[The Sartorialist - Aug.29/09]
This month Glamour magazine ran this photograph which has created quite a stir here in the US.
It seems women desperately want more images that highlight the variety of beauty that the female form has to offer. If that is true, then this should become one of the biggest selling issues in Conde Nast history.
Actually it just might become the biggest seller. When we wanted to do a post about this Tracy went to three different shops to find the magazine but all three were sold out. We had to scan this from the NY Post.
When I am shooting on the street older women and larger size women often say "no" to my request to shoot them. Actually, much more than any other category of people I shoot. I think they have a real suspicion about how the image will be used. I also think there continues to be a growing disconnect between the fashion community and "average" women in general.
However, do you think that this economic crisis has forced the fashion community to open it's eyes a little bit to what the customers want?
COMMENTS
No offense, but I think that you are giving the fashion industry far too much credit for suddenly becoming more "tolerant" of curves. Rather, it is the promise of the "biggest selling issue ever" that has them smacking their lips. In short, if it sells, they will push it. The minute it becomes yesterday's news, they will go back to the anorexic waif image that has ravaged a generation or two of young women...I know it's been said a lot, but if Marilyn Monroe were starting out today she would probably never have even gotten to make her first movie. However, if you ask me to choose between her and, say, Calista Flockhart, as a reference for female beauty (and no disrespect to Ms Flockhart intended), I wouldn't even have to think once, much less twice!
In my opinion, the key is health. So long as we are eating as well as possible, getting exercise and periodic checkups, size and shape should not matter. And we women should not wait for fashion mags to show this kind of image to get comfortable with our bodies.
It would be nice not to feel plump at anything above 100lbs but it will take a long time for some people to see this as fashionable or beautiful.
As a 20 year old female all I can say is that it's too late, our brains are washed.
I'm 5ft tall, Asian, dark hair, weigh just over 100lbs. What are the odds you'll ever see anyone like me on the pages of these fashion magazines unless it's a "special" article about non-model size people with "odd" proportions? An article to help us dress and deal with our shapes? And I am part of the majority. Imagine?
Regardless what the reason is for publishing this pic, thank you for that! Because we're talking about it. But unfortunately, it's probably all about marketing rather than finally listening to what people want. Fashion does change...and I am still hoping I get to live and see that we are going to change for the better.
Although I'm all for a broader range of healthy women's body types being shown in magazines, I have to admit that this particular image grosses me out a bit.
Does acknowledging that the average woman is not 5'10" and rail thin mean I have to see every lump and bump?
I think people are just looking for a rationalization for their complacency, laziness, and unhealthy habits.
I'm all for a 'more natural woman' in magazines. I dislike the choices that are being made by the (euphemistically speaking) "fashion types" — the ridiculously skinny 15 year old girls. We're in an era when Giselle has been called "curvy." But, i also don't want to see fat/flab idealized and normalized. Fashion magazines are still about fantasy. If i want to see 'regular,' i walk down the street and can do my own calculations of 'what percentage of Americans is obese.' [I'm not suggesting THIS woman is "obese!"]
It seems that in a time of economic crisis companies should throw a wider net if they want to continue to pull in profits. The more women feel accepted by the "fashion machine" the more they will buy. I do agree that it's a trend thing though - she's not the first we'll see. Slowly the fashion industry will seem more accepting to see if their profits increase. If it works, then yay, and they'll keep going until it peaks. If it doesn't work, then fashion curves were just a trend.
It has nothing to do with the media, in my opinion; you hear men every day in the street gawping - very loudly - over pretty girls walking past, and making those who don't get as much attention feel worthless. They then go home and compare themselves to the pretty girls, who are all tall/thin/well-dressed/etc.
The media simply aggravates it. That's all. *shrug*
I don't think that this photo will ever become the "norm" in the fashion industry no matter how much people say they "want" it.
I do agree with Scott that there is a disconnect-which is unfortunate, but I don't know if the industry is to blame. It has been a VERY long time since society has embraced "larger" women.
I don't find this a very fashionable photo, nor a stylish one. She looks like a figure model caught in a joke.
I look to newspapers and blogs like yours to see "real" people and style. I don't expect, or want, to see it in the high fashion mags. Glamour is more a middle of the road mag so this sort of shot is perfect for them. They represent a more obtainable style.
