According to Webster one of the definitions of the word “model” is “an example for imitation or emulation”. That’s definition number five; number nine is “one who is employed to displayed clothes or other merchandise”. Of course, the latter definition flows from the former, models sell clothes and other merchandise by making others want to emulate or imitate them. Strictly speaking then, the purpose of “models” is to move product by making lesser people try to be like them.
That is the context in which the following story needs to be placed. In Germany this week the women’s magazine Brigitte renounced the use of professional models in favor of, well, amateur models:
Germany’s most popular women’s magazine is banning professional models from its pages and replacing them with images of “real life” women instead.
In what is seen as the latest attempt to stamp out the “size zero” model, the editors of Brigitte said it would in future only use women with “normal figures”.
[…]
He said the move was a response to complaints by readers who said they had no connection with the women depicted in fashion features and “no longer wanted to see protruding bones”.
This is a fantastic idea if for no other reason that it will, at least in Germany, break up the homogeneity that exists in women’s magazines in terms of the women on display. But as long as we’re talking about “real life” women let’s be realistic, this isn’t even the beginning of the kind of change it would take to relieve women of the pressure to feel like pretty, pretty princesses.
Sentiments like this from Feministing were the typical reaction:
Lately, Europe seems to be eons ahead of us regarding their recognition that the fashion and media having a significantly unhealthy effect on women’s body image. The latest is Germany’s most popular women’s magazine’s announcement of their intention to omit professional models from their pages in an effort to combat unrealistic social beauty standards
(A woman from Cincinnati e-mailed in to BBC radio with a similar message but I couldn’t find a link.) However, congratulations like these, accompanied by calls for more magazines (and advertisements) to take similar steps, are missing a crucial point. Magazine images of this variety have one purpose and one purpose only: making people feel bad in order to get them to buy shit. The BMI of the models in question isn’t completely irrelevant, but it’s also far from the center of the pitch.
These magazines are selling things that are essentially luxury products. Even under a very generous definition of the word “necessity” it would be hard to fit items like designer clothes and name brand cosmetics. Creams, often enormously expensive, that claim to prevent wrinkles or fight “aging” (whatever that means) have never been scientifically shown to do anything but cost a lot. The brands that can afford to advertise like this are the very definition of the word “optional”, which is precisely why magazines and their sponsors push them so relentlessly using the only levers they have: female insecurity and competition.
It seems very unlikely that trying to reign in their excesses will have any appreciable effect. What if you did require models to have a minimum Body Mass Index? (Or at least all the models in a magazine to average a certain BMI?) What if you did require a disclaimer on advertisements that had been photoshopped? What part of the nature of these pitches would change?
A model, even one whose ribs are not there for the counting, is still a model. She likely has a perfectly symmetrical face (most people don’t), knows how to pose to present herself at her best and, most importantly, is still being photographed in a completely artificial environment. A woman carrying twenty, forty or more pounds than a typical model is still the beneficiary of professional hair, makeup, wardrobe and lighting. Even if the resulting image goes into the glossy pages exactly as it was when it hit the CCD it’s still a 100% fake picture.
(Selecting women who aren’t professional models, as the linked story says Brigitte is planning to do, won’t make a bit of difference either. The editor says they’re going to look for “the 18-year-old A-level student, the company chairwoman, the musician, or the footballer”, but there are plenty of fantastically attractive women out there who aren’t professional models and I will guarantee you that they take up most if not all of the new space reserved for “real life” women.)
The only way people look the way anyone does in a magazine is to be in a completely controlled environment under the careful supervision of professionals with lots of time and money at their disposal. Making the human props eat a little bit more will change none of that. People who don’t have those kinds of resources will still be unable to measure up, will still feel bad about it and will continue pumping billions of dollars into the coffers of the people who made them feel that way.
Magazines of this ilk and the advertisements that support them are inherently dishonest mediums. They are predicated on the warped idea that in order to feel good about yourself, the way you look, or the way others perceive you, it is all but mandatory to spend significant sums of money. And, as they say, there’s a look for every budget, ranging from the truly grotesque amounts required for name brand items all the way down to the outlet mall.
The defense of this has always been that it’s fun to dress fashionably and try out different looks. That’s great, and more power to anyone who wants to do whatever they want to do to look how they want to look. But that’s not what glossy magazines are about; they’re about making you desire things you don’t have, don’t need, and probably can’t afford. Giving that message a cosmetic makeover by removing the girls with “protruding bones” is all well and good, but it doesn’t address the real issue which is, has been, and likely always will be, making women feel inadequate in order to get them to pull out the credit card. Couching the inadequacy pitch with slightly more realistic bodies won’t change the fact that the “beauty” industry, in all its forms, is a massive and almost completely useless money hole.
