Model Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[Steddycam91]

This inane, tongue-in-cheek comment has gotten so much traction, it's ridiculous. That's the Daily Mail for you, though.

It is pretty annoying that they rope Karlie and Joan into that category.

Not really sure why Rebecca Romijn is weighing in. She comes across as incredibly bitter.

Gotta love Zac Posen trying to getting a little press. Its not like his clothes are doing that.

 

[dsamg]

Snejana's latest interview from her thread

Well, she says she does not want to do photoshoots unless it's for a cover, because she's such a supermodel. Said she wants to have her name on the cover - and that that issue of Glamour Italia will have her and her name on the cover. Said she doesn't do editorials out of the studio because she gets cold very easy, but made an exception for SNC (what kinda diva antics).

Also said Vogue ukraine promised she will be on the first ever issue but then got Daria. Then Snejana agreed to shoot for the inside editorial her demands were to have her shots first, which Vogue UA did not do in the end, starting their beef. And then they offered her a nude ed and liek she said "an editorial with homeless people".

Said she has beef with Ukrainian L'Officiel as well, cuz they didn't want to get the photographer and make-up artist she wanted for the shoot and didn't do the cover the way she wanted.

Then mentioned how she has only one shot in the Nederland editorial for VI because she was feeling sick and Pat asked Meisel to give her a break. Then said that Meisel and Carine were the only two people to put her name on the cover.

 

[Littleathquakes]

agree, karlie and Joan shouldn't be included in that list. they actually had to work their way up, too.


Regarding the supermodel - it's true, it's a dead term. These girls aren't supermodels. they're famous people who model. There's a difference. That's not to insult them, though, which I feel is most people's knee jerk reaction when you want to clarify that someone isn't a supermodel.


And even models who are seemingly everywhere aren't supermodels these days. most people don't know who Karlie is. Naomi said that Gisele was the last supermodel and I agree with that statement.

 

[Runabout]

Regarding the supermodel - it's true, it's a dead term. These girls aren't supermodels. they're famous people who model. There's a difference. That's not to insult them, though, which I feel is most people's knee jerk reaction when you want to clarify that someone isn't a supermodel.


And even models who are seemingly everywhere aren't supermodels these days. most people don't know who Karlie is. Naomi said that Gisele was the last supermodel and I agree with that statement.

I see this one as a very accurate statement. I don't think one can exceed, or at least on par with, Gisele in order to become supermodel, now that there's too many nepotism fueled the industry.

 

[anlabe32]

LOL at Snejana. My god she's pathetic. She's a nobody in fashion, she's not in the position to demand anything.

About the statement from Stephanie. It comes off as a bit immature but i'm quite sure she didn't mean it in a bad way.
And she's right. Models like her, Naomi, Linda, Christy, Claudia, Amber etc started at the bottom. Kendall and Gigi were never at the bottom to begin with. They were privileged from the start. Part of the term supermodel should be how hard you've worked to be where you are right now and because of that, Gigi and Kendall shouldn't be allowed to be called supermodel. It also has something to do with talent and both clearly lack that.
Joan, Jourdan, Irina, Doutzen and Karlie were once hard working models (i guess) but nowadays they turned into robots and are exactly like Gigi and Kendall. They're social climbers and I've lost all respect for them.

The term supermodel died when there came more competition among models and brands decided to use different models each season. They didn't allow the models to be in the spotlight anymore. Therefore, supermodels don't exist anymore past 2000.

Socialites would be a better term for them.

 

[Zposen]

LOL at Snejana. My god she's pathetic. She's a nobody in fashion, she's not in the position to demand anything.

About the statement from Stephanie. It comes off as a bit immature but i'm quite sure she didn't mean it in a bad way.
And she's right. Models like her, Naomi, Linda, Christy, Claudia, Amber etc started at the bottom. Kendall and Gigi They were privileged from the start.were never at the bottom to begin with. Part of the term supermodel should be how hard you've worked to be where you are right now and because of that, Gigi and Kendall shouldn't be allowed to be called supermodel. It also has something to do with talent and both clearly lack that.
Joan, Jourdan, Irina, Doutzen and Karlie were once hard working models (i guess) but nowadays they turned into robots and are exactly like Gigi and Kendall. They're social climbers and I've lost all respect for them.

The term supermodel died when there came more competition among models and brands decided to use different models each season. They didn't allow the models to be in the spotlight anymore. Therefore, supermodels don't exist anymore past 2000.

