The "It Girls"

[Susann]

I would like to discuss the phenomena of It-girls with you.
It were a few things that made me start this thread. First, I watched a documentary called "Profession It girl " on arte (French-German TV channel) featuring Alexa Chung, Peaches Geldof and Blake Lively (and more).
A few days later I went to a birthday party, where I met a girl I hadnt seen for ages. She was dressed like a complete Alexa Chung copy - it was perfectly obvious whom she was imitating.
So I was wondering , what is it that makes the Alexa Chungs of this world it-girls? What makes them so captivating that young people want to immitate them (be like them?) ?
And what is it about their looks that makes them stand out? Which desires of our society do they embody and why is it fashion it's mostly about?

 

[agee]

I don't think that specifics of what makes an It Girl an It Girl can be arrived at inductively. She has to happen and then you look at the confluence of events, circumstances and the traits that she brought to the table to understand why she happened.

 

[voguetoffee]

"It" is that quality possessed by some which draws all others with its magnetic force.

 

[HeatherAnne]

^ True many seem to have a charismatic personality, or else are so shrouded with mystery that people are intrigued. Other factors seem important as well: the right social circle and dating the right people, beauty that is outright but also not so intense that it's threatening to other women...

It's definitely a strange phenomenon though.

Celebrities sort of remind me of high schoolers on a bigger stage. Remember in high school when there would be that popular girl who all the boys wanted to date, and all the girls wanted to emulate. But perhaps the strangeness in it lied in the fact that she wasn't the most beautiful or extraordinary girl around. Not to suggest that people are completely mindless sheep that follow the pack, but I think that somehow plays into it subconsciously. I think we're all guilty of it.

Which desires of our society do they embody and why is it fashion it's mostly about?

Really cool question of you to ask. Not sure I know either. My feeling is it has something with being able to create that unique character that we "play up" in our heads of these people. There is also the element that many of these "it girls" have access to not only fashion that is beyond most people's means but an entire lifestyle that is out of reach for us. Perhaps in a way people live vicariously through them.

 

[Desi]

Sadly I am not at home currently to provide a bit of insight of "it Girls" from antiquity but I think success of it is mainly by being host to three out of four important things, not quite traits but important none the less.

Beauty + Intelligence + Social + Exposure = IT*

These traits by themselves do not make an IT but together they give way to the possibility of an IT developing. Intelligence may be debatable as measuring it is difficult, street smarts, biz smarts, and the other groups of "smarts" all exist and play in it. Someone can appear dumb only to play the market in her favor, Paris Hilton for an example. Being social and exposure sometimes go hand in hand as someone who is social meets the right people and in a way gets exposed. On the other hand someone who likes their private life can get exposure simply by doing something the hiveminds (joke) want to know of. Zoe Saldana wearing American Eagle jeans, like normal folk "my goodness" a young woman exclaims.

Professionals are professionals because they know or are informed when to be social and when to exclude themselves from public life and events. This probably plays on intelligence and their social connections thus creating exposure when they re-emerge or go missing from the eye of the camera. Also you will notice that the professionals also dabble in multiple fields, just being a model (or ex) is not enough as she will DJ, write books, the arts, host television events, participate in fundraisers, and merchandise to promote herself by helping girls be closer/more like to her. All this to extend her IT.

*I just like writing IT in caps.

 

[tigerrouge]

Being vacuous is an important part of the appeal, it ensures people can project all sorts of things onto a person. An It girl generally doesn't do anything that can be described as ordinary or useful - she's busy being an actress, a presenter, a DJ or any number of jobs that embody empty glamour.

People can then interpret that lifestyle as having mystery and fill the spaces by imagining an exciting life on a level above our own, or interpret it as idleness and deride her for stupidity, and claim she's representative of something that's wrong with today's young women.

 

[Squizree]

In this modern age you MUST be rich in order to be an It Girl. Wealth is the first and foremost requirement for It status. Beauty and style come next, and parentage is a close third. Also it seems that young people are more drawn with girls who have no real occupations i.e. Peaches, Paris, Kim, Leigh.

 

[HeatherAnne]

In this modern age you MUST be rich in order to be an It Girl.

I agree most come from wealthy (often notable) families, but the the first girl mentioned in this thread (Alexa Chung) came from humble middle-class beginnings and was certainly an "it girl" before she became wealthy on her own accord. Erin Wasson, same thing. So I don't think it's a necessity.

 

[Squizree]

^ Perhaps. But to sustain such a position, being wealthy would be necessary. Alexa Chung doesn't exactly have a lot more going for her. She doesn't come from a rich family, she's very average looking, her style is boring and frumpy and she has no charisma whatsoever. At this point the only thing significant about her is her ability to obtain designer fashion.

 

[HeatherAnne]

^ Now that I agree with, wealth is necessary simply to afford to keep up with the lifestyle all of these "it girls" are expected to maintain.

Though I know (obviously) the designer connections and freebies help tremendously, I often wonder what a girl like Alexa/Elin Kling [who I read grew up in a rural/modest farm community in Sweden] dish out yearly on clothing. They should both have comfortably padded bank accounts now, where it is now a non-factor, but I bet in the beginning stages it was a staggering sum in relation to their wealth.

 

[Psylocke]

I think the people they surround themselves with is more important than whether they already have money or not. Sure, being rich helps getting into these "It-people crowds" but I think there's a few that just got lucky because they knew the right people. (Alexa Chung, Agyness Deyn)
Having a famous boyfriend (or girlfriend) is an absolute must for every It-Girl. Preferably a musician in a hip band or the son of a famous personality).


