Gucci Girl
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
There is a lot of talk going on about the "Return of the Supermodel", but is it really ?? There is a lot of behinfd the scenes stuff we don't know about, and might have maybe overlooked. I stublem over a very well-writen and informative site recently, and wanted to share the information, and thoughts of it here on the board (I thouhgt it might be well appreciated, and helpfull). Please read it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Hold on to your sickbag - "aspirational" models are about to hit NYC... You knew something weird was going on - first some bozo claims that the usual suspects are ready "to explore good taste", starting this Fall. Then, US Vogue mentions the word "supermodel" again - and is ready to feature fashion models instead of celebs on its September issue cover! The latest "Vogue supermodel", Natalia Vodianova, seems to be absent from the group - there is something fishy here...and the original "Vogue supermodel" - Gisele that is - will be on the Sept H Bazaar cover, alone - which may be a problem! The NYTimes "reveal" what's behind all that...(free registration needed)"...We are trying to bring back the concept of models with a real identity and a memorable face," said Raul Martinez, a partner in A/R Media, whose clients include Versace. " I think we've kind of lost that for a while. When was the last time you looked at a model and said to yourself, `My God, she is a stunner'?"..." Gee wheez Mr Martinez - wasn't it yourself, your photographers/stylists and the rest of the voguey crowd who tried so hard to kill the fashion supermodel and the "memorable" and "stunning" faces? Why was model recycling/turnover so popular in NYC? Didn't your friendly model agents proudly hype "non-descript" models just a couple of seasons ago? Why did the "biz" bring the "knobbly-kneed Belgians" to the forefront and told the glam Brazilians that "they shouldn't bother showing up for castings" just before the Milan shows three years ago? What was wrong with the Brazilians? They became too popular for their own good? As for "stunners" - there are those who appeal to straight men, and those who appeal to the types who enjoy watching drag queen acts in certain clubs - it would be useful to define exactly which kind of "stunner" the "biz" wants to promote from now on - although I did like B Nielsen myself..."... The new generation of models "are much less sulky, tough or waiflike," said Cindy Gallop, the president of the New York office of Bartle Bogle Hegarty, which has created ad campaigns for brands like Levi's. "These days we seem to be going for a much more luminous, movie-star feel."..." "much less waiflike" - does this mean models won't be told to lose a lot of weight before they can get high fashion jobs anymore? I doubt it. The whole NYC "Top 50" needs to be thrown into the trash can if "waiflike" mods are no longer "trendy" - even Isabelli was forced to lose a massive amount of weight before she could become officially "hip"."...Fashion's relentless focus on marginal, and often unremarkable, faces has engendered its own fatigue, said Linda Wells, the editor of Allure magazine. "We're tired of seeing models who don't inspire some kind of longing," Ms. Wells said. "We just want to be seduced again by a more conventional type of beauty."Wow - how many Allure covers did Mrs Wells give to "unremarkable" fashion models? Does this mean that "remarkable" models were left without jobs on purpose? (Get ready for the next lawsuit..) Maybe she is among the ones responsible for getting people "tired"? Was all that done on her own free will, or was she following orders from higher Conde Nast echelons? Not that yours truly didn't notice that high fashion "beauty" was hardly "conventional", but there is a whole army of clueless suckers out there who kept comparing the Vogue/Allure faces to the pre-1998 "conventional beauty" models - maybe it's time they find out what was really going on...btw, if Vogue models too are "marginal and often uremarkable" - since that was what fashionable trends dictated, until now - why are the very same mods being recycled for the Sept. "beauty" cover? What changed? They got a new "Meisel makeover job"? One small detail - what about the mods who had their eybrows shaved my Meisel in the past? They had little troube getting "beauty" jobs lately - in fact the Parisienne, who have a "beauty" tradition, loved them. Maybe some need to be re-educated?I would love to know who exactly are these "marginal and often uremarkable" faces - although you only have to look at which agencies were the hippest in the past few years, and their "top" model lists...When Women Agency head honcho Rowland goes to Brazil, talks some crap like "any Brazilian mod is OK for NYC and international fashion, as long as she dosn't look Latin" and then picks Eliana Weirich , claiming that she looks like Jackie O or Cleopatra or whatever - not even close btw - isn't it obvious what kind of "beauty" the hip NYC agents were after? It certainly isn't "conventional" beauty, as "conventional" people define it...Shana Zadrick, Meisel's old fave, again in US Vogue?
