It's a viscious cycle...sample sizes from designers that are made very small require very small sized models.
Consumers often do not relate to the size of the high fashion editorial model, so they can blame the magazines for enabling poor body image and underweight models.
Magazines and stylists blame the "designers" for creating that small sample size. Then the agents need to maintain a surplus of models in their agency in competition with other agencies that will favorably "fit" the garments.
Models want to work, so they try to keep up with the size that agencies want them.
Where does it leave room for shared responsibility? I don't think that the blame game is going to help the industry unite because magazines can "opt" not to include designer garments that are sized so small, therefore easing some pressure off of bookers and models.
There will always be a designer on the heels of all of the current ones that would love getting recognition in magazine editorials. It's NOT like it's a paid advertisement that supports the magazine's revenue. The magazines do have the ability to communicate with the Council of Fashion Designers and help maintain "industry standards".
It's a twist of art and business, so change is something that all careers can face from time to time. One simple size varience between a 0-2-4 is not like a major investment of extra textiles like claimed with the cost of reproduction of Plus Sizes!
Compared to the health and well-being of the models, it is a small movement toward doing the responsible thing.
We hope that the sample sizes universally improve on the upside without designers feeling like they're sacrificing "artistic integrity". Tall girls over 5'10" as a size Zero? How about a few decades ago? Those models had to diet, as well, and work on their figure, too, but they were size 2/4 even 6. Is there a compromise from everyone? What more can a model compromise in the name of Fashion that they're not already doing to be size zero's?
Consumers often do not relate to the size of the high fashion editorial model, so they can blame the magazines for enabling poor body image and underweight models.
Magazines and stylists blame the "designers" for creating that small sample size. Then the agents need to maintain a surplus of models in their agency in competition with other agencies that will favorably "fit" the garments.
Models want to work, so they try to keep up with the size that agencies want them.
Where does it leave room for shared responsibility? I don't think that the blame game is going to help the industry unite because magazines can "opt" not to include designer garments that are sized so small, therefore easing some pressure off of bookers and models.
There will always be a designer on the heels of all of the current ones that would love getting recognition in magazine editorials. It's NOT like it's a paid advertisement that supports the magazine's revenue. The magazines do have the ability to communicate with the Council of Fashion Designers and help maintain "industry standards".
It's a twist of art and business, so change is something that all careers can face from time to time. One simple size varience between a 0-2-4 is not like a major investment of extra textiles like claimed with the cost of reproduction of Plus Sizes!
Compared to the health and well-being of the models, it is a small movement toward doing the responsible thing.
We hope that the sample sizes universally improve on the upside without designers feeling like they're sacrificing "artistic integrity". Tall girls over 5'10" as a size Zero? How about a few decades ago? Those models had to diet, as well, and work on their figure, too, but they were size 2/4 even 6. Is there a compromise from everyone? What more can a model compromise in the name of Fashion that they're not already doing to be size zero's?