I don't think this photograph really has anything to do with fashion... she's NAKED, for crying out loud. Okay, she's wearing a G-string. I saw this article in the magazine - yes, I will admit that I was slightly thrown off by the choice of photograph when I saw it too - but the article that it graces is about things that men find attractive and sexy about women. They use REAL quotes, from REAL men, about REAL women. The article itself really has nothing to do with fashion. However, I don't disagree that the public idea of what is "fashionable" when it comes to the female body is absolutely changing for the better. While models like Kate Moss are still at the top of their game, we now have more normal-looking girls popping up here and there, for example Lara Stone, an average size 4-6 and a top model to boot. There is hope.
See whether she looks fabulous without her (very pretty) face.
1. Yes, it is bad that models starve themselves for their job.
2. Yes, photoshopping models to perfection creates an artificial standard. i can't even express in such a small space how bad that is.
3. BUT one should not mix up runway fashion with what can be bought in stores. It is not the same and it does not serve the same purpose. One is inpiration, the other is work.
It's about being realistic. Glamour's readers are not wealthy socialites. They are working women, moms, maybe some men, who are just looking for some tips. They are looking for editorials that will help them achieve beauty and style by working with what they have. Glamour has, for a while, been printing stories on the best clothes for your body type and the best clothes for your budget. This is nothing new. They may have to run advertisements with skinny, skinny models, but they don't really have a lot of control over that. They have been sincerely, I think, heading in this direction for as long as I can remember. I applaud their efforts to make it easy for everyone to feel confident and look good.
Perfect! Now let's see some breasts that have gone south, as well, so healthy, middle-aged women can learn to stop hating their bodies.
"I also think there continues to be a growing disconnect between the fashion community and "average" women in general."
Oh, you don't say? I think it's (partially) the fashion community's fault that "average" women feel they have to measure up to some higher standard - as though anything less is subpar and inadequate. All that will do is alienate a population that will regard you as arrogant and elitist.
Shame on anyone who looks condescendingly at someone who doesn't quite fit their version of beauty.
I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about the entire community as a whole, but certainly these types of sentiments are prevalent.
I read some years ago that the super thinning of models began on the runways as a way to focus the attention onto the clothes and off of the beautiful woman underneath them. And now we have twisted that body type into THE body type. As several other people have said already, it needs to be about health and as Mr. Schuman shows us each day - it's about personal style.
Okay, why does there have to be such an extreme contrast?? Either a model is going to be skin and bones or she's going to represent the "average" woman by having abs that hang below her beltline?
Come on. I am 43, not a model, not chubby or unfit. I also don't regularly work out and my stomach still doesn't look like that AND I have a kid. There are plenty of real women that lie somewhere in the middle of anorexic and massive. Shoot - put ME on the cover of Glamour.
Every once in a while, a model or a celebrity decides to take some sort of stand against the rather distorted image of "woman" that the media shows. That image changes decade to decade, but I think right now, that image is very dangerous: super-skinny, almost pre-pubescent silhouette, yet ultra-tall. And almost always Caucasian. Now, there's nothing wrong with being any of those things, but all together, this image represents a very tiny percentage of the population. And women looking at these models will ask, "why can't I look like that?". This can lead to some very dangerous dieting habits and low self-esteem.
Touche, Sartorialist. Touche.
Over the past decade we've seen the fashion industry slip lustily toward the luxury market, leaving behind those not willing to chase a virtually unattainable standard of "beauty".
Perhaps we've fallen in love with megapixels and baubles to the extent that we've lost the plot, as the English might say. And you wonder why retailers are tanking? Because the very guardians of their pursestrings have seduced them into a fantasy world bereft of authenticity, and print media is now feeling the pinch, represented through a declination of ad pages and loss of subscribers.
Fashion need only be interesting, and people will be interested in it. Authenticity is a good place to start.
What I'd love to see is magazines where the models are WOMEN, not girls (or women who look like they are 17). The kind of women that Richard Avedon used to shoot. It is women who can afford to buy the clothes, not young girls.
Please stop calling voluptuous women "real"! ALL women are real just as all people of all colors are real people. It is extremely insulting.
i stopped buying women's magazines when i was 30--i finally realized they made me feel bad about myself. seventeen magazine helped fuel 9 years of eating disorders--i was obsessed with how skinny and tall the girls were, and what they weighed. i will NEVER have another fashion rag in my house, since i have two daughters, yet i love clothes. so THANK YOU for your blog that shows real people with real bodies and always inspiring choices of dress.
All I can say is...Why not Plus Size and In Shape?
The woman in this picture, and she is only 20 years old, has no muscle tone....plus size or not.
I think North Americans believe "It is all good". I simply do not agree.
As intelligent and discerning individuals, there is a desire to strive to be the best we can be.
[Comment Total: 540]
____________________________________________
Lizzie MillerDo Women Really Want to See Themselves in Fashion Magazines?