"... Now, as in the era of Linda, Christy, Naomi and their lissome cohort, the screen-siren look of the hour is heavily indebted to stylized photography and fastidious grooming: crimson lips, powdered faces and cataracts of wavy hair. "A celebrity-obsessed audience will seek the sleek, picture-perfect look of the red carpet not only in its film stars but in its models..." Which explains why AW hired Demarchelier, and will probably use more of Lindbergh - and the sort of people who know how to do "stylized" photography. Meanwhile, someone should inform the clueless types at Lancome, who are planning to use "unknown" models, drop "beauty" from their ads and employ "cool" young photographers - please! I am not sure what Meisel has to say about all this - will he go back to Shana Zadrick types???? He usually signals major shifts six or more months ahead - looks like he was cought with his pants down...unless the Devo (remember the men with the flowerpot hats?) impersonators on the cover of the new Vogue Italia are the glam "beauties" he has in mind..."... Insiders applaud the return of an archetypically feminine beauty as a backlash against the eccentric features, bruised-looking makeup and unruly hair of the last decade..." This "last decade" stuff is very suspicious, and a desperate effort to fudge things. Detour - the first half of the 90s was mainly a battle between fashion and grunge (which was anti-fashion, as were the original waifs, and that was evil to AW and Co -rebellion is allowed only if it can help to sell merch) What happened in the second half of the 90s, after grunge went away, was that all these assholes tried to kill the elegant "drop-dead gorgeous woman" that Gianni Versace (but not his talentless sister) championed, the "archetypical" 90s model image (Tatjana Patitz, Eva Herzigova, Claudia S, Carla Bruni, Leticia Casta, Naomi C, etc) - and replace it with the tacky but chic "It Girl", as seen in posh London clubs.People need to differentiate between the "high fashion" supermodel and the mass-market fashion supermodel - the "Trinity" (L Evangelista/C Turlington/N Campbell) died in 1993, and that was the end of the "high fashion" supermodel - the names mentioned above were really mass-market models who still remain popular around the world (Naomi C, too). The "supermodel" phenomenon had spiralled out of control worldwide by 95/96 - although not as popular in the US/UK - and people now demanded "perfect" models, and payed little attention to Amber Valletta, Christy McMenamy, etc types, however hard AW tried. The truth is that Christy T impressed few people outside the fashion world - and Linda E was quickly forgotten after she left Bartez. Cindy Crawford remains the only universally accepted "supermodel", since Naomi C is mostly ignored in the US. Despite some debacles ("heroin chic" slowed them down for a while) the quirky-loving crowd succeeded after 1998, when the old model agency powerhouses - mainly Elite Models - effectively collapsed, and the modelling center swang away from Paris and Milan to NYC, along with much of the photography business. Almost all "major" fashion shows were now being produced by NYC PR firms, and the NYC types also dictate model selection in "major" Paris and Milan shows. The models who wanted to be at the top had to move to NYC - the ones who remained based in Paris or Milan suddenly became "B models" and were locked out of most "hip" campaigns. Modelling agency control - in NYC, as the agencies elsewhere mattered little - was given to some nobodies, most of whom used to get sandwiches and coffee for Casablancas and the old agency bosses (who were rensponsible for many unwise choices themselves). "Given" is the right word, coz the reason they were chosen was the fact they were spineless enough as to pose no real threat to the wills of the real fashion powers - AW and Co would never again allow powerful model agency bosses to dictate who appeared in their mags. The only really "eccentric" - looking models during the 90s were Kate Moss (who once admitted that she was an "anti-model") along with some fellow English gals, the US Vogue superwaifs (Trish Joff, Amber Valletta, etc) and a whole army of mostly US superwaifs who had disappeared by 1997, probably due to drug problems - plus a few quirky faces mostly represented in the mid/late 90s in Europe by Ford Paris (home of Karen Elson, Erin O' Connor, Alek Wek, etc) and Beatrice Milan - and that was it! In fact, these are the very same faces all these characters admire the most !!!!!They better leave the 90s crap aside, or they'll get more mud in their faces..."