Francesca Anderson Anthropology Thesis: Spring 2010

The Fashion Body: the evolution of fashion ideals,

the effects of the digital age on both model and mundane bodies,

and the systematic exclusion of middle-range women in the fashion industry

1

2

Table of contents

I - Introduction

4

II - Fetishization of Fashion

10

III - A brief history of fashion bodies, from curves to heroin chic

14

IV - Bodily Regimes: transmission from the fashion body to the everyday body

20

V - The Digital Age: the internet and Photoshop as fashion image enhancers and body image breakers

24

VI - Closing Words from a Montreal photographers and designers

32

Bibliography and photo credits

36

3

“Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose and imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary.�

-Cecil Beaton, photographer

4

Introduction I

When asked to think about the fashion industry, one’s mind rarely thinks exclusively of clothing, but also the body underneath it – the fashion industry is more than the material product consumed, but just as importantly involves the consumption of the body. I seek to examine the female model form, which I will call the “fashion body”, defined as the contractually bound, high-fashion model who performs a niche character of the repertoire of beauty ideals in Western society. The model body is indeed an individual person, but is more outwardly known and characterized by her duty to represent a fashion designer or modeling agency. She is the subject of photography and the object of the fashion show audience’s gaze; she is the “avatar of fashion” (de Perthuis 409), the clothes hanger of the designer, and the site at which the industry’s products become fetishized. Inherent to this discussion is the assumption that fashion bodies are meant to – but as one will later see, not always succeed in – portray the socially ideal form. This is a clear assumption, as the function of a model is to entice a buyer or represent, to the best of her abilities using an ideal image, a product, an agency, or a designer (Sypeck et al. 2003: 343).

Like any industry, the fashion world is subject to the demands and tastes of the consumer. Since the emergence of mass production and prêt a porter fashion lines, the shift in the industry is one from predominantly artistic to commercial. As fashion becomes more accessible and affordable, and as Western society experiences an increase in obesity and body size (Kulick 2005:2), the fashion industry – and its bodies – are 5

I

behooved to evolve. Through the historical analysis of Western fashion bodies in the late 20th century, one will see that fashion bodies become smaller and smaller over the course of time (Sypeck et al. 2003:343).

The digital age of computers and mass media, while also a wonderfully effective way for the fashion industry to disseminate images and products, has contributed greatly to the negative backlash against fashion bodies by its exaggerated use of photo manipulation. The easy access of the internet as well as digital editing programs such as Photoshop have created limitless possibilities for the artist and designer, but have also shaped festering antipathy towards the unrealistic representations of bodies in the industry. The digital age of fashion has created a tipping point in the industry, where audiences have begun to reject fashion bodies as ‘too thin’. This resentment and negative perception has created a tendency for fashion media to waver between superficially supporting the desire for healthy models, but only to then continue to create images which perpetuate the thin body ideal. Through an explanation of the fashion industry, a brief history of the Western fashion body in the late 20th century, and account of the daily, bodily regimes of models, this paper will illuminate the atmosphere of the contemporary fashion world and the social world surrounding it. The present day complexities of the fashion industry have rendered it schizophrenic, torn between ethical goals to portray average and natural representations of women, and aesthetic traditions of fashion which prefer unnaturally thin bodies.

I.i : Foucault and Bourdieu: power over the body and its enforcement Fashion bodies are an essential participant within a complex system of commodification, capital, labor, and change. Although highly artistic and creative for designers and stylists, the cultural industry of the fashion world does not allow for much creativity on the part of the model, who must abide to standards of the weight, height, and the ideal silhouette, thereby contractually establishing between the model and her agency, the terms of her outward appearance. Foucault would describe this control of the body as a dynamic relation of power between the economy and the individual body; for any and every relation of force implies a relation of power (Foucault 1984:191). Foucault would even go so far as to say that all impositions derive from the market economy and capitalist exploitation, quite fitting to the case of the fashion body (Foucault 1984:191).

6

I

Foucault’s Discipline and Punish describes the notions of panopticism as a regulating force over the docile body, which is a body that “may be subjected, used, transformed and improved” (Brown 2000:50). Discipline, in the form of self-surveillance of the panopticon, “increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility) and diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience)” (Brown 2000:8, 50). Panoptical discipline creates the uncertain but fearful sense of an omnipresent control and constant observation; when exerted upon a docile fashion body, the model will sense an unseen pressure to maintain and improve her modeling capacity, relinquishing agency and offering conformity to the standards of the industry.

Whether or not a model must regulate her body fervently through dieting, exercise, or even anorexic or bulimic tendencies, there still exists a regulation of the body: any alterations to the body or hair must be approved by her agents and casting bookers. Likewise, in order for a model to be considered flexible and compliant (as we shall see, are two very important fashion body skills), she must place her body in the hands of her management, and who will mold her body, hair, and style at their own discrepancy. The fashion model therefore is a blank canvas, obliged contractually to maintain her status as a tabula rasa, whatever that state might be. Any changes to this blank slate are to be determined by her employers and agents, thereby ceding her agency to them and creating an unequal balance of power.