While Glamour editor Cindi Leive swears that her magazine will strive to feature women of all sizes, following the praise they received after featuring model Lizzie Miller, Times of London writer India Knight remains unconvinced.
COMMENTS
>Knight is acting like it's just either or. It can be both. Just like I don't think we need to be so whitewashed in fashion mags, we could stand to be a lot more age, size, and racially diverse.
I mean, I just don't get the idea that it has to be all fantasy or all reality. Is there some kind of paradox waiting that will destroy the world if we start acknowledging that diversity is a good thing?
I did notice the incredible amount of negativity in some comments, though, with size comparing. But I think people do that anyway, whether it's Miller or someone else. We're taught to compare and find ourselves wanting. That's sort of the whole point of the "beauty myth".
Sure some people can look at the aggressively thin ideal and think, well, whatever, I don't look like that, that's okay. And some people clearly don't and internalize that ideal as a goal they are forever striving for and forever feeling inadequate for not meeting. Our weight obsession is not an accident. And likewise lots of people look at a pic of Miller and feel good, others don't. You can't "win" when it comes to beauty. But I still think diversity is better than none.
>Reading the comments on a piece in the Guardian about this got me thinking about who is really making women compare themselves to super thin models.
I'm noticing most of the nasty comments seem to come from men. Back when Jennifer Love Hewitt's badly fitting bikini was news, I remember noticing the exact same thing- most of the nasty comments were from guys. In real life, I seem to know more women who were hurt by male comments about their bodies than female comments. If a woman was involved, it was probably their mom, but it seems like the dad/boyfriend comments cut deeper.
Who do you think contributes more to women's body issues- men or women? Conventional wisdom seems to be that women cause body issues in each other, while men are just happy with a naked lady. But I'm not sure that's really true.
>The Guardian commenters this week about Lizzie Miller made me want to sob. As you noted, they were generally men (or very male sounding usernames) and incredibly rude and judgemental about all women's bodies.
I had been considering joining the Guardian Soulmates dating site, but working on the premise that some of those male commenters will also be on there, I have scuttled away in abject fear. Imagine going on a date or receiving an email along the lines of those comments...
>In my own personal experience, the only negative feedback I've received regarding my body has been from judgemental men (either male friends, boyfriends, or obnoxious men on the street). In fact, while I'm not saying this is representative of everyone, I honestly can't think of a single instance in which a woman has criticised my body.
>I think men are in denial about their bitchiness because they think of it as a female trait and insults from men are often more painful because 'No one wants to fuck you' is the ultimate insult in our pornified culture.
>I think we're encouraged to think that the only reason men are with women is looks. That whole "There is no female Seth Rogan" thing. So when a man insults our looks, it calls into question whether a man would ever want to be with us. Conventional wisdom says looks aren't as important to women, so its okay if a guy has a big gut, Katherine Heigl might get drunk and overlook it.
I know this is true for me. The people who were most critical in my life of my looks were boys and men. I'm sure other girls had issues, but they never said them to my face. It's probably why I can never really relate to the "mean girl" threads...not that I didn't know girls like that, but it was all more secretive and I could deal with it. But the men and boys were aggressive, public, and intimidating/threatening about it. And people just shrugged it off.
I hear the "well, men like x bodies" argument a lot...and I'm like, yeah, but what about all the men who don't? It's not like there's a shortage of body snarking online, much of it coming from men. It's a myth that all men are somehow accepting all body types. I think most men are taught they're entitled to comment on women's bodies because, after all, we have them FOR them, don't we? What value do our bodies have without men to either criticize or appreciate them?
That's always my issue with the "men like any body type" argument. It still relies on the same idea...that we should be happy with our body because some man is. And unhappy with it if he isn't. I don't like either, personally, because it makes women's bodies public property and not their own.
And as an anecdotal aside...I work with an office of mostly men. The amount of body commenting on celebs is intense, and is usually ridiculously nit picky. And I've had this stuff said to me, in my presence...and it's like...what the hell? If this is what you think of celebrity x, what are you thinking about me, an average person? They just don't think.
>There's a lot of confusion in your comment, and it's all valid. On one hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men's right to have a "type" of women that they pursue. Everyone has preferences when it comes to the imagined appearance of our ideal partner. This overlaps with men's (and women's) tendency to completely invalidate the women who do not meet that ideal.
>Yeah, I have no problem with preferences. We all have those. It's the way people are encouraged to comment, publicly, on other people's looks and bodies when they don't meet those preferences or ideals. And I think that happens with women more because we're valued by our bodies more, culturally. It's a frustrating thing to watch.
____________________________________________
NEW POST
Swimwear
