Why does it matter if... It's not about whether transgendered models in wheelchairs can or can't walk down catwalks. It's not about whether models need to be 7' tall because it makes the clothes look better. There's no point in questioning the judgement of those involved over the details, because it's the whole edifice that's so rotten. Looking for kinder model agencies with meaningful understanding is like looking for cuddly Nazis with good taste in uniforms.
If advertising is the rattling of a stick in the swill bucket, modelling is the inspiration of envy, "Look at this person, up there in the lights. You haven't got that, but give us your money and perhaps you can taste a slice of it".
There was a time when models were anonymous clothes-horses who displayed couture fashions to only those who were likely to buy them. It was perhaps frivolous, but it was honest. Then the mass market arrived. It's impossible to sell everyone the couture dress, so we have to be told that a "brand" is just as good. Think about that a moment - you can't have the dress, but you can stick the same label onto a sack and wear that. Does this really make any sense? With the brand, we're no longer being sold the dress, we're being sold an aspiration to a created lifestyle. Now we start to respond to "supermodels" too. If we're not permitted to look too closely at the dress (we can't afford that) then what else is there? The people and their social whirl of parties as an aspiration. Kate or Naomi are the brands, the recognisable identity, of these ethereal life-aspirations just as length of chain for a strap says Gucci. It's not the product, it's only the recognisable signifier of it - but we're still dumb enough to fall for it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-08-14 01:57 pm (UTC)It's not about whether transgendered models in wheelchairs can or can't walk down catwalks. It's not about whether models need to be 7' tall because it makes the clothes look better. There's no point in questioning the judgement of those involved over the details, because it's the whole edifice that's so rotten. Looking for kinder model agencies with meaningful understanding is like looking for cuddly Nazis with good taste in uniforms.
If advertising is the rattling of a stick in the swill bucket, modelling is the inspiration of envy, "Look at this person, up there in the lights. You haven't got that, but give us your money and perhaps you can taste a slice of it".
There was a time when models were anonymous clothes-horses who displayed couture fashions to only those who were likely to buy them. It was perhaps frivolous, but it was honest. Then the mass market arrived. It's impossible to sell everyone the couture dress, so we have to be told that a "brand" is just as good. Think about that a moment - you can't have the dress, but you can stick the same label onto a sack and wear that. Does this really make any sense? With the brand, we're no longer being sold the dress, we're being sold an aspiration to a created lifestyle. Now we start to respond to "supermodels" too. If we're not permitted to look too closely at the dress (we can't afford that) then what else is there? The people and their social whirl of parties as an aspiration. Kate or Naomi are the brands, the recognisable identity, of these ethereal life-aspirations just as length of chain for a strap says Gucci. It's not the product, it's only the recognisable signifier of it - but we're still dumb enough to fall for it.