Bourdieu would take this analysis of relations of power, and further explain how the industry enforces this power over the fashion body. In exchange for adhering to the bodily laws and sense of bodily panopticism of the fashion world, models are granted the gift of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1994:177-178). The capital gained through a job of status such as modeling includes access to luxury articles of clothing, wealth, elite social surroundings, and general public admiration for her looks. Agencies and designers do not have to exert their power over the model directly or persuade her to conform to these ideals, because the system is selfregulating: “domination no longer needs to be exerted in a direct, personal way when it is entailed in possession of the means (economic or cultural capital) of appropriating the mechanisms of the field of production and the

7

I

field of cultural production, which tend to assure their own reproduction by their very functioning, independently of any deliberate intervention by the agents” (Bourdieu 1994:178). Thus, the goal of attaining social capital is a self-regulating goal, encouraging the fashion body to persist.

This phenomenon may also fit under the category of Bourdieu’s symbolic violence: not an overt violence, but rather invisible, gentle, and persuasive more than violent (Bourdieu 1994:186). As “everything conspires to conceal the relationship between work and its product” (Bourdieu 1994:171), it is a hidden violence of subtle coercion, whereby the senses of obligation and duty influence the everyday actions of the fashion body.

8

I

9

“Women dress alike all over the world: they dress to be annoying to other women.�

-Elsa Schiaparelli, fashion designer

10

Fetishization of Fashion

II

Barthes’ analysis of the fashion system suggests that all objects exist on three, separate planes simultaneously: the real (referring to the design process), the used (the place of an object in cultural context), and the represented (how material and its inherent qualities are presented) (Finkelstein 2007:200). The represented plane of existence evokes desire, as an attractive, alluring presentation is used to amplify a product and its characteristics. However, once that desired object is attained, there is a sense of disappointment, as the represented state is almost always essentialized and better than the actual state. Thus, the real and represented planes rarely intersect.

This is precisely the sentiment of the female consumer when inspired to purchase an article of clothing: consider figure 1, a Louis Vuitton advertisement for a handbag. The consumer is inspired by the model’s representation of the object, and desires the symbolic qualities of beauty and luxury of this item – fashion photography encourages women to gaze at other women with desire (Finkelstein 2007:214).

fig. 1 11

II

Once the bag is purchased, the consumer almost wonders why, with this new handbag, they don’t appear as lovely, slim, aloofly swathed and relaxed as the model? The disappointment comes from the disparities between the represented plane and real plane; that despite owning this new product, the body wearing it remains the same – the only grand thing she will feel is the grand missing from her bank account.

This is not to suggest in any way that women consumers are ignorant or unwitting consumers, unaware of the limits of material objects; I rather suggest that any consumer, male or female, will always have the slightest hope that a purchase will somehow embody them with the material’s characteristics and thus a new self-identification (Finkelstein 2007:213).

This suspension of belief is how sales are made, and how paying upwards of a thousand dollars on a Vuitton is justified – because, to pay a thousand dollars and emerge a new person, would be worth the cost. Fashion thus relates to issues of self-display in order to please oneself, but also in order to seduce and manipulate others; by fashioning one’s body, control over the outsider’s gaze and ensuing opinion (Finkelstein 2007:197). The model’s presence in photography to sell clothes and accessories reveals how fetishization includes an ideal body in order to portray the symbolic qualities of material products, visually represented by a coveted female figure.

II.i Change: an integral part of the fashion industry’s allure “Fashion anticipates, and elegance is a state of mind…a mirror of the time in which we live, a translation of the future, and should never be static.”

-Oleg Cassini, fashion designer “Fashion is made to become unfashionable” -Coco Chanel, fashion designer Historical, economic, technological, and social changes greatly influence the Zeitgeist of an era, creating changes in politics, social norms, and for our purposes, the aesthetic realm. Even a mere decade of life on Earth reveals the waxing and waning of trends and the coming and going of styles. In a Marxian sense, fashion is a form of aesthetic innovation, marketing itself by constantly reinventing and cultivating new expressions 12

II

of creativity through perpetual, evolutionary improvement (Finkelstein 2007:212). Finkelstein also asserts that fashion is a process which transforms the mundane activities of the everyday into complex, aesthetic experiences by altering emotional investment surrounding the visual display (Finkelstein 2007:195). To be conscious of fashion is to gain consciousness of self-evaluation and reflection, and thus grants a new level of significance to social experience (Finkelstein 2007:195). The everyday attention to fashion in the laywoman’s life is likewise applied to – and possibly learned from – the attention to detail which models and celebrities must also experience, as they are under constant scrutiny by media powers and come under fire for being too thin, depressed, too fat, lonely, etc. (Finkelstein 2007: 195). The details of appearance, a lived subjectivity of models, is mimicked by the close self-scrutiny which women audiences come to perceive as normalized and conflated with ideas of identity (Finkelstein 2007:195).

