Real Models Vs Real People

[Julie Michele]

I'll have to cast my vote for professional models. Followed by celebs, followed by the non-model normal Jane. Some might say this topic brings out my shallow, superficial side ...

Reasons being: first of all, I have a thing for faces and bodily aesthetics especially when it comes to fashion. I love to see beautiful models in the best fashion photography, it is art to me. Fashion IS art and so is the product of the camera. For years I have collected my favorite fashion photography. The luscious fashions modeled by luscious models are much more appealing than on anyone else, therefore I love to imagine myself in the clothes and the setting. Plus, I love to shop and I love being sold on fashion by a great ad or editorial.

Celebrities are okay as long as they can carry it. Not many can, in my opinion. But it's interesting to see how clothes, makeup, styling and photography can transform the celeb. I love seeing Madonna in fashion editorials because she is an icon in herself.

I don't like seeing non-models, because although the mag is trying to make some female readers comfortable this way because it is supposed to be more realistic to them, it isn't to me. I don't resemble, ever, any of these women so then I can't picture myself in the clothes they've been dressed in. Not that I resemble a Karolina Kornakova, but I think I fall somewhere in between.

 

[Meg]

often models don't step out of the house looking like they do on the Versace runway. I think applying the same hair and makeup can make a non-model look just as good. I see so many women around me with an interesting look that I would love to see in an editorial or something.

 

[tealady]

I'd vote for a mix of types, whether they are professionals or not. What I don't like to see is celebrities who are featured just because they are celebrities....

 

[model_mom]

Originally posted by mehg@Mar 18th, 2004 - 6:09 pm
often models don't step out of the house looking like they do on the Versace runway. I think applying the same hair and makeup can make a non-model look just as good. I see so many women around me with an interesting look that I would love to see in an editorial or something.

The difference between most models and people with an interesting look happens when they get in front of a camera makeup or not. When you see the finished picture you either have it or you don't. High fashion requires that look to sell their products.

 

[As You Like It]

I totally love to see the clothing on regular people.

I find traditional models very boring after a while. Most of them are honey-blond, 6' tall, and very, very thin. When's the last time you saw a petite Mexican girl in a mainstream magazine? Or a medium-height, busty, dark-skinned black woman?

I think there is more variety and a much more interesting overview of beauty taken over a broader representation of women. All of us have to wear clothes, we might as well see how different styles are going to look on different figures, complexions, and heights. An outfit that looks great on a woman who's 5'10 and 110lb is not necessarily going to translate well to a woman who is 5'5" and 130lb or 4'11 and 90lb.

 

[model_mom]

Originally posted by As You Like It@Mar 18th, 2004 - 11:00 pm
I totally love to see the clothing on regular people.

I find traditional models very boring after a while. Most of them are honey-blond, 6' tall, and very, very thin. When's the last time you saw a petite Mexican girl in a mainstream magazine? Or a medium-height, busty, dark-skinned black woman?

I think there is more variety and a much more interesting overview of beauty taken over a broader representation of women. All of us have to wear clothes, we might as well see how different styles are going to look on different figures, complexions, and heights. An outfit that looks great on a woman who's 5'10 and 110lb is not necessarily going to translate well to a woman who is 5'5" and 130lb or 4'11 and 90lb.

There are quite a few books out that represent the mainstream public. They're called catalogs.

 

[tealady]

Originally posted by model_mom+Mar 18th, 2004 - 11:10 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(model_mom @ Mar 18th, 2004 - 11:10 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-As You Like It@Mar 18th, 2004 - 11:00 pm
I totally love to see the clothing on regular people.

I find traditional models very boring after a while. Most of them are honey-blond, 6' tall, and very, very thin. When's the last time you saw a petite Mexican girl in a mainstream magazine? Or a medium-height, busty, dark-skinned black woman?

I think there is more variety and a much more interesting overview of beauty taken over a broader representation of women. All of us have to wear clothes, we might as well see how different styles are going to look on different figures, complexions, and heights. An outfit that looks great on a woman who's 5'10 and 110lb is not necessarily going to translate well to a woman who is 5'5" and 130lb or 4'11 and 90lb.

There are quite a few books out that represent the mainstream public. They're called catalogs. [/b][/quote]
Ouch!

 

[As You Like It]

No, it is not the same. Catalogues exist for one reason only--to sell a product for one company, be it Sears, J.Jill, ect. They contain no editorial copy, poses with little creative license, and examples of clothing and accessories only from one clothier.

