Quote from: regina on September 04, 2007, 07:01:24 AM
You can't separate the model on the catwalk from the clothes. Why do you think they hire really expensive models for NY fashion week? The catwalk is about fantasy and projecting yourself onto the models and clothes and making you want the entire package.
Why do
you think these models are expensive? The NY Fashion Week is one of the largest events in the Fashion quadrant. Naturally
good designers show their work through
good models. The catwalk is about Fashion, yet can paint work without a canvas? I don't think so[...] The
full package is necessary to present a vision. Though as I said before: the model is a tool.
Quote
That's because most MEDIA covers the models more than the fashion. Yes, in Elle or Marie Claire you see the fashion emphasized (less so in the US editions) but the media that most people consume are more interested in Naomi Campbell or Kate Moss and how messed up they are this week. Fashion is a commodity and the way that commodity is sold is through the media. Whatever view you have of fashion is filtered through the media's lens.
Wait, I thought media covered famous people?...
A model can be a famous person, so can be an actor: they're famous people -- media covers famous people.
Kate Moss isn't Fashion. Fashion is Fashion. Fashion is Art. As I said: there's a simple flawed perception on Fashion when individuals rather see the model than the pieces; there's an incorrect focus, and more frustrating: there is a stereotypical image (gag-worthy). If there's anyone to blame it isn't the
information provider, it's the
recipent, and to some degree the
noise in the communication process (which can be viewed as both one-way and two-way). When it comes to Fashion as a product: Media functions as a medium (magazine-wise), but I have to agree, in the style of the communication guru (global village) that the medium can be the message. However, that's a whole different discussion on its own.
QuoteThat decision was based on a model who died due to her thinness. Try telling her parents and friends it was ridiculous.
Either you are twisting my words or didn't understant my initial point.
Declining healthy models with a body index below eighteen: ridiculous.
Stating anorexia is ridiculous: ridiculous.
However, to push the Fashion Industry forward as the responsible one, and victimising it by completely disregarding the genetic markers for anorexia, and also not putting question marks at why this friend and those parents or an outside source never decided to ring the alarm bell by informing those who could have helped her: ridiculous.
Quote
Okay, Jade was never called a '->-bleeped-<-', J. Alexander made a comment about Jaslene (who won last season) having certain ->-bleeped-<--ish aspects to the way she presents herself.
Ah right, Jade was called a Dragqueen.
QuoteKim was a dyke, so somehow, they had to comment about her supposed 'androgynousness'. I didn't find her androgynous in the least. Her bone structure was very soft (maybe too soft for a high fashion model) and compared to some people like Carrie Dee (the winner two seasons ago) she looked positively girly. To put it in perspective, famous trans model from the 80s, Teri Toye, was often referred to as adrogynous even though there was nothing especially 'hard' looking about her. Guess why they said that?
Well, at least we agree on one point