... Come September, those readers will see Ms. Bundchen on the cover of Harper's Bazaar and on Vogue, where she appears alongside Ms. Kurkova, Carolyn Murphy and Liya Kebede, replacing Hollywood celebrities on the September covers for the first time in many seasons. High-powered models, some of them evergreens like Linda Evangelista and Patti Hansen, will likewise get star billing in a flurry of mainstream ads, among them a multipage insert from Ann Taylor...""Multipage insert from Ann Taylor", ha ha ha - that's how Vogue got to be so thick !!! Liya is a "conventional beauty"? Next to Noemie Lenoir, Oluchi, Jessica White, Yasmin Warsame, etc she looks like a joke. The girl spend four months in Paris and not one agency was interested - before she headed to NYC, and stardom. The E Lauder heiress hired Liya, coz AW convinced her that this should be the proper image of the black "chic" woman - very thin, with a flat ***, just like their fave blondes. Linda Evangelista too looks like a joke nowdays - didn't someone inform cosmetics companies that the average woman won't buy products advertised by someone who had obvious massive cosmetic surgey and now looks "ten years younger"? I guess the success of Kate Moss selling Rimmel maskara with her fake eyebrows - despite charges of false advertising by UK authorities - made them more daring... As for Carolyn Murphy - when the Milanese in 1997 called the top US mod crop of the time "boring", they were referring to the likes of Mrs Murphy - why did she give up modelling, to follow her surfer boyfriend to Costa Rica, soon after? It couldn't be that she had an exciting modelling future ahead of her? Of course, the Lauder heiress rescued her too - and now she'll be foisted on the hapless fashion consumer as the leading "glamour" girl (you wondered why she was on the cover of the last Vogue UK? Now you know. You can bet she'll be smiling a lot more from now on...) Btw, if Liya and Carolyn are so good, why did the Lauder family had to bring back the hated (by AW's pals and every "cool" character) Liz Hurley? Maybe the IMG stars weren't selling the product as well as expected?Does all this mean that the usual female Hollywood celebs don't sell anymore? Looking at their faces, I am not surprised...Then again, if some US semi-celebs demand half a million dollars to show up in a Chanel campaign, maybe the fashion mags and the cash-strapped conglomerates need a cheaper alternative...but something that the average consumer would find acceptable.You'll hear a lot of stuff about modelling in the 90s and "supermodels" this season, with the Madonna movie coming up, auto companies coming out with "Fashion" car models and all that - but do these characters really believe they can sell sell revisionist history? They may think people were high on cocaine/heroin - like most of them - in the mid and late 90s, and didn't know what was going on - or that they didn't read magazines and don't remember what fashion models looked like in 95/96/97/98.I'll certainly be around to remind everyone.Why can't these assholes SIMPLY ACCEPT THAT THEY f*cked UP, AND THEIR "QUIRKY" EXPERIMENT WENT BELLY-UP? Of course, that would mean that they are incompetent - like I have been claiming all along. And what about all the "London stylists" who championed the "quirky" look since 1994? Will they now have to find "beautiful" models? Will their mods now get automatic entry into the "hip in NYC" model charts? Is Karen Elson (and Co) going to be "glamourised", so that her illustrious career continues for another decade? Oh well...And of course, the infamous Ivan Bart of IMG Models couldn't be left out from the circus:"... There will be a return to glamour," Mr. Bart predicted. He is not suggesting a return to the Golden Age of supermodels. But the addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures of the catwalks will probably be pushed to the margins, he maintained, to make way for a new breed of swan..." Wot - so all those weirdo faces he was hawking for the past 6-7 years were not really "glamorous"? How many beauty/cosmetics customers got swindled then? Coz they were sold exactly the same "alien" catwalk queens!!! Will IMG reveal which of their hip mods look like "addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures"? Not that I don't really know, but there are plenty of clueless types out there..."