saucer-like
Active Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,903
- Reaction score
- 8
The lack of major runway and high fashion campaigns is a glaring omission from Kate Upton's "supermodel" résumé.
In that case, neither Kendall or Gigi should be included imo. I don't think there has been anything truly remarkable about their careers or success. I suppose if either/both were to score all 4 of the big Vogue covers but it hasn't happened yet. They only walked a handful of major shows (frankly, not even the most prestigious) and their biggest HF campaigns have all been MG (and not particularly impressive in terms of brands). Neither of them have really diverse résumés.
Magazine covers + beauty contracts are the domain of celebrities, so it is not surprising they would do well in those areas because they are celebrities... more so than models. It's just not a level playing field when comparing them in that respect to models who are "just models" (particularly for the beauty contracts).
Exactly. The public and press would be all over them even if they weren't models.
They aren't getting work due to some elusive it factor like almost every article written about them wants the reader to believe. It would be as if some pop star with a couple of minor hits decided to take up modeling, signed with IMG and the whole bit. Of course people would know her name and she'd be everywhere. She's coming in with an existing fanbase and the public already know her from somewhere else.
I think too much emphasis is put on the celebrity aspect instead of the fashion aspect whenever this topic of new supermodels is discussed. How can we downplay the very things that make models into models over vague statements about "people who aren't into fashion know who this person is"?
Indeed there are more magazines other than Vogue and more brands than Balmain/Chanel/Marc Jacobs. Runway is not irrelevant because I think people would take issue with considering any of Karlie, Joan, Arizona, Anna, Freja, Sasha, etc. as contenders if they hadn't walked for most all of the big names at some point in their careers.
In that case, neither Kendall or Gigi should be included imo. I don't think there has been anything truly remarkable about their careers or success. I suppose if either/both were to score all 4 of the big Vogue covers but it hasn't happened yet. They only walked a handful of major shows (frankly, not even the most prestigious) and their biggest HF campaigns have all been MG (and not particularly impressive in terms of brands). Neither of them have really diverse résumés.
Magazine covers + beauty contracts are the domain of celebrities, so it is not surprising they would do well in those areas because they are celebrities... more so than models. It's just not a level playing field when comparing them in that respect to models who are "just models" (particularly for the beauty contracts).
Exactly. The public and press would be all over them even if they weren't models.
They aren't getting work due to some elusive it factor like almost every article written about them wants the reader to believe. It would be as if some pop star with a couple of minor hits decided to take up modeling, signed with IMG and the whole bit. Of course people would know her name and she'd be everywhere. She's coming in with an existing fanbase and the public already know her from somewhere else.
I think too much emphasis is put on the celebrity aspect instead of the fashion aspect whenever this topic of new supermodels is discussed. How can we downplay the very things that make models into models over vague statements about "people who aren't into fashion know who this person is"?
Indeed there are more magazines other than Vogue and more brands than Balmain/Chanel/Marc Jacobs. Runway is not irrelevant because I think people would take issue with considering any of Karlie, Joan, Arizona, Anna, Freja, Sasha, etc. as contenders if they hadn't walked for most all of the big names at some point in their careers.