Fashion is not merely the creating of clothes in a cynical attempt to pursuer profit; although fundamentally a commercial enterprise and industry, fashion is also a creative cultivation of world views and a Zeitgeist, training viewers to recognize the symbolic impact of material goods (Finkelstein 2007:195). With each era comes a new aesthetic and symbolic appreciation for the visual; the evolution of fashion plays an important role in training the eye to these means (Finkelstein 2007:195).

The temporality of fashion is arguably one of its greatest thrills: fashion can either take us back in time, allow us to relish in our own time, or lead us into the future. The sheer amount of change, even from season to season of a designer’s collections, is what propels the industry. As writer Marie Von Ebner-Escenbach said: “so soon as a fashion is universal, it is out of date.”

13

“Beauty is also submitted to the taste of time, so a beautiful woman from the Belle Epoch is not exactly the perfect beauty of today, so beauty is something that changes with time.”

-Karl Lagerfeld, fashion designer

“It’s not what you’d call a figure, is it?”

-Twiggy, model

14

A brief history of fashion bodies, from curves to heroin chic

III

Echoing that the fashion industry is built to change and transform, we can also see how fashion bodies over time must likewise evolve to fit the Zeitgeist and the ensuing aesthetic norms of the fashion industry at the time. “Body contains possibility, inherent to fashion industry, of reinventing itself in constantly changing form” (de Perthuis). Over the course of time, ideals of beauty and standards of fashion bodies change and evolve, to compliment the industry’s need for change to remain a viable capitalist endeavor. Perpetual change of the ideal model body ensures that “it will not atrophy, it will not fossilize, it will not die” (De Perthuis 423).

Each era has a corresponding Zeitgeist which determines the accepted and valued aesthetics. Beginning with the post World War II changes in consumption, relations of production produced a landscape where fashion bodies began to recognized as bodies with legitimized (via increased wages and symbolic capital) professions (Wissinger 2007a:5). The 1950s actress, model and sex symbol, Marilyn Monroe was, in her time, considered the absolute height of feminine beauty, sporting blonde curls and womanly curves (Voracek 2002:1447), encompassing the appreciation for womanly, fertile bodies in the age of the Baby Boom (Derenne 2006:256).

The 60s introduced one of the first fashion bodies which likens most closely to the contemporary thin ideal, the boyish body of Twiggy (see figure 2) (Derenne 2006:256). This era also broke down the divide between photographic and runway models, creating an overlap for both aspects of 15

A brief history of fashion bodies

III

modeling (Wissinger 2007a:5). Even within the time span of a decade, the social climate for fashion bodies encouraged a drastic decrease in size of the ideal female form, as photographic and runway fashion bodies began to fuse into one standard form.

One study analyzed trends of fashion bodies on the covers of Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan from 1959 - 1999 in order to search for trends in facial, beauty photography or full-figure shots. The results revealed an initial decrease of full body photography and gradual favorability of beauty photos (Sypeck et al. 2003:345). In the 1960s and 1970s, cover models of fashion magazines were not photographed inclusively, but were rather presented as either beauty, face shots or from the torso and above (Sypeck et al.

2003:344). This trend of the era not only reveals a change in representation of the female form, but gleans insight on the ideals of beauty of the time – the isolation and emphasis of the upper part of the female form shows a temporal fetish for the bust, an example of commodifying the body by designated parts. This reveals how isolated parts of a body can be representative of the whole, as the bust is offered as ‘discourse template’ to stand in for the entire body (Schmidt 1986:559).

fig. 2

16

However, beginning in the 1980s, this trend came to a halt and covers were almost exclusively portraying full body shots – for example, Glamour showcased nine full body portraits between 1950 and 1960, followed exclusively by torso shots until 1988, and then featured eighty four full body shots until 2000 (Sypeck et al. 2003:345). Three out of the four magazines in the study revealed increasingly thinner cover models in 80s and 90s (Sypeck et al.

2003:346). There is therefore a correlation between the amount of full body representations of fashion bodies, as well as the tendency to photograph thinner and thinner models – the ubiquity of full body photography

A brief history of fashion bodies

III

reinforced a thinner body ideal. These images are also present, even if one chooses not to purchase them – magazines are even present in grocery check outs lines, therefore representing how one does not have to be a fashionista to be bombarded with the increasingly thin trend of full length photography (Sypeck et al. 2003:346). The point which print media communicates is that over the past 40 years, female beauty ideals have shifted from the importance of a pretty face, to placing value on extremely thin figures (Sypeck et al. 2003: 346).