...five years ago (1999 that is) a lifetime in mannequin years... was an era when runway divas like Gisele Bundchen, all screen-siren contours and luminous cheeks, were almost an anomaly in an industry dominated by raw, quirky beauties ? the likes of Stella Tennant and Eleonora Bose. What Mr. Bart had sniffed out, long ahead of his time, was a shift in fashion's wind, one that has gathered the force in recent months to spawn a trend..."Most of Gisele's contours (like her 86 cm hips) never really impressed anyone, I think it was her breast size that did it... That was a reference to how Mr Bart got impressed when he saw K Kurkova on the catwalk (is she about to join IMG?) - first time he felt that, since the Claudia S days...So - Ivan B "sniffed" that years after he was busy selling Anouck L and countless other 76cm chest and 24+ y.o. walking closet weirdos, his customers would demand Claudia S type "swaying" babes? The same Claudia S everyone in NYC called "terminally boring" in 97-98? Maybe his "sniffing" abilities couldn't go that far back in time... In other words, if Ivan B and Co had "sniffed" far ahead of time, maybe we could have sticked to the original "conventional beauties" and wouldn't have to put up with models without "real identity and a memorable face", "marginal and often unremarkable faces", who "don't inspire any kind of longing", or "addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures of the catwalks"Reminds me of the IMG roster btw... As for where the "fashion wind" blows - my hairy ***!!! They say that now, when G Armani and R Cavalli finally sold out to Ivan B and Co, and are using the likes or Erin Wasson and J Wheeler and Amanda Moore in their campaigns ? (do these IMG mods qualify as "addicts aliens or forlorn creatures" btw?) Who the hell demanded a return to conventional beauty? Viv Westwood or G Ferre? S Meisel? Katie Grand? M Testino? Can you name ONE person who demanded a return to "conventional" beauty up to two months ago?Weren't AW and Co doing just fine, selling their usual product? These characters faced no real opposition fromanyone in fashion - they have only one (but VERY big) problem - that the consumer said "f*ck you" to them, every day for these 6-7 years After the "It Girl" market segment got wiped out, long before 9/11, Ivan B and Co tried to sell their weirdos to the upper middle class, to older women, to just about anyone - but very few bought the goods. Then, they tried beauty/cosmetics - Erin Wasson is not exactly a huge success for Maybelline, and that is the best IMG can offer - the bloody consumers still like Josie Maran better! What all this really is - AN ADMISSION OF A MASSIVE MARKETING FAILURE, INVOLVING EVERYONE WHO WAS IN CONTROL SINCE 1998 - THE CONGLOMERATE BOSSES, THE EDITRIXES, THE FASHION PR TYPES, THE STYLISTS, THE MODEL BOSSES, THE HIP AGENTS The fact that the "quirky" period in fashion modelling coincided with a period of negative -or at least unexciting- financial performances for high fashion magazines and fashion design firms alike, may be just a coincidence...The only two major companies really doing great profit-wise (without needing acquisitions) in the past 5-7 years were G Armani and R Lauren , which, by amazing coincidence, used non-"Vogue approved" and "uncool" models - although lately Giorgio sold out to AW's operatives, I bet his profits will head south soon...Speculation - there is really only one way out of all this for the "quirky" crowd, if this return to "beauty" doesn't work (and assuming it is not another single season trend)- they can blame everything on the "trendsetter", A Wintour. Nothing would suprise me anymore! Like I said - hold on to your sickbag as the "conventional beauties" (the Ivan Bart version anyway) show up - this will be fun !!!!!!
