The world is sick and tired revolving around you

[venta]

I don't get cross very often. The other day, however, I got really quite cross.

I'd been glancing through one of the BBC's webpage "Have Your Say" outbursts - in which the great unwashed is invited to post its opinions on a particular story. This HYS related to the news that Madrid Fashion Week is banning from its catwalks models with a BMI of less than 18[*], in attempt to fend off allegations that they're promoting poor body image/forcing models to be unnaturally thin/generally being a Bad Thing.

The news didn't make me cross. I'm aware that BMI isn't a particularly sound measure of under- or overweightedness since it doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle mass. On the BBC, the example of Maria Sharapova was much bandied about as a healthy person who has a BMI of 16 (I have no idea why so many people knew this). However, some measure towards preventing the fashion industry exerting pressure on its employees to become ever more emaciated seems like a step in the right direction.

The array of bigoted and arrogant comments didn't even make me cross. "Nobody wants to look at a fat chick in skimpy gear", "anything over a size 12 is overweight anyway", "girls, stay on a diet, please, or stay at home". I fully appreciate that these people have the right to these opinions (even if I also reserve the right to think they're twats).

The assumption that huge numbers of people leapt to - that banning underweight models would mean that the catwalks would be full of obese models - didn't so much make me cross as confuse me utterly.

What, in the end, made me stop reading in a fit of bilious frothing was the quite commonly-held belief that, given our world's rising obesity levels, women need underweight catwalkers as role-models. People who sounded like otherwise quite rational beings were citing the health problems caused by exccess weight, the dangers of pregnancy when overweight and so on and arguing that the last thing Madrid Fashion Week should be doing was "sending the message that it's OK to be fat". The very people who ought to have been applauding a move towards glamourising a healthy weight were criticising it.

Mind you, it does mean that I might take more interest in Madrid Fashion Week than I usually do, which may have been the idea all along. I'm quite curious as to which models will make it down the runway.

[*] Just in case: Body Mass Index is a means of sorting people into rough bands of "underweight", "normal", "overweight", etc. You calculate it by diving your weight (in kilos) by the square of your height (in metres). From memory, 18.5/19 is generally recognised to be about the minimum BMI you can reach before being classified as underweight. Incidentally, if you work in real money, it turns out you can use your weight in pounds and height in inches, and multiply the whole bunch by 705 and come out with about the right answer.

Comments

[erming.livejournal.com]

Hmmm,

the thing that puzzles me is why women buy the stuff these super thin models are wearing.

Having seen glimpses of Elle etc on the train, the women don't look attractive, they look ill. Too pale (no skin tones), washed out, too thin (and this from someone who likes slender women), no shape and generally not that attractive.

If they are saying you should wear this as men will like you then they are well off target, as it hasn't been since Claudia Schiffer and Cindy Crawford graced the catwalk that there were catwalk models pretty much liked by both men and women.

If you can bare it, take a glimpse at the covers of men's magazines (like Loaded and Nuts) and look at the women there. They are curvy (and while no doubt quite a bit is silicone, they have shape) they have skin tones etc.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

If you can bare it

Was that a pun ?

<Paddington-style hard stare>

[erming.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, well I did originally write bear then thought it looked wrong so type bare.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

But you're assuming that the bench mark of feminine beauty is how attracted men are to you. For a long time studies have shown that men and women find different things beautiful in women. Beautiful is not necessarily the same as sexy, even assuming such concepts are universal, which of course they're not. Not everyone's main goal in life is to be attractive to the opposite sex, desite the vastly overrated value society as a whole places on that.

Also, modelling is not about the models looking good, it's about the clothes looking good. If women are buying clothes based on those photos, it's not so much about how the women look as how the clothes look. And a fashion editorial is certainly not saying 'men like this', they're saying 'we like this, us in-the-know fashionistas, and we're the experts'.

Also, when it comes to body-image, we're not primarily talking about models - singers and actresses have more impact on how women want to look. And the reason they all 'have' to be thin is because they (supposedly) look better on screen that way. For one thing, it really is a fact that the camera adds weight. But for another, when you see someone on a movie/video screen, you generally get a very different impression of them from real life. They don't look real - they're more like cartoon characters - and so we place different requirements on them.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

For one thing, it really is a fact that the camera adds weight.

Nope. Having seen quite a number of people both IRL and on telly I have to say this is not true.

Particularly surprised to see you supporting this myth given that you know more than enough psychology to speculate about the causes of the misperception.

There are some people on TV very occasionally who break the body shape stereotype. And unsurprisingly there is no magical problem after all - they look great too.

Also, modelling is not about the models looking good, it's about the clothes looking good.

True enough, but I've frequently heard women complain that they cannot assess how clothes will look on themselves by looking at them on a model who's a completely different shape. The current approach of the modelling and fashion industries to this is very much self-reinforcing: fashion is only for slim figures so there's no problem that models are all slim because the designers don't design for anyone else anyway. And then at the entry level nobody moves into the industry if they don't like this setup, because you can't generate the buzz required if those in the know ignore your work.