Media images reinforce and perpetuate the overall trend of increasingly thin body ideals. The social climate is not only shaped by high fashion, but also magazines such as Playboy and Miss American Pageants. Studies reveal that Playboy models reach a plateau in low weight in 1978, while Miss America contestants have increasing become thinner from 1959 up until 1988 (Sypeck et al. 2003:343). There is indeed a difference between Playboy centerfold models, Miss America contestants, and high fashion models – Playboy models espouse the ideals of male viewers, while high fashion represents the values of female consumers, and I would venture to say that Miss America may perhaps waver somewhere in the middle, typified as the extremely good looking, but all-American, ‘normal’ girl next door. Despite this difference, an intensifying trend of thinness is apparent in each one, portraying the overall Western social atmosphere which encourages thin body ideals in porn centerfolds, pageant stages, runways, and high-fashion magazines.

The 1990s and 2000s have rung in a new body weight low, as the socalled “heroin chic” (as exemplified by Kate Moss, see figure 3) is now considered the ultimate fashion body, coveted by designers and agencies worldwide (Derenne 2006:258). The emergence of the internet also allowed for model searching world wide (Derenne 2006:257), allowing models scouts to hunt down the most unique and diverse repertoire of models for their agencies (see figure 4). Super models such as Sasha Pirovarova and Natalia Vodianova (figures 5 and 6, respectively) are among the slimmest and most elite models on the runway today (Vodianova was even featured in the closing ceremonies at the Vancouver 2010 Olympics as a representation for the ensuing Sochi Olympics); they are so widely recognized among numerous campaigns that their images offer a sense of endorsement, a fashion industry stamp of approval, to the designers they model for.

17

A brief history of fashion bodies

fig. 3

18

fig. 4

III

fig. 5

fig. 6

19

“Fashion condemns us to many follies; the greatest is to make ourselves its slave.”

-Napoleon Bonaparte

“I don’t do fashion, I am fashion.”

-Coco Chanel, fashion designer

20

Bodily Regimes: transmission from the fashion body to the everyday body

IV

The “work� of the model seeks to mirror the broader beauty ideals of Western society. The symbolic capital acquired by fashion bodies is directly linked to the efficacy of their bodily labor. Similar to Loic Wacquant’s analysis of the pugilistic body, I wish to show elaborate upon, dissect, and deconstruct the bodily regimes imposed upon the fashion body which dictate their routine, diet, public and self-perceptions, as well as embodied experiences. The fashion body is possibly the result of naturally thin genetics, but many models must strictly monitor, regulate and maintain the ideal model figure. As a model in the industry myself, I have firsthand experience with these expectations placed on the body, and on the actions to maintain the image delineated by my agency and as prescribed by their clients (designers, photographers, and clothes distributers).

The actions of the model are not merely conscious performance, but techniques of the body, trained actions prescribed in the past through her everyday life, and ultimately her professional life (Mauss 1962: 57). There are some basic requirements for the ideal bodily capital of a fashion body (Wacquant 1995:65) which include a slim body of a size 4 or lower, healthy hair, clear skin, good hygiene, no visible scars, minimal or no tattoos or perircings, height above 5 foot 8 inches (5 foot 7 is perhaps acceptable is the other qualities of the woman are outstandingly unique, in the case of Kate Moss, for example); an elongated neck, moderate breast size, and wide set eyes are also highly valued (Vaughn 1985:213). However, these are simply appearances; skills as a model are also highly valued, although 21

Bodily Regimes

IV

they are not directly related to bodily capital: according to model Christie Brinkley, “you have to be part athlete and part dermatologist; a hairdresser, a makeup artist, a fashion designer and an actress. It helps to learn something about photography – and almost everything about psychology.

It’s not enough to be ‘beautiful’…” (Vaughn 1985:214). This is to say that, despite the representation that agencies grant them, models are therefore ‘entrepreneurs of the self’, self-managing the product they are offering (the body) (Entwistle 2006:779). Part of this self-management is the knowledge to read their potential employers by researching the style or aesthetic of the casting agent or designer before she arrives at a casting call. She must define what “look” the fashion house is going for, and adapt to suit the idea of classic, quirky, commercial, edgy, et cetera: working bodies must constantly (re)adapt if they are to keep up the pace with changing market conditions, fluctuating trends, and social changes if they are to sell their labor and successfully commodify themselves (Entwistle 2006:780, 783).

In this way, despite the help and regulations that agencies provide for their models, the fashion bodies also ‘sell’ themselves, as if they were running a small business (Entwistle 2006:780).

De Perthuis theorizes that the authority of fashion body capital lies in its artifice; its complete removal from anything real and mundane. This is precisely the reason that average bodies must be removed from all fashion images: “(…) fashion cannot incorporate all body shapes in a gesture of politically correct egalitarianism. If fashion were to allow the body to take over, to be just anything, any shape, any age, it would have no power. The sign of its authority – artifice – would fade” (De Perthuis 423). Foucault’s docile body is collective and systemized, prescribing the fashion model the responsibility of remaining competitively skilled and beautiful (Finkelstein 2007:211). The identities of models become intertwined with their publicized, commodified self, as they must maintain this fashion body and image through unseen work which occurs off the runway and off the set of a photoshoot (Entwistle 2006:783). There is the responsibility of the model to always act in public as if she is “on”: for networking purposes, it is important to appear not just as a thin, beautiful woman, but to represent the fashion body. Essentially, the model never gets hours “off” from work, as she is constantly representing an agency and performing a role at all times, in case of any network opportunities which may arise outside of the work hours. Because the body is the vehicle of existing, of being in the 22

Bodily Regimes

IV

world, Merleau Ponty would assert that the body is what allows humans to be involved in the world – therefore, by adhering strongly and committing to an image, a fashion body becomes internalized temporally and spatially into the model herself (Entwistle 2006:784).

