Are you comparing yourself to a moving coat hanger? And having the audacity to blame the industry?
High fashion designers across the board with the likes of the late Alexander Mcqueen are known to say that they regard their designs as moving, three dimensional representations of art. They often intend that their audience is drawn to the artistry of the garment; NOT TO THE MODEL. The purpose of the model is often compared to that of a ‘pretty coathanger’ in the sense that the model’s own body proportions, ‘curves’ and fat are not intended to compete with or alter the shape and structure of the piece of the garment. Why? Because the model is merely a canvas. In fact a good number of runway collections are deemed ‘unwearable’ by the designer himself and are often only custom fitted to the model’s measurements. SOOOOO… If you’re comparing yourself to a ‘coathanger,’ I propose that the ridicule is on YOUR end.
The designer should have his own discretion
Haute Couture should be appreciated as art meaning it’s canvas should not be regulated by shabby activist women and law makers. Nobody dictated what shades of blue Picasso was to use. There were no
mispelt slogans and hideous posters, and crusaders outside his art debuts. I’m baffled at the argument that the proposers of the ban make; that the models “do not represent the average woman.” Well, NO, DUH, it is OBVIOUSLY no secret that [non-plus size] runway fashion is NOT targeted at your average American woman who is statistically a size 12, and earns, $37 000 a year; roughly the cost of the outfit itself. The argument that models are too unatainably ‘perfect’ is outrageous, and such opposers might as well extend their folly as to complain that the models’ hair and skin is too ‘perfect’ as well. As I previously stated, high fashion should be appreciated as an art form, and not a measure of attainable, commonplace, ‘average-woman’ type beauty. Because it is not intended to be. ”
In fact, blaming the high fashion industry solely for your child’s eating disorder is no less outrageous than deeming Kim Kardashian and Britney spears liable for all short lived marriges in the United states. Which leads me to assert; How many teenage girls are even remotely familiar with ‘Agyness Deyn’ and ‘Coco Rocha’?. On the flip side, ask them if they know who Beyonce or Kim Kardashian is and you’re guaranteed a quick roll of the eyes. Also, with what ease can you even find a 17 year old who religiously follows ‘Harpar’s Bazaar‘ or ‘Vogue Italia anyway.’ Are runway models even considered ‘attractive’ by “your average American woman? The same lot who are constantly being bashed for looking like prepubescent boys, having shoulders too broad? The lot who are criticized for having eyes too far apart; for being gaunt and flat- chested?
If you insist on the media blame game, maybe target the ‘Tricks to look skinny’ and ‘cook yourself thin’ headliners of the Cosmopolitans and Seventeen magazines of this world.
Fashion is a discipline like medicine and law, which also have strict entrance criteria.
A lawyer must face the bar exam. A doctor must complete eons of education. A teacher must go through years of training, a marathon runner must have a certain built. On that very premisis, there deserves to be a cut-off point for modelling or else everyone qualifies as a model, since ‘everyone is beautiful’ right? The stance that runway models should represent all types of women warrants that everyone is eligible to model, which is no doubt a very depreciating and undermining outlook to the industry as a whole. That is, not to mention that it takes away the power and credibility of the designer as one who is able to discern in what way they would like to display their own collection, watering down the art form. Next time you dare assert; “models don’t represent your everyday average woman,” expect a: “doctors do not represent the intelligence level of your ‘average American woman’.” response.
Size zero is not necessarily unhealthy
Sporting a size zero without no effort or incentive to lose weight, I feel that I have sufficient jurisdiction to support the claim that there exist women who are naturally ‘skinny. Therefore, banning size ‘0’s altogether closes off opportunity for healthy, deserving aspiring models.
In fact there is much more widespread overtness towards accusing naturally ‘skinny women’ for being unhealthy with no ground, than there is towards overweight women. For example it is highly acceptable for one to say; “You’re so skinny, you need to eat” without receipt of any negative sanction. However, I dare you to pull up to an obese woman and say “You’re so fat, you need to lose some pounds” and you’re guaranteed to be criminalized by everyone. You’re looking at a ‘lose- lose’ situation. And i’m not talking about weight.
Banning size zero on the ground that some models resort to bulimic and anorexic habits is no different than banning all sprint runners from having a muscular build in response to the few who abuse steroids.