The Supermodel - Is it Time for a Rebirth?

[blueorchid]

I don't really think that we need supermodels again like they existed in the 90s. I like models being a bit under the radar.

 

[agee]

I do wonder what your personal definition of a supermodel is, given that you wouldn't consider Stephanie and Helena supermodels.

Nope I did not say that I do not consider Stephanie and Helena supermodels, I said that if Stephanie, Helena, Kristen, Eva, and now I will add in Tatjana and Yasmeen are classified as supermodels, then surely, Gisele and Kate are supermodels.

When I think of Kate Moss' heyday, I think of the waif model period of the mid-90s, and I'm pretty sure that when people who followed fashion in the 90s hear the name Kate Moss, the word "waif" comes to mind. The waif model trend didn't really serve much purpose, and some of the models from that period (including Kate) became associated with the whole "heroin chic" thing. Also, there was a particular year (either 1995 or 1996, I can't remember exactly) when Amber and Shalom were considered the top models of the moment. They even jointly hosted MTV's House of Style show, succeeding Cindy Crawford.
And Kate was never "the" Calvin Klein girl. Firstly, she wasn't the only female model to appear in Calvin Klein ads during the circa 1993 period. There was another female model in the ads (who even appeared in a couple of the ads alongside Kate), but her name escapes me at the moment. And secondly and most importantly, Christy Turlington was thee Calvin Klein girl, as she had a $12 million contract with the label, which began in the late 80s and spanned several years. Regardless, those Kate ads never had the type of public impact that Claudia Schiffer's Guess ads had. Can you say, Brigitte Bardot lookalike?
Also, ever heard of the Fashion Cafe??? It was a venture of restaurant chains jointly owned by Christy, Claudia, Naomi, and Elle, akin to the likes of Hard Rock Cafe and Planet Hollywood. The Fashion Cafe chain was established sometime in 1994 or 1995. So to assume that Kate Moss surpassed that type of public recognition is just absurd.

Your comments about Kate being the emblem of the waif and heroin chic are making the the justification for Kate being supermodel better than some of the things I said. You started to lose me at Calvin Klein, because Kate Moss is THE Calvin Klein girl. Now it was cause for pause when you brought up Christy Turlington, but I reconciled it this way, Kate Moss is THE Calvin Klein girl (for their commercial lines) and Christy Turlington is THE Eternity girl. Kate Moss' Calvin Klein's ads were memorable, and memorable beyond the fashion and beauty world as Kate Moss with her scrawny body, rat face and bad teeth challenged the conception of beauty, and Kate Moss and what she represented was actually the topic of discussion. Claudia's Guess ads which were beautiful and were iconic until Anna Nicole Smith's came along.

For all I care, Kate Moss could land on the cover of British(!) Vogue every month of next year starting with January, yet the only people who would actually care to know about it would be a)people in the UK and b)her fans. A no-name model like Natasha Poly could also disappear for five years, and then come back, and guess what? She too would be on the cover of Vogue Paris upon her comeback. That doesn't prove nor indicate anything.

And if you wanna claim that the supers' recognizability ended outside of their home countries after their heyday, then how do you explain the fact that Linda Evangelista was the model who was chosen to appear on the cover of American Vogue in 2006, after the magazine had featured only non-models on its cover for over a year? Linda isn't American, she's Canadian. Why would Vogue take a chance like that, unless she's somebody who's recognizable to the celebrity-worshipping American public?

I brought up Kate Moss, Mars and Vogue covers as an analogy in response to your comment about Linda Evangelista landing the cover of VI. My comment about losing recognizability had to do with the general public, the "average person on the street" would know Claudia Schiffer and Helena Christensen in 1993 but not in 2010. Linda Evangelista making the cover of American Vogue does not disprove my argument given the demographics of American Vogue and that despite its celebrity bent, it is still a fashion magazine.

 

[TheVeed]

Helena, Kristen, Eva, Tatjana, and Yasmeen were not supermodels, they were simply very successful models. Let's not kid ourselves and add every successful model of that era into the mix. They simply did their job and they did it well.

I do not understand how anyone can NOT name Gisele and Kate Moss supermodels. They are above and beyond any other successful model of their era, they have created a brand after themselves, and are extremely successful even when placed outside of modeling. Put them next to the supermodels of the 90s and they are probably more successful than most of the 'supers.' Everyone knows who they are, not just fashion insiders.

Heidi Klum is another. She has created an empire for herself through her modeling. THAT is a supermodel.


​

 

[Spiral1532]

Nope I did not say that I do not consider Stephanie and Helena supermodels, I said that if Stephanie, Helena, Kristen, Eva, and now I will add in Tatjana and Yasmeen are classified as supermodels, then surely, Gisele and Kate are supermodels.

But that's precisely the thing. Why would you even need to bring up Stephanie, Helena, and those other girls and follow it up with "if they are classified as supermodels". Why wouldn't they be classified as supermodels? As a side note, Stephanie was doing Victoria's Secret work when it was still just a fledgling brand. Long before Gisele even started modeling. And when I think of Sports Illustrated models, Stephanie is the first name that comes to mind.
And also, I'd like to know exactly why you think Gisele and Kate are supermodels.