The analysis of the fashion body regime is not an isolated occurrence, it is mediated as well as socially, psychologically, and economically imposed on non-fashion bodies. “Social change creates new categories of people (…) it elaborately, often philanthropically, creates new ways for people to be” (Lock 2007:151). Hacking asserts that change brings about new categories for people to affiliate with; that the category and the people in it emerge simultaneously, in a mutually influential dynamic (Lock 2007: 156), however, in the case of the fashion industry, this is only half true.

The global North (and even the third world) are becoming larger, and health issues of obesity continue on the rise, creating the capitalist need to accommodate this growing niche market. We see this in examples of recent inclusion in the fashion world of the plus size model. In this sense, this category has most certainly come about because of social, demographic change. However, for the non-plus size, non-zero sized consumer, there is as of yet no classification for her in the industry. As a result, medium framed audiences are left category-less, floating in a space between thick and thin, forcing her to ‘pick’ to fit into one or the other.

23

“Even I don’t wake up looking like Cindy Crawford.”

-Cindy Crawford, model

24

The Digital Age: the internet and Photoshop as fashion image enhancers and body image breakers

The bodily regimes of models have mostly remained unchanged over the past few decades; the tensions regarding the representations of the female body ideal in the media stem from not changes in the model regimes themselves, but in the technological developments. Due to the technologies of recording and their wide dissemination through the internet, when a model walks down a runway, she is no longer walking solely for the performance itself, she is now walking forevermore, through the powers of Youtube and other online video or photographic, archival capabilities vested in the internet (Wissinger 2007a:4). The fashion shows of Paris, London, Milan, and other cosmopolitan cities were in the past highly inaccessible to fashionistas, as there were no publications which archived full collections for worldwide print media. With the arrival of digital photography, digitized images were easily loaded onto the computer and internet, the previous risks and costs of film photography now obsolete. Internet databases, fashion blogs, and style websites were able to allow avid fashion fans to view collections at a whim.

V

fig. 7

25

The Digital Age

V

The age of digital imaging and Photoshop also reared a generation of fashion images tainted with more than just the fantastical visions of the creative industry, but also exaggerated editing jobs which adhere to unfathomable expectations of thinness. One particular example in recent history was the Photoshopping controversy over an image for Ralph Lauren, where model Filippa Hamilton was digitally manipulated to the point where her head was larger than her pelvis (see figure 7) (Melago 2009). Hamilton said she was shocked to see the final image, and also notified the news that she had been fired by Ralph Lauren because of her contractual breach to meet their obligations – which according to news sources, appeared to be issues of not staying thin enough for the Lauren aesthetic (Melago 2009).

Here, one can see how technology perpetuates a vicious cycle of increasingly thin fashion bodies: one might think that the powers of Photoshop might actually grant a model more freedom, as post production editing can fix an image to the photographer or retoucher’s liking; but instead, the limitless possibilities of editing programs reinforces unrealistic thin ideals not only among women audiences, but among the models themselves. A retouched photo could potentially create a huge discrepancy between the manipulated image and the reality of the fashion body. The perfection of the image, while great for a model’s cover shot, might add intensified pressure on her embodied, non digital self to “keep up with the Joneses” – in this case, her own image. This need to create a sustained fabrication of the self connects the mediated and real bodies of the model (Vaughn 1985:213), forcing her, in a way, to keep up with herself in an industry-induced competition against her own, thinning digital body.

26

The Digital Age

V

V.ii From Super Thin to Super Size: where do the “average” women fit in? The Call for Average There appears to be no ‘middle ground’ for women who are neither super tiny nor extra large: either one can categorize themselves into the traditional model form (sizes 0-4), or one could establish themselves as a plus size (12-18). Where are middle-range bodies in fashion, the sizes 6 – 10? Women define themselves through the skinny or plus size dichotomy circumscribed by the industry. When a woman in the ‘middle ground’ scans a fashion magazine, where might she best identify herself? The “making up people” (as coined by Ian Hacking) in the fashion industry has only recently allocated runway time and print space to plus sizes models, creating a new category of fashionable woman (Lock 2007:150). As of yet, no new slot has been made for the women who fit in between.

Even within agencies, this dichotomy is present: as a model with a BMI of 18.7 (18.5 and below being underweight, 18.5 and above being average), I am learning towards the thin side of the average, medically established weight standard; however, within my agency I am one of the few who gear towards the ‘heavy’ side of slimness, compared to the other models represented. I find this not only aggravating as a woman, but also as a worker: because of my slightly more ‘healthy’ looks, the slimmer models will often receive notice of castings that I am often excluded from, particularly swimwear, lingerie, and anything on a runway. This has led me to believe that I would either need to lose ten pounds, or gain ten pounds in order to ‘fit’ myself into a niche category: to be a size 2, or to be a size 12? That is the question.