Moreover, catalogues don't represent that diverse of a selection of models anyway.

What I'm talking about is that fashion magazines need to get more variety going. More racial and ethnic representation, more, different body types, and a broader cross section of overall looks.

Model Mom, I'm not trying to belittle what your daugter does for a living. More power to her. I'm just saying that I, personally, find fashion more interesting when it is portrayed by more than one type of woman. I'd be overjoyed to see more athletic women, more tiny, short, petite women, more heavyset women, and more medium sized women represented, at least part of the time.

 

[Amélie]

well, if ur selling something then looking thinner than a slice of paper is a good idea...and if ur ugly don't bet on getting into any of these magazine...

i mean seriously, don't we all get sick of models...i mean some editorials can be gorgeous...but the photogrpahy is often absued. and normal ppl would look jus as good if they had sh*t-loads of make-up on and designer clothes.

 

[model_mom]

Originally posted by As You Like It@Mar 19th, 2004 - 12:19 am
No, it is not the same. Catalogues exist for one reason only--to sell a product for one company, be it Sears, J.Jill, ect. They contain no editorial copy, poses with little creative license, and examples of clothing and accessories only from one clothier.

Moreover, catalogues don't represent that diverse of a selection of models anyway.

What I'm talking about is that fashion magazines need to get more variety going. More racial and ethnic representation, more, different body types, and a broader cross section of overall looks.

Model Mom, I'm not trying to belittle what your daugter does for a living. More power to her. I'm just saying that I, personally, find fashion more interesting when it is portrayed by more than one type of woman. I'd be overjoyed to see more athletic women, more tiny, short, petite women, more heavyset women, and more medium sized women represented, at least part of the time.

Ali rodeos for a living, she could care less about looking beautiful. She's in it for the money and then she's gone. WE have learned a lot about fashion (the good and the bad) your concept sounds wonderful but finding someone to carry it out is another story.

 

[LilyBird]

Professional Models. Fashion is art and they do it best in my opinion.

 

[Erzébeth]

i think the real issue at hand is tall, thin teenagers vs the average looking woman. and clothes look better on the tall thin type in my opinion

 

[twilight fairy]

this might sound horrible, and i do not mean any offence, but when i see models in magazines...i don't see them as *real* people. i mean, they are kind of like painted, perfect women to mean. which is bad, obviously, because they are completely normal girls. but i don't know, maybe i have this view to block out feelings such as envy.
anyway, yeah i prefer to see models, because it is a form of art, in a way. it has to be very pleasant on the eye. even though that may sound shallow.

 

[Bixii]

Originally posted by As You Like It@Mar 18th, 2004 - 11:00 pm
I totally love to see the clothing on regular people.

I find traditional models very boring after a while. Most of them are honey-blond, 6' tall, and very, very thin. When's the last time you saw a petite Mexican girl in a mainstream magazine? Or a medium-height, busty, dark-skinned black woman?

I think there is more variety and a much more interesting overview of beauty taken over a broader representation of women. All of us have to wear clothes, we might as well see how different styles are going to look on different figures, complexions, and heights. An outfit that looks great on a woman who's 5'10 and 110lb is not necessarily going to translate well to a woman who is 5'5" and 130lb or 4'11 and 90lb.

Please be careful when you use the words "Mexican Girl" . I´m 100% Mexican, as Elsa Benítez and Liliana Domínguez. And BTW, I´m 6´0 tall, honey-blond and very thin, maybe I could have been a model if I only had any cheekbones

 

[As You Like It]

I'm sorry. I had no intent to offend.

I was thinking of a couple of specific neighbor girls of mine, who are Mexican-American girls; angelically beautiful, extremely petite, with long, thick, wavy black hair and mocha complexions. They both wear clothes wonderfully, I think they would photograph well, and because each of these girls is under 5'5" I doubt they'd even get so much as a "Hello, what can I do for you today" at a modelling agency.

 

[Bixii]

Originally posted by As You Like It@Mar 18th, 2004 - 11:00 pm
When's the last time you saw a petite Mexican girl in a mainstream magazine?

I´ve seen SALMA HAYEK in endless fashion spreads and COVERS for high fashion magazines like VOGUE and BAZAAR.

 

[strawberry daiquiri]

I don't care who wears the clothes so long as they wear them well.