The aim is not to consign all slim women to the dustbin and populate the fashion world with the latest template shape designed around some modal average male preference. The aim is (or should be) to have a fashion and modelling industry that reflects the same diversity of forms and beauty found across the population as a whole. Not-remotely-famous niche designers have proven that it can be done again and again, there is no longer any question of some mythical "good reason" existing.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

Nope. Having seen quite a number of people both IRL and on telly I have to say this is not true.

We'll have to disagree on this one. I also have seen plenty of people both IRL and on tv, and believe it *is* true. Ditto for photos. Flat images of people will always look different from seeing things in three dimensions with your own eyes. Similarly, moving people look very different from static people. But as well as that, our eyes are *used* to seeing a more slender figure on tv, and therefore thin people *look* less thin to us on a screen than they would to our naked eyes. One factor is that we have fewer height cues when watching tv. So we're likely to assume that a thin woman is tall and reasonable weight, rather than tiny and skeletal.

Don't confuse this obbservation with approval of the convention. I too would much rather see a wider range of body types, and like the look of 'larger' ones too.

True enough, but I've frequently heard women complain that they cannot assess how clothes will look on themselves by looking at them on a model who's a completely different shape.

Completely true! Clothes on a model are absolutely no indication of how they will look on *you*. If they were, shops would do a lot less business. The simple fact is that leaner frames can pull off clothes than curvier ones can't, and clothes for lean people are in fashion over clothes for curvy ones, partly (or largely) because the convention now is that models should be lean. Therefore, most women don't lok anything like models in photos if they copy their clothes. Again, don't confuse this observation with any degree of approval. Models can't pull off clothes for curvy people either. A good recent example is the way that Keira Knightley looked bloody awful in her regency frocks in Pride and Prejudice - she just didn't have the curves for them. Immodestly Blaise in some hourglass-fishtail frock is going to look fabulous, Keira Knightley in same frock is probably going to look rubbish. But we're not talking about hourglass frocks when it comes to fashion, at least not usually. We're usual. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The aim is not to consign all slim women to the dustbin and populate the fashion world with the latest template shape designed around some modal average male preference. The aim is (or should be) to have a fashion and modelling industry that reflects the same diversity of forms and beauty found across the population as a whole.

Completely agreed.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

our eyes are *used* to seeing a more slender figure on tv, and therefore thin people *look* less thin to us

Interesting thought. Maybe the reason I don't think people look heavier on TV is because I watch very nearly no TV ?

(And no, I didn't take your earlier comments as implying approval of the stuff you were describing.)

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

Interesting thought. Maybe the reason I don't think people look heavier on TV is because I watch very nearly no TV ?

That could well have something to do with it. I think also people don't realise how unnatural most tv and film looks, in the sense that it's coloured differently, contrasted differently, etc, from normal perception. If a show you watch has ever changed stocks halfway through, you'll know what I mean. For example, the new series of Scrubs looks very different from previous ones - it looks more glam and glossy somehow, more sitcommy, and therefore I feel more distanced from it. They must have changed stock.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I remember noticing at quite an early age that it was easy to distinguish between (say) news footage of people walking down a road and the equivalent people walking down the equivalent road in a film/sitcom set up.

Everything just looks different - though even now I couldn't quite define why. I'd be interested to know whether a person's weight is "altered" in the same way in random footage as opposed to "produced" television.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Two thoughts:

a) First, I've abandoned all hope I ever had of rising through the Patriarchy by eventually dominating the women's fashion market.* Near as I can tell, the Patriarchy had nothing to do with it and couldn't control it if it wanted to do so. Data point one in reaching that conclusion: most models in magazines that men look at to see women with their clothes off wouldn't fit in the clothing worn by models that women read to look at women with the clothes on. (Which basically echoes Floralaetifica's point regarding the idea that fashionistas aren't looking good for men, or at least not the same subset of men.)

b) A random data point on "looking larger on screen." When I last went through the security line at Heathrow, they were checking a new device that uses some kind of imagine to "strip search" you without your having to undress. I got to see the image, which made me look pretty much like I was starkers with a strangely-floating belt-buckle floating beneath my navel.

Chatting briefly with the security guard--it takes a while for the image to form--he mentioned that one downside of the device was that because the image attempts to map a curved surface to a flat screen (and to show slightly more than your profile), you end up looking a good deal heavier. They'd received a lot of negative feedback from people who didn't mind so much the idea of people seeing them in CGI-nudity, but did mind that it made them look fat. I asked him why they just didn't modify the image as it went through the projector, and he commented that they'd tried, but between the natural addition of pounds on camera and the somewhat skewed perspective, any attempt at correction was doomed. (He added that it made people look like some British cartoon characters from before my time.)

*Use of "Patriarchy" a tongue-in-cheek joke that shows my age. I'm informed that not even academic feminists rant about this anymore.

[eostar.livejournal.com]

I also have seen plenty of people both IRL and on tv, and believe it *is* true.

I've heard my brother, who is a photographer, say that it *is* true that the camera can add weight, for the reasons you've outlined in this and your previous comment.

