happycanadian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 8,207
- Reaction score
- 271
oh please -- Kate Moss is UNarguably a true SUPERMODEL. no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it. she changed the face of fashion, is truly a household name, still makes millions and millions in contracts. she's one of the most SUPER of the Supermodels (and i'm not even that much of a fan).
Gemma is nowhere near being a household name. she simply isn't famous enough to be considered a supermodel. sure, she may have all the rest of the attributes; successful high fashion career, loads of contracts, etc etc. but she has little-to-no commercial viability, and the ability to relate commercially to people in all the developed nations is truly the mark of a Supermodel. it has to be INTERNATIONAL.
Heidi, Tyra, Laetitia, Rebecca Romijn --- these girls have acquired fame by means of pure commercial marketability. just because they weren't gracing the pages of Vogue or W or Harper's each month doesn't make them any less well-known, and if ever any of them are ever mentioned in the press, their names are prefixed by "Supermodel..." or "Former Supermodel..." OR they've used their fame as a model to transition to some other form of work in the entertainment world, and their adjective might be "Actress" or "Producer", "Talk-show host", (*or all of the above RE: Tyra*). they are definitely SUPERMODELS, though they've moved beyond that. Heidi and Tyra took the commercial side of the Cindy Crawford formula and made major major careers out of it. Would people consider Elle MacPherson to be a Supermodel? OF COURSE. was she ever successful in the world of High Fashion? NO.
point is: a Supermodel is really only a model who has become FAMOUS internationally. someone whom your parents or little brother knows their name. that's why Gemma is not one and Kate is.
Gemma is nowhere near being a household name. she simply isn't famous enough to be considered a supermodel. sure, she may have all the rest of the attributes; successful high fashion career, loads of contracts, etc etc. but she has little-to-no commercial viability, and the ability to relate commercially to people in all the developed nations is truly the mark of a Supermodel. it has to be INTERNATIONAL.
Heidi, Tyra, Laetitia, Rebecca Romijn --- these girls have acquired fame by means of pure commercial marketability. just because they weren't gracing the pages of Vogue or W or Harper's each month doesn't make them any less well-known, and if ever any of them are ever mentioned in the press, their names are prefixed by "Supermodel..." or "Former Supermodel..." OR they've used their fame as a model to transition to some other form of work in the entertainment world, and their adjective might be "Actress" or "Producer", "Talk-show host", (*or all of the above RE: Tyra*). they are definitely SUPERMODELS, though they've moved beyond that. Heidi and Tyra took the commercial side of the Cindy Crawford formula and made major major careers out of it. Would people consider Elle MacPherson to be a Supermodel? OF COURSE. was she ever successful in the world of High Fashion? NO.
point is: a Supermodel is really only a model who has become FAMOUS internationally. someone whom your parents or little brother knows their name. that's why Gemma is not one and Kate is.