This floating category phenomenon is perhaps best exemplified by examining the nude body in photography. The nude body in media exemplifies the differences in perception of plus-size, average, and thin bodies. It seems ironic that an image can represent fashion, when clothes barely come into the frame, however, I would argue that the near nakedness of a thin body justifies the image as a fashion image (see figure 9). The extremely slim body as the main focus, barely sells a clothing item, rather selling the commodification of the body and allowing the viewer to consume the fashion world, albeit the lack of clothes – the image sells 27

The Digital Age

V

fig. 8

fig. 9 28

The Digital Age

V

a commodified body, therefore, clothes or no clothes, is legitimized as a fashion statement. In contrast, examine the photo for the “Dove Campaign for Real Beauty” (Figure 8), where underwear-clad women of sizes 12 and above line in a row. I would contend that this image does not constitute the conventional fashion image as we know it. Firstly, nudity of plus size models is exponentially rarer than the conventional model; secondly, this advertisement does not intend to display a fashion image (whereby Dove is a body product line, not a clothing or accessory company), rather it ventures in taking a first step in the forging of plus size acceptance in the media in general, only to strengthen the environment for plus size women in the fashion world. This image does not sell the standards of the preexisting fashion world, it appeals for support of awareness of unhealthy body ideals and promote confidence in women of larger sizes. This seminude image implores empowerment, whereas the slender semi-nudes imply notions of high-fashion aesthetic. I hereby contend that the nude average body (sizes 6 – 10), is altogether excluded. A reader of Glamour could potentially find both the Dove advertisement and the nude fashion editorial in the same issue, but this reader would be challenged to find any body in between. The average sized body, neither in the slim here nor large there, is considered a vulgar body, quarantined to publications such as Playboy and Maxim. While still beautiful bodies, they speak neither to empowerment of unconventional beauty standards, nor to the elite, emaciated body coveted by fashion industries. This average body image, like the average woman, is ostracized from women’s publications, leaving audiences of average size hanging between the two standards.

The “Dove Campaign for Real Beauty” is an interesting case study of the expectations of the revolt against thinness. By portraying the women in underwear, the Dove ad actually promotes and perpetuates the preexisting standards of sexiness and beauty which they are trying to combat – by equating the word ‘beauty’ with the fashion industry stand-by of showing skin. It is also entirely possible that they consciously decided to put these unconventional models on the exact same playing field as thin ones, making a statement about confidence and emphasizing the colorful variety of skin as a tool of empowerment. While the terminology “natural” and “average” are often interchangeably used, a problematic similitude emerges out of these distinct characteristics: women can be “natural” and simultaneously thin, average, or large in size. The equation of the words 29

The Digital Age

V

“average” and “natural” signifying the desired goal of creating a new media space or categorization (à la Hacking).

The terminology found on the Dove campaign as well as fashion blogs, news articles, and groups such as the Healthy Models Coalition is worth examining: beauty as “real”, “normal”, “average”, and “healthy” all come to be equated with, not necessarily oversized women, but generally women who do not fit the fashion body ideals or practice those bodily regimes. The body is the entire center of attention in these statements and within the Dove images yet again, perpetuating the body as the focus and epicenter of beauty. However, it is interesting that semantically, these sites almost deny the notion of thinness as beautiful; these endeavors do not account for women who are still “real”, yet by forces of nature have a thin, fashion body. These movements almost exclusively peg all models as sufferers of anorexia, bulimia, or harsh media influence.

It would be incorrect, and in fact even discriminatory, to ban thin bodies from the fashion world. Not all abnormally thin women are necessarily unhealthy, sufferers of anorexia or victims of the industry, some are thin by nature and are indeed healthy as such. The issue is that there is a force of coercion which exists, pressuring women to fit into a size 4 or smaller and that there are not a variety of body types represented on the runway or in the media. Essentially, a democratization in fashion bodies would be the ultimate, fair outcome of a healthy model coalition, not the banning of thinness in media altogether.

The approach taken by Dove and other pro-plus size supporters is completely understandable and very appropriate: campaigns such as Dove’s revolutionarily carved out a space in the media for full-figured women to be put on the same pedestal as thin women, and feel just as confident on the same level. However, what would be a more effective and truly equal movement would be to semantically and visually include bodies of all sizes and shapes, including thin ones. The key point that Dove is trying to espouse is that of health and confidence for all women, not only ones of larger-than-normal size. The separation between small and large will not create equality, but will simply distance and further differentiate standards of beauty, not democratize.