Even IRL perspective can have a distorting effect. I'm about average height at 5'7". In silhouette, I look tall and slim, seen from the front, I appear large and shorter than I am, because I have a broad skeleton ...

[venta.livejournal.com]

Clothes on a model are absolutely no indication of how they will look on *you*.

The more I see of fashion photography, the more I'm convinced it isn't about clothes after all.

I confess to reading fashion magazines (because I find the trends incredibly interesting, even if they have no effect on my jeans and t-shirts). Around 90% of the full-page glossy ads therein show a model, a mood, some weather, some random objects... and probably, in there somewhere, a dress. The caption will dutifully tell you that it the dress is a silk and wool mix by Nicole Farhi (necklace model's own), but you can't actually see the damn dress and thus have no idea if it's long, short, straight, full, or indeed actually just an artistically draped blanket.

I'm permanently deeply confused by Mango's apporach, too. They make their trousers very long, and if the answer was that I'm short and need to take them up, I'd understand. However, their catalogue shots always show models with with a beautifully ruffled pool of overlong trouser leg lying round their feet. Which looks lovely, but is hopeless if you intend to do anything other than stand on the spot.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

Nope. Having seen quite a number of people both IRL and on telly I have to say this is not true.

A quick addendum - to support my assertion that this is in fact true, I would like to remind you of the way people who have met a famous person often say, 'They were so *little* and *thin*!' They're perception of them from seeing them on tv was that they were taller and wider than they are in reality. Without our usual cues, we misjudge height and weight on screen all the time.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

If women are buying clothes based on those photos, it's not so much about how the women look as how the clothes look.

Got to agree with bateleur on this one. I have on many occasions agonised over buying clothes, usually finally deciding not to risk it, because plus-sized clothes are often shown on normal-sized models. They look very nice, but give me no indication whether they'll still look good when my belly/hips are added into the equation.

I still own a number of rather expensive dresses that I bought on the basis of how they looked on normal-sized models. If I wear them, I look like a refugee from the nearest camping shop.

On the bright side, this results in me spending a lot less money on clothes.

[(Anonymous)]

Got to agree with [info]bateleur on this one. I have on many occasions agonised over buying clothes, usually finally deciding not to risk it, because plus-sized clothes are often shown on normal-sized models. They look very nice, but give me no indication whether they'll still look good when my belly/hips are added into the equation.

I completely agree. But I never said fashion photography was about making clothes look good on *you* (you in the sense of the general population, rather than you, lanfykins). It's really, really not. It's about making them look good *in the photo*, so that you want them, regardless of how they would look on your actual body.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

Crap, forgot to log in agian.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

I guessed :)

But they can make the clothes look good and me want them all they want - at the bottom line, if I don't know how they'd look on me, I won't buy them.

The question is how much they're hurting their bottom line - profit - with their stance.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

at the bottom line, if I don't know how they'd look on me, I won't buy them.

I don't think everyone's so sensible, though. Many people have no idea what suits them, so it's easy to get swept up in the aspiration thing. And you don't have to be dim to fall prey to this. My mental image of my body is quite different from reality, I think, as I'm always shocked when I catch a glimpse of myself in the wall-length mirror mid dance class. I'm distinctly shorter and hippier than I think I am!

[venta.livejournal.com]

if I don't know how they'd look on me, I won't buy them.

You maybe wouldn't now, but the number of expensive dresses you claimed to own, unworn, suggests you used to.

If everyone buys half a dozen posh frocks before they learn, the designers are still quids in :)

[venta.livejournal.com]

What is also quite annoying is that (if you examine the backs) clothes always have to be pinned to fit shop mannequins. So, someone has determined the most pleasing[*] shape for clothes, and made mannequins that shape. No one, however, makes clothes that fit that shape... because practically no one has a tiny waist. So the mannequins sit there, looking stylish, with six inches of useless fabric gathered up inartistically in the small of their plastic backs.

On the other hand, a friend of mine naturally has a freakishly small waist, and is approximately the dimensions of a shop mannequin (only with better conversation). Thus she can't find any clothes to fit her, because whatever something looks like she'd have to pin up six inches of useless fabric at the back...

It's all very, very silly.

[*] by some arbitrary metric.

[marjory.livejournal.com]

Ha! And ha! again!

This similarly reminds me of men's clothes shops. Where we are there is a shop which sells an awful lot of Hugo Boss gear. Recently (again) the window was full of corduroy suits. Naturally these look good on a) the models (because they're models, innit?) b) the mannequins, because in Germany, to sell suits you have to undertake a long course of training concerning everything involving the selkling and merchandising of suits. When you look in the window from behind, the poor mannequins look very tortured with, as you say, swathes of fabric clipped, pinned and gathered together elaborately.

Of course one may pay to have said suit adjusted so that one does not have to wander around clipped and pinned together. In the meantime, there are a dreadful number of men in town who, despite professional adjustment to their apparel, look like geography teachers in corduroy suits originally designed for people who are an entirely different shape...