I feel like putting my two cents into this Gemma discussion.......
When I first saw her I thought she was "yet another" baby-faced girl. I mean that she absolutely didn't seem to be some kind of a new trend, but, rather, a contribution into the already existing and even slightly over-exploited one, at least, to me. However, as some time has passed since she first appeared, now it looks like/as if she indeed was a new trend, something I couldn't imagine she would be considered, back then. I think this might be what it all comes down to. If she was, indeed a trend-setter she is definately here to stay even when her babish looks are gone. The trend-setters somehow do stay around even when what made them those in the first place is no longer relevant. However, if she was, rather, the most obvious example of the trend that started before her, there is a chance she'll be gone either with the trend or when she no longer lives up to it.
I don't think, though, that whether she will or won't be there in five years time depends on the fact that models no longer become famous in the eyes of the general public. I'm particularly good at fashion history, but I doubt Twiggy was famous because models in general were famous at her time. I believe she rather lived in a simular era in the industry to what it is now (although, I may be wrong, so you are welcomed to correct me, if so
).
And I don't really know as to whether she's really beautiful or not. Sometimes I look at her pics and she looks classically beautiful or something like that, other times just weird and not as beautiful at all.
Personally, I would probably like Gemma gone, but, as famous and in demand as she is now, it is VERY DIFFICULT to imagine.
so this is hard to tell what will be her staying power because aging the facical and body structure changes, but the one thing we can no for sure that each year a new crop of girls will come in and try to unseat ( is that a word) the next big model
SI stands for Sports Illustrated, right ?