http://newmodels.blogspot.com/
thats the link of the site I found it on.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Hold on to your sickbag - "aspirational" models are about to hit NYC... You knew something weird was going on - first some bozo claims that the usual suspects are ready "to explore good taste", starting this Fall. Then, US Vogue mentions the word "supermodel" again - and is ready to feature fashion models instead of celebs on its September issue cover! The latest "Vogue supermodel", Natalia Vodianova, seems to be absent from the group - there is something fishy here...and the original "Vogue supermodel" - Gisele that is - will be on the Sept H Bazaar cover, alone - which may be a problem! The NYTimes "reveal" what's behind all that...(free registration needed)"...We are trying to bring back the concept of models with a real identity and a memorable face," said Raul Martinez, a partner in A/R Media, whose clients include Versace. " I think we've kind of lost that for a while. When was the last time you looked at a model and said to yourself, `My God, she is a stunner'?"..." Gee wheez Mr Martinez - wasn't it yourself, your photographers/stylists and the rest of the voguey crowd who tried so hard to kill the fashion supermodel and the "memorable" and "stunning" faces? Why was model recycling/turnover so popular in NYC? Didn't your friendly model agents proudly hype "non-descript" models just a couple of seasons ago? Why did the "biz" bring the "knobbly-kneed Belgians" to the forefront and told the glam Brazilians that "they shouldn't bother showing up for castings" just before the Milan shows three years ago? What was wrong with the Brazilians? They became too popular for their own good? As for "stunners" - there are those who appeal to straight men, and those who appeal to the types who enjoy watching drag queen acts in certain clubs - it would be useful to define exactly which kind of "stunner" the "biz" wants to promote from now on - although I did like B Nielsen myself..."... The new generation of models "are much less sulky, tough or waiflike," said Cindy Gallop, the president of the New York office of Bartle Bogle Hegarty, which has created ad campaigns for brands like Levi's. "These days we seem to be going for a much more luminous, movie-star feel."..." "much less waiflike" - does this mean models won't be told to lose a lot of weight before they can get high fashion jobs anymore? I doubt it. The whole NYC "Top 50" needs to be thrown into the trash can if "waiflike" mods are no longer "trendy" - even Isabelli was forced to lose a massive amount of weight before she could become officially "hip"."...Fashion's relentless focus on marginal, and often unremarkable, faces has engendered its own fatigue, said Linda Wells, the editor of Allure magazine. "We're tired of seeing models who don't inspire some kind of longing," Ms. Wells said. "We just want to be seduced again by a more conventional type of beauty."Wow - how many Allure covers did Mrs Wells give to "unremarkable" fashion models? Does this mean that "remarkable" models were left without jobs on purpose? (Get ready for the next lawsuit..) Maybe she is among the ones responsible for getting people "tired"? Was all that done on her own free will, or was she following orders from higher Conde Nast echelons? Not that yours truly didn't notice that high fashion "beauty" was hardly "conventional", but there is a whole army of clueless suckers out there who kept comparing the Vogue/Allure faces to the pre-1998 "conventional beauty" models - maybe it's time they find out what was really going on...btw, if Vogue models too are "marginal and often uremarkable" - since that was what fashionable trends dictated, until now - why are the very same mods being recycled for the Sept. "beauty" cover? What changed? They got a new "Meisel makeover job"? One small detail - what about the mods who had their eybrows shaved my Meisel in the past? They had little troube getting "beauty" jobs lately - in fact the Parisienne, who have a "beauty" tradition, loved them. Maybe some need to be re-educated?I would love to know who exactly are these "marginal and often uremarkable" faces - although you only have to look at which agencies were the hippest in the past few years, and their "top" model lists...When Women Agency head honcho Rowland goes to Brazil, talks some crap like "any Brazilian mod is OK for NYC and international fashion, as long as she dosn't look Latin" and then picks Eliana Weirich , claiming that she looks like Jackie O or Cleopatra or whatever - not even close btw - isn't it obvious what kind of "beauty" the hip NYC agents were after? It certainly isn't "conventional" beauty, as "conventional" people define it...Shana Zadrick, Meisel's old fave, again in US Vogue?