<snip>You started to lose me at Calvin Klein, because Kate Moss is THE Calvin Klein girl. Now it was cause for pause when you brought up Christy Turlington, but I reconciled it this way, Kate Moss is THE Calvin Klein girl (for their commercial lines) and Christy Turlington is THE Eternity girl. Kate Moss' Calvin Klein's ads were memorable, and memorable beyond the fashion and beauty world as Kate Moss with her scrawny body, rat face and bad teeth challenged the conception of beauty, and Kate Moss and what she represented was actually the topic of discussion.

Now that's ludicrous. Are you even aware of what Christy's work for Calvin comprised? Several years and $12 million worth of work = "the eternity girl"? How interesting.

<snip>My comment about losing recognizability had to do with the general public, the "average person on the street" would know Claudia Schiffer and Helena Christensen in 1993 but not in 2010. Linda Evangelista making the cover of American Vogue does not disprove my argument given the demographics of American Vogue and that despite its celebrity bent, it is still a fashion magazine.

So you assume that the average person on the street would know Kate Moss in 2010?

 

[agee]

Why would you even need to bring up Stephanie, Helena, and those other girls and follow it up with "if they are classified as supermodels".

Once again, I was not the one who initially brought up "Stephanie, Helena, and those other girls," well actually I added Helena to the list, but my point simply being is that if you consider supermodels beginning and ending with Cindy, Linda, Naomi and maybe Claudia, then, while I may not fully agree, I can maybe, just maybe see that position if someone chose to look at it that narrowly then Kate and Gisele not making the cut, but when Eva Herzigova, Stephanie Seymour and Kristen McMenamy are added to the mix, and no disrespect to them, to then to say that Kate Moss and Gisele Bundchen are not supermodels, oh hayel no!

I brought up Kate and Gisele in response to these two comments of yours:

The whole supermodel phenomenon was strictly a 1988-1992 thing.

And btw, the only supermodels that we see "running around" are the ones who are still occasionally working as models: Cindy, Linda, Naomi, Christy, Stephanie, Eva, Claudia, Kristen, etc.

I consider Kate and Gisele supermodels because: modeling has been their primary profession for a significant period of time, diversity of work (high fashion and commercial, print and runway) and recognition by the general public.

Now that's ludicrous. Are you even aware of what Christy's work for Calvin comprised? Several years and $12 million worth of work = "the eternity girl"? How interesting.

Are you aware of Kate Moss' work for Calvin Klein and the sensation that it created and the responses that it got? Don't get it twisted, I love me some Christy Turlington and I earlier said that I would take Stephanie and Helena over Kate Moss any day, and when you add in Christy, Linda and Naomi, they trump them all - my love for them runs deep and it is pure, but that does not put me in denial of other models' accomplishments.

So you assume that the average person on the street would know Kate Moss in 2010?

No and I already discussed that point earlier.

 

[simons]

i think the term "supermodel" is dead. when it's used now, it's just an overused term referencing the "supermodel era."

i agree with what someone said earlier, these "supermodels" working now are just very successful models and "supermodel" is used because it's easier to say than very successful model lol.

i read somewhere in an article that said giselle was the last of the supermodels, after kate moss. i agree. anyone after that is not a supermodel.

 

[ALAUU]

The term supermodel means nothing nowadays. Nowadays, you only become a supermodel by dating someone famous. It has nothing to do about modeling abilities or opportunities because the opportunities for high fashion come after they get themselves in the tabloids. It's sad but it's true. Either that or get yourself a contract with VS. There is a lack of the kind of opportunities that could make these models household names except for tabloids and VS. For instance, models don't get on the covers of Vogue and if they do, they have to share it with 9 other models. So, the terms supermodel and high fashion model really aren't even in the same category anymore, unless you're talking about Gisele or Kate or the original Supers.

 

[ariah arron]

Honestly, I think this thread is straying further and further from the cut-and-dry truth. It's been said before that most of the general public doesn't know today's models.

Spiral, I think you're concocting a definition based on when many supermodels worked, but the term has been applied before them, and still can be applied to the likes of Kate Moss and Gisele, who frankly, are two of the only working models today that the general public knows. And not only does the public know them, they know that they're a big deal.

I agree with previous statements that the industry is too one-dimensional. Agencies, casting directors, etc are not looking for facets that make a model standout. Thus, if a model can sustain any longevity for now, it's likely to still be a status recognized only by those watching, not the non-speculating public.

Edit: I agree with ALAUU, to most of the world, supermodel means VS + Socialite, a la Gisele, Adriana Lima, etc.