Socialites would be a better term for them.

That is a false statement at least on Kendall's part. People in fashion first recognized her when she walked for Marc but Kendall had been modeling for 3 years prior in the LA fashion scene. I am not saying she did not benefit from her fame as a reality tv star but in terms of modeling, she put in some work until Russell James gave her a break.

 

[MyNameIs]

I'm actually kind of over this whole attitude of "you can't be called a supermodel because you didn't appear in Freedom." I'm no fan of the Kendalls and Gigis of the world, but they're atop the modeling world at the moment. That kind of makes them supermodels. You can then compare the supermodels of today to the supermodels of the 90s or the 20s or any other time period and you may decide that one decade comes out ahead of another, but that doesn't change anything. The rules of the game changed and these girls have been able to take advantage of that. They're known world-wide. They can pick only the A list modeling jobs. They get paid a ton of money. How is that different from what Stephanie had going on?

That's like saying Jennifer Lawrence can't be called a movie star because she got an Oscar nomination in Best Supporting Actress category. Back in day no A-lister would be caught dead getting nominated in that "lesser" category. Or that Matt Damon can't be a movie star because he appeared in a TV movie a couple years ago.

It's just absurd. And people who keep harping on it just seem desperate and bitter at this point.

 

[bun-bun]

^Agree completely, but then again, I'm sure none of these old-schoolers like Stephanie just decide one day out of the blue to criticize the current crop. They are prompted by journalists who want to see catfights unfold and gossip generated. Who even knows how the questions were phrased to them? It's a terrible set-up, like a journalist who only has to ask "are you a feminist" to an actress and then watches as his/her story goes viral with a controversial answer that pleases no one.

 

[Mea Culpa]

"you can't be called a supermodel because you didn't appear in Freedom."

I'm seriously dying over this!!!

^it's also now totally stuck in my head...

 

[orchidee]

Well I'm glad one of the originals is finally telling it like it is. Even Naomi has somewhat acquiesced when it comes to the new "supermodels" and won't be outwardly critical of them. But why did they bring Joan and Karlie into this? I didn't see Stephanie make any reference to them. Plus, they're not from the same generation as Gigi and Kendall--they actually worked to get to where they are...

 

[squilliam]

I would say karlie is somewhat of a supermodel because of her body of work and how long she's been working, also because I feel she has the look and talent, and is kinda sorta known. But the instagirls seem like they just popped up overnight, I know some have been working longer than it seems but being famous for 3 years and well known because of a famous family does not make one a supermodel imo.

As for snejana, I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for her or to laugh. She could get a great reality show, like real housewives of the former USSR. She should've just became a street style front row star. I wonder what her husband thinks, I kinda feel bad for him.

 

[happytrail]

They get paid a lot of money. They land magazine covers (although maybe not as much as their elders). They land big time contracts. They date musicians, actors, and other famous/rich people. They are beautiful, irrelevant, well-known, and sometimes...dumb.

A lot of this mirrors those glory days of modeling, so I hate to say it, but they are supermodels. It's as simple as that.

(*The only difference could be the way a lot of them were discovered, which nowadays the old sitting in a cafe or mcdonalds or some random place by a scout has quickly become obsolete)

 

[sixtdaily]

But why did they bring Joan and Karlie into this? I didn't see Stephanie make any reference to them. Plus, they're not from the same generation as Gigi and Kendall--they actually worked to get to where they are...

I think the Dailymail "journalist" who wrote this is just unaware of their careers before they became friends with TSwift and Beyoncé.

 

[Littleathquakes]

They get paid a lot of money. They land magazine covers (although maybe not as much as their elders). They land big time contracts. They date musicians, actors, and other famous/rich people. They are beautiful, irrelevant, well-known, and sometimes...dumb.

A lot of this mirrors those glory days of modeling, so I hate to say it, but they are supermodels. It's as simple as that.

(*The only difference could be the way a lot of them were discovered, which nowadays the old sitting in a cafe or mcdonalds or some random place by a scout has quickly become obsolete)

No...the key difference being that the supermodels did all of that at the height of their popularity. Like I said before, girls like Gigi and Kendall, while good models, are first and foremost famous celebrities, who then went on to model. They were famous before they started working as models. That's not to say they had the modeling gigs handed to them, I am aware Kendall and Gigi worked as models prior to their major runway debuts under bigger labels. But that doesn't cancel the fact that they were born into privilege and luxury while the rest of the other models weren't.