30

The Digital Age

V

A campaign by Spain’s clothing store MANGO included Crystal Renn (former anorexic model gone plus-size) in context with smaller models, wearing regular sized clothing with no reference to a plus size collection – a true rarity in the fashion world. Campaigns where women of all sizes are unified, rather than distinguished from each other, is what I believe to be the future of the fashion industry after the contemporary setting of the stage for larger fashion bodies; the distinctions between the two bodies need to be brought under a common industry, thereby eschewing the pressures for female audiences to feel issues of embodiment and the pressures of imposed bodily regimes.

31

“People always want to look thinner.�

- Montreal designer

32

Closing Words from a Montreal photographers and designers

VI

The same man who said that “no one wants to see curvy women. You’ve got fat mothers with their bag of chips sitting in front of the television and saying that thin models are ugly,” also said in another context that “things can look ugly first and become beautiful after in people’s eyes because they are used to it”. This man was fashion king Karl Lagerfeld, designer for Chanel, who criticized Heidi Klum for being too fat, and who also complained that his prêt a porter line at H&M was designed for skinny girls, offended when they produced his designs in sizes up to 26 (Stylecaster 2009). I have the fortune of being personally acquainted with several photographers and designers located in Montreal who share infinitely less narrow-minded opinions than those of Karl Lagerfeld, but which reveal the difficulties of changing norms of fashion bodies in the industry.

I was interested in seeing what a designer and a photographer had to say, from a professional point of view, about the differences between conducting their work around non conventional models. My first informant was a young designer who sells her women’s collections to boutiques in Montreal, who stated that designing for plus size would be “…really tough, because it’s hard to make a bigger person look good. People always want to look smaller, so all the nice draping or volume in a regular outfit would be taboo. If you design for bigger women, you can’t add anything you want to anywhere.

You have to think about it; make sure the person feels comfortable and confident, et cetera. A skinny person never has to worry about these things; they are more likely to be confident in anything they wear. I mean, my clothes are about confidence, these people want to show their body, not hide it.” (interview with author, March 30, 2010).

33

Closing Words

VI

Her response illuminates the importance of a full license for the designer to create an aesthetic based on her vision and place it on a body, not creation of a garment based on the ‘needs’ of a body; therefore, great value is placed on her job as a designer to be artistic rather than functional. Secondly, her assumption that all women strive to appear smaller truly echoes the expectations of society and goals of fashion design. Thirdly, the success or failure of the outfit is attributed not to the design, but to the embodied attitude of the girl wearing it, as plus size and thin models are assumed to have differences in confidence, the source or lack of confidence thereby stemming from the model’s body. Finally, the last sentence presumes that her designs for thin models show off bodily assets, while plus size fashion can only obscure the body in order to be successful. Each sentence is laden with persistent assumptions which exclude any body other than the ideal fashion body from entering and succeeding in the industry.

My photographer acquaintance also had some interesting opinions regarding model size and particularly photo manipulation: “I have been trying to avoid using Photoshop as much as I can lately. My heart just isn’t into doing that to my pictures or to the models. But for a photographer, it is an industry standard to correct unwanted “flaws” (…) if the assignment calls for it, I will alter to their heart’s or my heart’s content (…) You alter the model to make the product as attractive as possible, which in turn makes the model ‘become’ the warped ideal of healthy woman size. It all becomes visual manipulation and misdirection. It doesn’t become the about the model but about the product. Skinnier models seem to be seen as more of a commodity for their ease and convenience to work with and around they can be prominent as they can be transparent, given the project or assignment.”

“The dynamic changes for most photographers as they are trying to shoot someone larger as someone skinnier because this means some angles are immediately discarded and trying to flatter the models and the clothes becomes priority. All of this is sad because I myself have been hardwired and programmed to think this way sometimes, or perform this way because this is how I think I should be when high-fashion is concerned.

The plus sized/or rather the regular model has been relegated to life style 34

Closing Words

VI

or alternative fashion with pretty much...everyone else. They can find work, just not so readily within the fashion world.” (Interview with author, March 30, 2010).

As we have seen, social change and the passing of time begets different aesthetic values for fashion and corresponding bodies. The emergence of the digital age and the technology of the 1990s and 2000s wrought the means to achieve impossible feats of photo manipulation to the point of excess. The public outcry for healthy bodies in the media have indeed sparked capitalist motivation to accommodate to women of larger proportions, but the industry appears to be only half invested in the resolution of the issue. As shown by the few democratizing attempts of the industry and the interviews with Montreal fashion participants, this effort is for the large part acknowledged as an issue, but only marginally enforced and altered, as plus size models are not easily welcomed into the fashion world and women who float between sizes 4 – 12 are not definable in the industry as it exists today. As with any social or artistic traditions, establishment or institution, norms and standards are not easily deconstructed, but almost require a specific, newly demarcated space upon which to build according to its needs – especially if influential actors such as Karl Lagerfeld are not going to budge. Therefore, the industry may continue to produce and encourage thin bodies and shame large ones. The Montreal photographer put this industry’s stubbornness quite succinctly: “When it comes to the normal model in the fashion world, everyone wants to be a champion, but no one wants to be a hero” (Interview with author, March 30, 2010).

