equality, but in an area where indeed talent and intangibles do count, the forcing of arbitrary quotas I believe also has a perceivable detrimental effect, which is negative reinforcement. Those that get there, that only do so to reach a certain number are then forced to shine on a stage with those who are perhaps, and more likely, there because of these factors. So a danger that I would raise to some of those who support such measures, that those who are thrust in to the light, juxtaposed against the professional and talented, might further suffer reinforcement by the spotlight that they do not deserve to be on the stage.
The makeup of a true model does entail far more than eyes, face, hair and height. Other wise the job of finding models would simply be hanging out in malls and coffee shops and should be simple... Yet from what I have seen, it really involves weeding through thousands, and sometimes stripping away layers and what at first may seem like a diamond turns out to be quartz, and what once was just a whim all of the sudden is the shining star.