"... Now, as in the era of Linda, Christy, Naomi and their lissome cohort, the screen-siren look of the hour is heavily indebted to stylized photography and fastidious grooming: crimson lips, powdered faces and cataracts of wavy hair. "A celebrity-obsessed audience will seek the sleek, picture-perfect look of the red carpet not only in its film stars but in its models..." Which explains why AW hired Demarchelier, and will probably use more of Lindbergh - and the sort of people who know how to do "stylized" photography. Meanwhile, someone should inform the clueless types at Lancome, who are planning to use "unknown" models, drop "beauty" from their ads and employ "cool" young photographers - please! I am not sure what Meisel has to say about all this - will he go back to Shana Zadrick types???? He usually signals major shifts six or more months ahead - looks like he was cought with his pants down...unless the Devo (remember the men with the flowerpot hats?) impersonators on the cover of the new Vogue Italia are the glam "beauties" he has in mind..."... Insiders applaud the return of an archetypically feminine beauty as a backlash against the eccentric features, bruised-looking makeup and unruly hair of the last decade..." This "last decade" stuff is very suspicious, and a desperate effort to fudge things. Detour - the first half of the 90s was mainly a battle between fashion and grunge (which was anti-fashion, as were the original waifs, and that was evil to AW and Co -rebellion is allowed only if it can help to sell merch) What happened in the second half of the 90s, after grunge went away, was that all these assholes tried to kill the elegant "drop-dead gorgeous woman" that Gianni Versace (but not his talentless sister) championed, the "archetypical" 90s model image (Tatjana Patitz, Eva Herzigova, Claudia S, Carla Bruni, Leticia Casta, Naomi C, etc) - and replace it with the tacky but chic "It Girl", as seen in posh London clubs.People need to differentiate between the "high fashion" supermodel and the mass-market fashion supermodel - the "Trinity" (L Evangelista/C Turlington/N Campbell) died in 1993, and that was the end of the "high fashion" supermodel - the names mentioned above were really mass-market models who still remain popular around the world (Naomi C, too). The "supermodel" phenomenon had spiralled out of control worldwide by 95/96 - although not as popular in the US/UK - and people now demanded "perfect" models, and payed little attention to Amber Valletta, Christy McMenamy, etc types, however hard AW tried. The truth is that Christy T impressed few people outside the fashion world - and Linda E was quickly forgotten after she left Bartez. Cindy Crawford remains the only universally accepted "supermodel", since Naomi C is mostly ignored in the US. Despite some debacles ("heroin chic" slowed them down for a while) the quirky-loving crowd succeeded after 1998, when the old model agency powerhouses - mainly Elite Models - effectively collapsed, and the modelling center swang away from Paris and Milan to NYC, along with much of the photography business. Almost all "major" fashion shows were now being produced by NYC PR firms, and the NYC types also dictate model selection in "major" Paris and Milan shows. The models who wanted to be at the top had to move to NYC - the ones who remained based in Paris or Milan suddenly became "B models" and were locked out of most "hip" campaigns. Modelling agency control - in NYC, as the agencies elsewhere mattered little - was given to some nobodies, most of whom used to get sandwiches and coffee for Casablancas and the old agency bosses (who were rensponsible for many unwise choices themselves). "Given" is the right word, coz the reason they were chosen was the fact they were spineless enough as to pose no real threat to the wills of the real fashion powers - AW and Co would never again allow powerful model agency bosses to dictate who appeared in their mags. The only really "eccentric" - looking models during the 90s were Kate Moss (who once admitted that she was an "anti-model") along with some fellow English gals, the US Vogue superwaifs (Trish Joff, Amber Valletta, etc) and a whole army of mostly US superwaifs who had disappeared by 1997, probably due to drug problems - plus a few quirky faces mostly represented in the mid/late 90s in Europe by Ford Paris (home of Karen Elson, Erin O' Connor, Alek Wek, etc) and Beatrice Milan - and that was it! In fact, these are the very same faces all these characters admire the most !!!!!They better leave the 90s crap aside, or they'll get more mud in their faces..."