35

Bibliography

Ahren, Amy L.; Kate M. Bennett; Marion M. Hetherington.

“Internalization of the Ultra-Thin Ideal: Positive Implicit Associations with Underweight Fashion Models are Associated with Drive for Thinness in Young Women”. Eating Disorders. 2008. Volume 16. 294307. Print.

Bourdieu, Pierre.

1994 “Structures, Habitus, Power: Basis for a Theory of Symbolic Power,” in Cultures, Power, History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Nicolas Dirks, Geoff Eley, and Sherry Ortner (Eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press. 155- 199.

Crystal Renn Biography 2010 CrystalRenn.com/blog/about January 11.

Retrieved April 15, 2010.

De Perthuis, Karen.

2005 “The Synthetic Ideal: the Fashion Model and Photographic Manipulation”. Fashion Theory.Volume 9 (4): 407-424.

Derenne, Jennifer L. and Eugene V. Beresin 2006 Body Image, Media, and Eating Disorders. Academic Psychiatry 30:3. 257- 261.

Entwistle, Joanne; Elizabteh Wissinger.

2006 “Keeping up appearances: aesthetic labor in the fashion modeling industries of London and New York”. The Sociological Review. Volume 54, Issue 4.

775- 794.

36

Finkelstein, Joanne.

2007 The Art of Self Invention: Image and Identity in Popular Visual Culture. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Foucault, Michel.

1980 “Body/Power,” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972/1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon. pp. 55-62.

Hacking, Ian. 1986 Making Up People. Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought. Edited by Thomas C. Heller, Morton Sosna, and David E. Wellbery. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

The Healthy Models Coalition Website: Your Body Is Beautiful 2009 http://healthymodelscoalition.wordpress.com/ September 19.

Retrieved April 18, 2010.

Kulick, Don and Anne Meneley.

2005 Fat: The Anthropology of an Obsession. New York: Penguin Group.

Lew, Ann-Marie et al.

2007 “Thin-Ideal Media and Women’s Body Dissatisfaction: Prevention using Downward Social Comparisons on Non-Appearance Dimensions”. Sex Roles.

August 17, Volume 57: 543-556.

Mancini, Lyz. 2009 “Karl Lagerfeld Quotes: This One Takes the Cake (Literally)”. Stylecaster.com. October 12: Retrieved April 21, 2010.

Vaughn, Judith L.; Jeffrey W. Riemer.

1985 “Fabricating the Self: The Socialization of Fashion Models”. Sociological Spectrum.Volume 5: 213-229.

Mauss, Marcel.

1973 “Techniques of the Body.” Economy and Society. Taylor and Francis Books Ltd. 2: 70-88.

Melago, Carrie.

Voracek, Martin; Maryanne L. Fisher.

2002 “Shapely Centrefolds? Temporal Change in Body Measures: Trend Analysis”. British Medical Journal. December 21-28. Volume 325:Issue 7378.

1447 – 1448.

2009 “Ralph Lauren model Filippa Hamilton: I was fired because I was too fat.” NY Daily News, October 14: NYDailyNews.com/lifestyle.fashion/2009/10/14 retrieved April 19, 2010

Wacquant, Loic.

1995 “Pugs at Work: Bodily Capital and Bodily Labor Among Professional Boxers.” Body and Society, Vol. 1(1): 65-94.

Schmidt, Matthew and Lisa Jean Moore.

1998 “Constructing a ‘Good Catch’, Picking a Winner: The Development of Technosemen and the Democratization of the Monolithic Male.” Cyborg Babies: From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots, edited by Robbie David-Floyd and Joseph Dumit. New York: Routledge. 25-39.

Wissinger, Elizabeth.

2007a “Imaging Regimes and Modeling Work: The Intensification of Image and Body Economies in Fashion Modeling” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, New York City. August 11.

Sypeck, Mia Foley; James J. Gray, Anthony H. Ahrens.

2003 No Longer Just a Pretty Face: Fashion Magazines’ Depictions of Ideal Female Beauty from 1959 to 1999. November 20. Department of Psychology, The American University, Washington, DC. ThinkExist.com: Finding Quotations Was Never This Easy 2010 Search for: Fashion Quotes Retrieved April 6, 2010 37

Photo Credits

Figures 1- 8, 9: Model Love Blog 2010 http://www.modellove.tumblr.com Retrieved April 7-21, 2010.

Figure 7: Melago, Carrie.

2009 “Ralph Lauren model Filippa Hamilton: I was fired because I was too fat.� NY Daily News, October 14: NYDailyNews.com/lifestyle.fashion/2009/10/14 retrieved April 19, 2010 Figure 8: Dove Campaign for Real Beauty 2010 Dove.ca/en/default Retrieved April 2, 2010

38

39

The Fashion Body: the evolution of fashion ideals, the effects of the digital age on both model and mundane bodies, and the systematic exclusion of middle-sized women in the fashion industry

40