What Makes a Supermodel?

[SiennaInLondon]

Lilykarebare: "I hate to say it, but I don't think that the supermodel era will ever return."

I think there is no such thing as the 'supermodel era' that is nonsense. Supers still exist and are being created (very very few per generation and definately not as many as are given the oft used term) but they aren't immortal. OF COURSE you remember them -it was only one/two decades ago. Nobody will remember them in a hundred years any more than people know who Clara Bow is. It is only really writers and political leaders who are remembered. People will know who Kate Moss it in twenty years because she is a super no doubt. And Gisele also. But no longer than that. Who knows Verushka? Or Penelope Tree? Some people on this board need to get over the idea of the 90s Trinity just as I need to get over the idea of Kate Moss. The supermodel era wasn't one period in time at all, it is just the most recent era in time. Admittedly it was when the word 'supermodel' first gained widespread use but the word just illustrates the concept. This is why I disagree with HappyCanadian when he says,

"the only TRUE supermodels are the ones for whom the term was coined, Linda, Naomi, Cindy, Christy & Claudia."

I bet the greats of the twenties were as great then (maybe not models but society girls which is the social equivalent before the gloabalisation of beauty. Later people like the Paleys and the Rothschilds and the Gettys and the Astors) but who cares about them now?

 

[Missoni~Heiress]

What about gemma ward?

 

[_hannah]

gemma is a supermodel on the model industry but if you ask whoever who is naomi campbell they'll see who is it but if you say gemma ward.... they won't know.

 

[Missoni~Heiress]

oh ok ^

I think people mistake perfection with supermodels when they all have their flaws... and i think their flaws make them unique...

 

[_hannah]

i don't see what you mean...

 

[amphrosyne]

^ basically like Moss's snaggletooth and stuff like that. I think thats what she means..

 

[_hannah]

oh i see.... some flaws make some models being supermodels ?

 

[happycanadian]

i guess so . . ..

but i certainly am struggling to find any sort of flaws in Christy, Linda, Naomi, Claudia, Cindy. . . :S

 

[Missoni~Heiress]

like kate isnt as tall as most

cindy wasnt rail thin

tara wasnt rail thin

 

[happycanadian]

but when these women came out "rail thin" wasn't even remotely popular or desirable --- so for that era, they were basically flawless.

and by "tara", i'm guess you typoed "Tyra" right? in my opinion, she was virtually flawless when she came out as well. only recently since she's put on weight is there anything she could improve upon.

 

[amphrosyne]

^ what you're saying is that standards change, standards are different (when you mentioned "in my opinion"). Thus essentially, there is no definite perfection. Basically we all know her point: each supermodel has her unique quirk(s).

 

[happycanadian]

sure. that's also why i said, "for that era..."

but the difference is that it was in THAT era that the term "supermodel" really came into popularity. so it is usually from that definition that we still hold the girls today. that's why these young girls, as pretty and successful as they may be, just don't fit the mold. again --- aside from someone obvious like Gisele or Karolina

 

[ShanaLucas]

::sigh::Why am I even bothering with this when I should be working?

The word 'supermodel' has transcended from its original meaning. It means a lot of things to different people these days. The word 'supermodel' was originally intended for those models that went beyond the realm of fashion and entered into pop culturedom. Now, it can be applied to any successful model, whether that model is a regular household name or not.

Now of course, we could delve much deeper and try to define whether pop culture is defined my US standards or European or whatever...but we'd get into some unnecessary shouting matches over semantics. So I'll just stop now...

 

[eword]

again... two options:
a) we stick to the original meaning and so maybe only gisele is maybe partially a supermodel nowadays;
b) we change the meaning and we identify supermodels with topmodels, so there's a lot of supermodels around.

personally i think the first option is more appropriate, cos it enables to define a certain past cultural issue.

 

[lilykarebare]

Lilykarebare: "I hate to say it, but I don't think that the supermodel era will ever return."

I think there is no such thing as the 'supermodel era' that is nonsense. Supers still exist and are being created (very very few per generation and definately not as many as are given the oft used term) but they aren't immortal. OF COURSE you remember them -it was only one/two decades ago. Nobody will remember them in a hundred years any more than people know who Clara Bow is. It is only really writers and political leaders who are remembered. People will know who Kate Moss it in twenty years because she is a super no doubt. And Gisele also. But no longer than that. Who knows Verushka? Or Penelope Tree? Some people on this board need to get over the idea of the 90s Trinity just as I need to get over the idea of Kate Moss. The supermodel era wasn't one period in time at all, it is just the most recent era in time. Admittedly it was when the word 'supermodel' first gained widespread use but the word just illustrates the concept. This is why I disagree with HappyCanadian when he says,

"the only TRUE supermodels are the ones for whom the term was coined, Linda, Naomi, Cindy, Christy & Claudia."

I bet the greats of the twenties were as great then (maybe not models but society girls which is the social equivalent before the gloabalisation of beauty. Later people like the Paleys and the Rothschilds and the Gettys and the Astors) but who cares about them now?