... Come September, those readers will see Ms. Bundchen on the cover of Harper's Bazaar and on Vogue, where she appears alongside Ms. Kurkova, Carolyn Murphy and Liya Kebede, replacing Hollywood celebrities on the September covers for the first time in many seasons. High-powered models, some of them evergreens like Linda Evangelista and Patti Hansen, will likewise get star billing in a flurry of mainstream ads, among them a multipage insert from Ann Taylor...""Multipage insert from Ann Taylor", ha ha ha - that's how Vogue got to be so thick !!! Liya is a "conventional beauty"? Next to Noemie Lenoir, Oluchi, Jessica White, Yasmin Warsame, etc she looks like a joke. The girl spend four months in Paris and not one agency was interested - before she headed to NYC, and stardom. The E Lauder heiress hired Liya, coz AW convinced her that this should be the proper image of the black "chic" woman - very thin, with a flat ***, just like their fave blondes. Linda Evangelista too looks like a joke nowdays - didn't someone inform cosmetics companies that the average woman won't buy products advertised by someone who had obvious massive cosmetic surgey and now looks "ten years younger"? I guess the success of Kate Moss selling Rimmel maskara with her fake eyebrows - despite charges of false advertising by UK authorities - made them more daring... As for Carolyn Murphy - when the Milanese in 1997 called the top US mod crop of the time "boring", they were referring to the likes of Mrs Murphy - why did she give up modelling, to follow her surfer boyfriend to Costa Rica, soon after? It couldn't be that she had an exciting modelling future ahead of her? Of course, the Lauder heiress rescued her too - and now she'll be foisted on the hapless fashion consumer as the leading "glamour" girl (you wondered why she was on the cover of the last Vogue UK? Now you know. You can bet she'll be smiling a lot more from now on...) Btw, if Liya and Carolyn are so good, why did the Lauder family had to bring back the hated (by AW's pals and every "cool" character) Liz Hurley? Maybe the IMG stars weren't selling the product as well as expected?Does all this mean that the usual female Hollywood celebs don't sell anymore? Looking at their faces, I am not surprised...Then again, if some US semi-celebs demand half a million dollars to show up in a Chanel campaign, maybe the fashion mags and the cash-strapped conglomerates need a cheaper alternative...but something that the average consumer would find acceptable.You'll hear a lot of stuff about modelling in the 90s and "supermodels" this season, with the Madonna movie coming up, auto companies coming out with "Fashion" car models and all that - but do these characters really believe they can sell sell revisionist history? They may think people were high on cocaine/heroin - like most of them - in the mid and late 90s, and didn't know what was going on - or that they didn't read magazines and don't remember what fashion models looked like in 95/96/97/98.I'll certainly be around to remind everyone.Why can't these assholes SIMPLY ACCEPT THAT THEY f*cked UP, AND THEIR "QUIRKY" EXPERIMENT WENT BELLY-UP? Of course, that would mean that they are incompetent - like I have been claiming all along. And what about all the "London stylists" who championed the "quirky" look since 1994? Will they now have to find "beautiful" models? Will their mods now get automatic entry into the "hip in NYC" model charts? Is Karen Elson (and Co) going to be "glamourised", so that her illustrious career continues for another decade? Oh well...And of course, the infamous Ivan Bart of IMG Models couldn't be left out from the circus:"... There will be a return to glamour," Mr. Bart predicted. He is not suggesting a return to the Golden Age of supermodels. But the addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures of the catwalks will probably be pushed to the margins, he maintained, to make way for a new breed of swan..." Wot - so all those weirdo faces he was hawking for the past 6-7 years were not really "glamorous"? How many beauty/cosmetics customers got swindled then? Coz they were sold exactly the same "alien" catwalk queens!!! Will IMG reveal which of their hip mods look like "addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures"? Not that I don't really know, but there are plenty of clueless types out there..."