There are plenty of normal people out there who I would consider more beautiful than a lot of the respected models. Where fashion models are chosen first for their body, these real people are often chosen for their face and I like that. It's nice to know the magazines themselves are beginning to realise the people buying the clothes can be as attractive as those modelling them and are reflecting it in their pages. On one hand this suggests the job of model isn't something that requires talent, i.e. someone off the street can do it, but it is when you see it go wrong, i.e. you wonder how they could possibly sell a product, that you realise it does.

So really... it all depends

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by model_mom+Mar 19th, 2004 - 7:49 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(model_mom @ Mar 19th, 2004 - 7:49 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-As You Like It@Mar 19th, 2004 - 12:19 am
No, it is not the same.  Catalogues exist for one reason only--to sell a product for one company, be it Sears, J.Jill, ect.  They contain no editorial copy, poses with little creative license, and examples of clothing and accessories only from one clothier.

Moreover, catalogues don't represent that diverse of a selection of models anyway. 

What I'm talking about is that fashion magazines need to get more variety going.  More racial and ethnic representation, more, different body types, and a broader cross section of overall looks. 

Model Mom, I'm not trying to belittle what your daugter does for a living.  More power to her.  I'm just saying that I, personally, find fashion more interesting when it is portrayed by more than one type of woman.  I'd be overjoyed to see more athletic women, more tiny, short, petite women, more heavyset women, and more medium sized women represented, at least part of the time.

Ali rodeos for a living, she could care less about looking beautiful. She's in it for the money and then she's gone. WE have learned a lot about fashion (the good and the bad) your concept sounds wonderful but finding someone to carry it out is another story. [/b][/quote]
... in my experience...all the best (threfore most successful) models care very much about looking beautiful....

as far as the terminology... i can't imagine how calling someone a real person implies anything negative or how calling someone a model could be offensive...these are just how the industry distinguishes btw pros and everyone else...try not to get caught up in the semantics...it doesn't 'mean' anything...

professional models are taller and thinner than the vast majority of the world's population, so they are not just like everyone else...at least not physically and that's really all we're talking about...it's just the facts...

would you rather see the clothes on some tall, skinny girl or would you rather see them on ...whoever...you next door neighbor...for example...

that's all...

 

[model_mom]

Originally posted by softgrey+Mar 20th, 2004 - 9:20 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(softgrey @ Mar 20th, 2004 - 9:20 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by model_mom@Mar 19th, 2004 - 7:49 am
<!--QuoteBegin-As You Like It

@Mar 19th, 2004 - 12:19 am
No, it is not the same.  Catalogues exist for one reason only--to sell a product for one company, be it Sears, J.Jill, ect.  They contain no editorial copy, poses with little creative license, and examples of clothing and accessories only from one clothier.

Moreover, catalogues don't represent that diverse of a selection of models anyway. 

What I'm talking about is that fashion magazines need to get more variety going.  More racial and ethnic representation, more, different body types, and a broader cross section of overall looks. 

Model Mom, I'm not trying to belittle what your daugter does for a living.  More power to her.  I'm just saying that I, personally, find fashion more interesting when it is portrayed by more than one type of woman.  I'd be overjoyed to see more athletic women, more tiny, short, petite women, more heavyset women, and more medium sized women represented, at least part of the time.

Ali rodeos for a living, she could care less about looking beautiful. She's in it for the money and then she's gone. WE have learned a lot about fashion (the good and the bad) your concept sounds wonderful but finding someone to carry it out is another story.

... in my experience...all the best (threfore most successful) models care very much about looking beautiful....

as far as the terminology... i can't imagine how calling someone a real person implies anything negative or how calling someone a model could be offensive...these are just how the industry distinguishes btw pros and everyone else...try not to get caught up in the semantics...it doesn't 'mean' anything...

professional models are taller and thinner than the vast majority of the world's population, so they are not just like everyone else...at least not physically and that's really all we're talking about...it's just the facts...

would you rather see the clothes on some tall, skinny girl or would you rather see them on ...whoever...you next door neighbor...for example...

that's all... [/b][/quote]
Caring and being are two different things.

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by model_mom@Mar 20th, 2004 - 9:32 pm

Caring and being are two different things.

of course they are...i'm just telling from my own experience...i think the girls who truly love it and enjoy themselves are at an advantage...their enthusiasm and passion shows on film...they bring so much to the party...plus, if you don't love it, it's hard to keep going...it's a hard job...