I'm sorry, but I think you are mostly incorrect. I know exactly who the Rothschilds, the Paleys, the Gettys, and the Astors are. They had a huge influence on today's culture, and even though I'm not a pop culture obsessive, I recognize their significance. I've read enough news articles to understand their contributions to society, and the same applies to Verushka, Penelope Tree, and Clara Bow. I wasn't even born when Linda, Naomi, Cindy, Christy, and Claudia were becoming the big supers, but I still know their faces and major campaigns. Culture is a cyclical machine, and cultural allusions to Penelope Tree have been particularly common nowadays because of the strong "mod" trend a few seasons back. People are educated enough to recognize former icons.

I was referring to the supermodel era of the 80s and 90s, when models and fashion were the largest portion of celebrity scrutiny. While there were some models previously who had been in the public spotlight, there was never a period of such intense focus on fashion's mannequins as there was in those two decades.

Now, the models don't even really register on tabloid pages. Maybe Gisele, and Kate frequently shows up. But I just don't think that there will be that same rabid fashion following. Many people these days don't even know who McQueen or Lagerfeld are. Also, the girls are too avant-garde in the looks department. "Alien" / "Babyface" is the current trend: there isn't the focus on classic beauty that most of the world relates to. People don't find models that attractive anymore.

Not that I don't: I love so many models today. It's just that many people don't like people like Gemma or Daria, saying that they look like freaks. "Too tall, too strange."

 

[eword]

^ a new confirmation that loving daria so much i'm really (proudly) a freak too!

 

[happycanadian]

I think that Linda E. is certainly not what people would call a "classical beauty". she has very sharp, distinguished features. It was more about the PERSONALITY, the CHARACTERS that these supermodels portrayed. that's what all the fuss was about. sure, they were gorgeous, glamorous WOMEN (not young girls), but they also had some kick, some spice.

people are only interested in controversy. that's why we read constantly about the Mischa/Paris/Nicole/Lindsay clan. where's the controversy in Daria, Gemma, Sasha, Lily, Caroline, etc etc?? nobody cares.

and i definitely agree that its more than just the models. people don't know the names of designers anymore. Sure, they know the major HOUSE names, ie: Chanel, Gucci, Dior, etc, but they don't know the actual designers. if you asked a randomly selected group of 100 youths who Hedi Slimane was, i'd wager money that MAAAAAAAYBE 1 would actually know. chances are stronger that not a single person would.

 

[OMIFAN9]

and i definitely agree that its more than just the models. people don't know the names of designers anymore. Sure, they know the major HOUSE names, ie: Chanel, Gucci, Dior, etc, but they don't know the actual designers. if you asked a randomly selected group of 100 youths who Hedi Slimane was, i'd wager money that MAAAAAAAYBE 1 would actually know. chances are stronger that not a single person would.

It was the Supers who got that other percent to know this designer,photographer,or whomever it's like the could sell you anything! And we can sit here and say/mostly subjectives or make excuses for the why today's girls just don't cut it and the Super ear is successful and the standard with 'Oh this person is a classic beauty' like Linda it's not true only the greats can make you think they're classic,modern or whatever. They had tons of looks,versatility,pesonality,lingevity and you don't get that without being special & smart. It's just the 'it' and 'whoa' factors like it or not,that a real Super and that clan has. Thats why 15-20+ years after many of them started Cindy,Naomi,Linda,Christy,etc people still see them,talk & know about them. I don't think we'll see that again. They are like pop culture,you can't really erase pop culture. You see a great video,documentary,show(like a Naomi on the #1 show ever the Cosby Show),your face is on over 400 mags people pay attention, you can't take those things away, you're in the books/history. Some want to make the argument today of 'oh well this one is private(more like uknown,it's not cutting it)' but Hello they're in the fashion(entertainment)business, this is a business everyone wants to be remembered,make money,be respected and I refuse to think otherwise. If they wanted to be unknowns,not reach they're full potential,not make all the money that they can,Than they never would've got into the business. They would've just been at home modeling for themselves or whatever.

 

[marsmars]

Looking at the word: SUPER-MODEL

Super = Uber, large amount, a lot of, bigtime, good.

Model = One who puts clothing on and acts as a "model" for it.

A Supermodel is someone who does a large amount of modeling.

Now you just have to define, "large amount".

A model who also acted in major movies is not a supermodel, she/he is a super/regular model who crossed into being an actor/actress.

Sorry to be so technical, but it's true.

The word isn't: super-model (where it could be either super or model). It's one word. Super effects the term model, a verb, a noun, a job. There's a clear relationship.

 

[Joseph26]

Thats why 15-20+ years after many of them started Cindy,Naomi,Linda,Christy,etc people still see them,talk & know about them. I don't think we'll see that again. They are like pop culture,you can't really erase pop culture.

that's right, Claudia, Cindy and Naomi were POP STARS like Madonna and Michael Jackson, now the poor models can't even get a decent cover.