...five years ago (1999 that is) a lifetime in mannequin years... was an era when runway divas like Gisele Bundchen, all screen-siren contours and luminous cheeks, were almost an anomaly in an industry dominated by raw, quirky beauties ? the likes of Stella Tennant and Eleonora Bose. What Mr. Bart had sniffed out, long ahead of his time, was a shift in fashion's wind, one that has gathered the force in recent months to spawn a trend..."Most of Gisele's contours (like her 86 cm hips) never really impressed anyone, I think it was her breast size that did it... That was a reference to how Mr Bart got impressed when he saw K Kurkova on the catwalk (is she about to join IMG?) - first time he felt that, since the Claudia S days...So - Ivan B "sniffed" that years after he was busy selling Anouck L and countless other 76cm chest and 24+ y.o. walking closet weirdos, his customers would demand Claudia S type "swaying" babes? The same Claudia S everyone in NYC called "terminally boring" in 97-98? Maybe his "sniffing" abilities couldn't go that far back in time... In other words, if Ivan B and Co had "sniffed" far ahead of time, maybe we could have sticked to the original "conventional beauties" and wouldn't have to put up with models without "real identity and a memorable face", "marginal and often unremarkable faces", who "don't inspire any kind of longing", or "addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures of the catwalks"Reminds me of the IMG roster btw... As for where the "fashion wind" blows - my hairy ***!!! They say that now, when G Armani and R Cavalli finally sold out to Ivan B and Co, and are using the likes or Erin Wasson and J Wheeler and Amanda Moore in their campaigns ? (do these IMG mods qualify as "addicts aliens or forlorn creatures" btw?) Who the hell demanded a return to conventional beauty? Viv Westwood or G Ferre? S Meisel? Katie Grand? M Testino? Can you name ONE person who demanded a return to "conventional" beauty up to two months ago?Weren't AW and Co doing just fine, selling their usual product? These characters faced no real opposition fromanyone in fashion - they have only one (but VERY big) problem - that the consumer said "f*ck you" to them, every day for these 6-7 years After the "It Girl" market segment got wiped out, long before 9/11, Ivan B and Co tried to sell their weirdos to the upper middle class, to older women, to just about anyone - but very few bought the goods. Then, they tried beauty/cosmetics - Erin Wasson is not exactly a huge success for Maybelline, and that is the best IMG can offer - the bloody consumers still like Josie Maran better! What all this really is - AN ADMISSION OF A MASSIVE MARKETING FAILURE, INVOLVING EVERYONE WHO WAS IN CONTROL SINCE 1998 - THE CONGLOMERATE BOSSES, THE EDITRIXES, THE FASHION PR TYPES, THE STYLISTS, THE MODEL BOSSES, THE HIP AGENTS The fact that the "quirky" period in fashion modelling coincided with a period of negative -or at least unexciting- financial performances for high fashion magazines and fashion design firms alike, may be just a coincidence...The only two major companies really doing great profit-wise (without needing acquisitions) in the past 5-7 years were G Armani and R Lauren , which, by amazing coincidence, used non-"Vogue approved" and "uncool" models - although lately Giorgio sold out to AW's operatives, I bet his profits will head south soon...Speculation - there is really only one way out of all this for the "quirky" crowd, if this return to "beauty" doesn't work (and assuming it is not another single season trend)- they can blame everything on the "trendsetter", A Wintour. Nothing would suprise me anymore! Like I said - hold on to your sickbag as the "conventional beauties" (the Ivan Bart version anyway) show up - this will be fun !!!!!!
http://newmodels.blogspot.com/
thats the link of the site I found it on.
It makes me sad to hear these fashion "authorities" pass judgement on who is beautiful and captivating... and who isn't.