 

[agee]

I agree that the term supermodel has been rendered useless in everyday discussion because it has been co-opted to mean any random girl walking down the street with an agency portfolio in her hand, but I think that in a discussion like this we can separate the wheat from the chaff and therefore identify women who have achieved supermodel status in the post-supermodel era, in other words, just because the term is meaningless in the everyday conversation does not mean that we cannot have a meaningful discussion about supermodels in the traditional sense of the word in this context or that supermodels ceased to exist because of the term got diluted.
----


Adding to the definition that I posted earlier:

modeling has been their primary profession for a significant period of time, diversity of work (high fashion and commercial, print and runway) and recognition by the general public.

Plus significant achievements in fashion and modeling: major contract(s), muse of top photographers or designers, repeatedly scoring big campaigns, walking top runways, covering major fashion and lifestyle magazines, etc.

I don't think that a model has to fulfill every single one of these criteria to be considered a supermodel, other than the general public recognition criteria, I think that recognition by the general public is the line of demarcation between a supermodel and a successful model / top model.

 

[Lena]

I don't really think that we need supermodels again like they existed in the 90s. I like models being a bit under the radar.

i so agree, 'supermodels' is such a thing from the past
we need fresh and a little bit 'weird/unusual' models
that could 'brake' new ground in refreshing industry's boring stagnated beauty standards

i'm all for the anti-supermodel models of today
the more bizzare looking, the better for me

 

[agee]

Yeah because we want to ensure that actresses, singers, reality TV stars and celeb kids continue getting magazine covers and campaigns for years to come.

 

[blueorchid]

Like having those people on magazine covers are the woooorst thing ever. Personally, I think people make too big of a deal about celebs being on covers.

 

[agee]

Like having those people on magazine covers are the woooorst thing ever. Personally, I think people make too big of a deal about celebs being on covers.

I agree with the point about the reaction that people have to celebs being on the covers of magazines - although I would like to see current top models have a shot at being on the cover of magazines that would put reality TV and Nick / Disney stars on their covers. While I don't have a problem with reality TV and Nick / Disney stars per se, these are not A-Listers when it comes to popularity or accomplishments. Also, it should be noted that Karlie and Freja may be on this track as evidenced by their Teen Vogue and British Vogue covers.

While I may not share your preference for "[liking] models being a bit under the radar," I can respect it if you are someone who throws a hissy fit when a celeb is on a magazine cover or fronts a campaign.

 

[agee]

I agree with the point about the reaction that people have to celebs being on the covers of magazines - although I would like to see current top models have a shot at being on the cover of magazines that would put reality TV and Nick / Disney stars on their covers. While I don't have a problem with reality TV and Nick / Disney stars per se, these are not A-Listers when it comes to popularity or accomplishments. Also, it should be noted that Karlie and Freja may be on this track as evidenced by their Teen Vogue and British Vogue covers.

While I may not share your preference for "[liking] models being a bit under the radar," I can respect it if you are someone who throws a hissy fit when a celeb is on a magazine cover or fronts a campaign.

I meant to say, "I can respect it if you are NOT someone who throws a hissy fit when a celeb is on a magazine cover or fronts a campaign. "

Also to this statement:
"While I don't have a problem with reality TV and Nick / Disney stars per se, these are not A-Listers when it comes to popularity or accomplishments..." I will add: and therefore I can see, in theory, a top model fitting in with people who have this level of celebrity and accomplishment.

 

[blueorchid]

I only throw hissy fits when more "boring" celebrities are on covers. Regardless of the personal style of a celebrity, I would rather have celebrities with interesting personalities and projects (within or outside of the fashion world) get featured in magazines like Vogue, because at least there's something to read about in their features. I'd gladly take a magazine with Tina Fey on the cover over Blake Lively, even if Blake is generally considered more attractive. Of course I would prefer models on covers, but because they probably won't be on covers often I'll take someone interesting.

 

[scrubb]

I think the turnover rate for models these days is getting faster. In terms of a celebrity model which the general public knows by name, there probably isn't one right now.

so perhaps in this sense, the term 'supermodel'... is dead.

 

[VullixEf]

i really can't understand.. i understand designers choose anonymous girls to show better their creations.. to draw attention to their dresses.. no curves.. no expression.. very plain and too young.. but why did it change so much? They didn't have the same necessity before?

 

[j.cruz146]

Because before, the attention was all over the supers. Now, with the bad economy, designers want to show off their clothes and what they have and how people are going to say "I need that shirt in my closet" instead of, "Natasha looked great in that shirt".

That's just my eratic guess.. LOL

 

[angel222]

YES. The answer to the original question is that Supermodels are not actresses and vice versa they should be seen and rarely heard to keep their mystique.

 

[fantastical]

I actually don't mind the word supermodel being thrown around models who have only been around for 5 or so years (b/c nowadays working and staying relevant for 5 years is a feat in itself), the problem I have is the word iconic being given to models like Daria Werbowy or Natalia V, or even Gisele. There is no question that these are great models, but icon is a word I hold strictly in reserve for people who have been around for 20+ years. In 20 years if they are still modeling and keeping those campaigns coming then sure they might be iconic.

btw this post is in reference to the Modeling Ranking thread from MDC here