And what people like Steph Seymour and other older models, while seemingly bitter, are differentiating is that the fame came from hard work for them while for the newer crop the fame was already there. You simply can't say that Kendall and Gigi had to work just as hard to get where they are like other models. It's simply not true. Yes, maybe they needed to start at the bottom when they first started. But at the end of the day, if their modeling careers didn't take off, were they going back to a life of poverty like many of the young girls who are in the industry? No.

 

[YohjiAddict]

But at the end of the day, if their modeling careers didn't take off, were they going back to a life of poverty like many of the young girls who are in the industry? No.

I've never understood this ridiculous argument that is a favorite of this forum, modelling agencies are not charities nor is the modelling industry a meritocracy. Favouritism has always been a part of modelling, a model's success is not determined by how much she works but by the model's look arousing some kind of interest from fashion editors, photographers or casting directors. If Brokaw or Meisel see something in you, it doesn't matter if you've got any experience, you can now waltz your way across top-jobs. Most models can work all they want but they will never access modelling Olympus.

All in all that argument just sounds like a very lousy version of the old "poor kids in Africa" to manipulate people based on guilt. The reality is that the majority of those girls were going back to their "lifes of poverty" regardless of Instagirls, simply because they've chosen a career where luck plays the key role. Kendall, Gigi an co. are not stealing away any jobs.

 

[Deleted member 130879]

Your argument would be perfect if it was not for one simple thing: Kendall, Gigi and co. are not getting jobs for their looks. And if you think they are, you are just delusional. They are getting their jobs solely because it's the perfect marketing move. They sell, pure and simple. Girls everywhere buy magazines and clothing just because of them. They are closer to Beyoncé or Kim K. than to a top model. They are spokespersons. It is a common move in smaller markets to have celebrities walking the shows to get the media attention and Kendall and Gigi are the high-fashion equivalent of this.
That Moschino show was the perfect example of a marketing casting.

 

[dsamg]

Your argument would be perfect if it was not for one simple thing: Kendall, Gigi and co. are not getting jobs for their looks. And if you think they are, you are just delusional.

Anyone who says they didn't have it handed to them is delusional. It is a topic we can't discuss but we all know that if any other model looked like them she would be gone in a second. We've all seen it happen to models having incredible success and then getting too comfortable and not being able to get work anymore. They have no idea what it is to be a working model

 

[YohjiAddict]

Your argument would be perfect if it was not for one simple thing: Kendall, Gigi and co. are not getting jobs for their looks. And if you think they are, you are just delusional. They are getting their jobs solely because it's the perfect marketing move. They sell, pure and simple. Girls everywhere buy magazines and clothing just because of them. They are closer to Beyoncé or Kim K. than to a top model. They are spokespersons. It is a common move in smaller markets to have celebrities walking the shows to get the media attention and Kendall and Gigi are the high-fashion equivalent of this.
That Moschino show was the perfect example of a marketing casting.

The point was: even "real" models who have "won" their covers and campaigns are succesful not because of the sweat and blood they put into their every work but as a result of the preference that certain key figures hold towards them. You're the one putting words in my mouth. I'm not blind nor "delusional" , I already know that the Instagirls operate on a very different way to your Lineisies and Odettes.

I was simply trying to refute a very filmsy argument that people throw around this thread like it's a truth. It is not. Even if the social media model weren't landing jobs left and right (based soley on their respective followings) the majority of models would still have little to no chance of ever landing a Versace campaign or whatever.

 

[sixtdaily]

Kendall's thoughts on the “supermodel” debate

What she wrote on her app.



(twitter knjdaily)

 

[Benn98]

Well, what a mike-dropping statement from Kendall! I still think her modelling can be improved, but I cannot help applauding her for this. They never called themselves supermodels. Why not take it out with the industry who seems intent on furthering their careers? People seem to forget decades ago the industry was flooded with the so called 'aristocratic' girls - Veruschka, Inés DLF, Marisa Berenson etc. Using connections and family isn't exactly something new. Stephanie probably hit the bottle again, which was why she spewed such venom. And Rebecca can sweep in front of her own door. She was never a supermodel! She's SI/VS/men's magazine fodder who struck gold by marrying John Stamos. I don't even think she's got a Vogue cover?????