Personally I don't care much for It-Girls. I like Alexa because I like her humor and wit and I do like following her style, even if I don't like all her outfits. I have zero interest in any of the other ones, though. But I'd take any pretty and well-dressed It-Girl over the Kardashians & Co. They're all attention-whores and famous for nothing but I feel like that at least It-girls are aware of their fame being just a fad and they often seem like "normal" people enjoying their lives and doing what most people their age would do whereas all the reality-stars seem to just not know when it's enough. The reality-starlets all seem to have major PR-teams behind them, shoving their mugs down our throats, trying to make us believe they're something special, it's way more offensive and annoying than seeing It-girls hanging out at fashion shows and parties.

 

[loladonna]

The media --which includes fashion publications and tabloids- creates It Girls. They choose which girls will be the subject of prolonged attention that will make them stars. Inevitably these girls will be rich, white, and either related to someone rich/famous or dating someone rich and famous which gives them access to all the designers and free clothes they end up promoting.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Wow, no one has mentioned Edie Sedgwick? She is the Godmother of "it girls", the "girl of the year", a "superstar".

She came from money.
She was a talented artist but didn't need to pursue that.
She was gorgeous but in a very unique way.
She always wanted to be where the action was.
She ruled a room.
She acted for Andy.
She had an innate sense of style that was imitatible.
She was like a comet.
She was "mysterious" or in a meaner sense "vapid" (I actually don't think that), but the point is that IT girls are like symbols of something (freedom, style, hipness, etc), and thus I agree with tigerrouge that others can project on to an IT girl something with which they can identify. I think most celebs have this quality. They symbolize. We project and identify. New gods, you could say...

Many of these traits apply, say, to Alexa Chung, though as others have noted, she doesn't come from money. But she is always where the action is, surrounds herself with charming people, commands attention, is very pretty but in an atypical way, she has her own sense of style that is admirable and affordable, she is intelligent.

The trainwreck, socialite, doomed gothic heroine aspects of Edie apply more to the likes of Lohan and Hilton, but they are not really IT girls in my book, as they don't have style, lol!

 

[knockturnal]

It's like that show "The X Factor"....having "IT" is not something that can necessarily be defined...but you know it when you come across it.

The thing about being "it" is that one day, a new "it" comes along and more often then not you disappear into oblivion. Unless you actually have marketable talent, of course.

I'd imagine in can be a tough pill to swallow.

 

[atomicblue]

The media --which includes fashion publications and tabloids- creates It Girls. They choose which girls will be the subject of prolonged attention that will make them stars. Inevitably these girls will be rich, white, and either related to someone rich/famous or dating someone rich and famous which gives them access to all the designers and free clothes they end up promoting.

After reading most of the thread, I was worried nobody was going to say this, so I'm glad you did.

"It Girls" are a construct of the media. Wealth, beauty and style may be factors, too - although beauty and style are also quite subjective and thus these things are largely constructs of the media as well. If enough branches of the media (film, TV appearances, magazines, etc.) put these people into the spotlight, then people start to believe they are particularly special.

Ultimately, "It Girls" are like the jobless equivalent of Hollywood movie stars - think about which actors end up making the "A-list". It's not necessarily the most talented or even the most beautiful ones, but the ones which get the right press exposure and, usually, a movie or two which are little more than "star vehicles".

 

[WerbowyStegner]

I don't love Alexa but I need to give credit where credit is due. Many of my friends when asked have stated they think Alexa Chung is the 'hottest' celebrity they know , I know beauty is subjective but the way the media portrays you is very important ,they seem to cloud it girls with this aura of 'fantasy' and desire..

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I disagree that IT girls are "created by" the media. I think the media definitely exacerbates their status. But I think it is more symbiotic and mutual than that theory implies. I think these girls often have something special going for them. Some people ARE more socially electric and HAVE a unique sense of style that sets them apart in the first place. With Edie, she was "famous" at Cambridge, too, before she even went to NYC, met Andy, got into his films etc. With Alexa, she was already setting herself apart on TV by her unique styling and her individual beauty. Then, the media begins to take notice. Especially because, these girls tend to be social animals, so they are out and about a lot, get photographed etc.

These days, because of the internet, street photography, blogs and so forth, the media may play a stronger role than it did in the past. But arguably the IT girl has to stand out even more because we are so flooded with images - to stand apart, to be noticed, one must have something unique and at the same time relatable.

 

[tigerrouge]

Yes, while the media certainly helps create a sense of phenomenon around certain people, in many cases, these people are regarded as something special in a certain social circle for some time before the press becomes aware of them and then starts proliferating their image for the general public.

I get the feeling that more purely media-constructed personalities are made with mass-market appeal in mind - some might say down-market - whereas It girls are often seen as a cut above the other faces filling the pages.

 

[ApertureRomance]

I think how relatable and democratic they are plays a big role - Alexa mixes high street vintage and designer whereas if you remember around 2005 when the Olsen twins were seen with Balenciaga motorcycle bag or the demand for the Chloe paddington etc I think their look is a bit harder to replicate.

I don't know I think the rise of blogs and the blogosphere has made it a lot easier for people to share style ideas and even seek out the same items. Elin Kling comes to mind actually you could easily find a whole outfit from Zara that wouldn't be far off from her style.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Here's an interesting article that is related to this topic; it's about "photographer/bloggers" during NYFW - and their "it girl" status:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/fashion/female-street-photographers-work-both-sides-of-the-camera.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimesfashion