SLE Photography wrote:

Why is having real information posted such a threat to you?

I prefer accurate and complete to "real". 

I am just having a bit of fun at Udor's expense.  He wants me to pick at him or he would not have baited (trolling) me with his first post.  He would simply have said he disagreed and pointed out where.  Go back and read.  That is not what he did.  He wants me to fuss at him and call him names, attack his credibility and make fun of his photography.  Why else would an "industry professional" provoke one of the great unwashed masses like myself?

bencook2 wrote:
"If you actually read it you'll find it is quite polite and points out why, not just what, which is refreshing."

My original point was only to refute this.  If you read on you will see it was Udor who engaged me personally. 

You have 1900 posts under your belt... certainly you must have read enough internet postings to know what trolling is?

I'm Glad Udor shares his knowledge with us.  He just doesn't like it when I/we share mine.  I'm not going to give my resume (brief that it is) with the fashion industry.  I don't need to.  The question of tall models has very little to do with fashion and has everything to do with psychology and marketing.  Nothing to do with being able to see the models on stage or how the close hang on the model.  Two of the oldest and wrongest excuses in the fashion business.  It has to do with giving the consumer what the consumer wants. 

If the consumer wanted 4'9" fat girls eventually that would be the runway model of choice and people like Udor would be arguing that the only way to "see" the clothes is on a model the size of a billboard!

Please cite your information that this's "giving the consumer what the consumer wants."
Preferably without repeating your assertion that "the consumer wants this because the industry tells them to."
That's indefensible circular logic.
In fact, surveys have shown men prefer curvier Victoria's Secret type models versus the typical high fashion runway models, and women prefer shorter fuller figured commercial type models in terms of aesthetic preference & favorable visual reaction.
The points about how the clothes hang, drape, and show are entirely valid, please give some basis for why you dismiss them as "excuses."
Reality doesn't just get to be the way you say it is because you don't like it.

bencook2 wrote:

I prefer accurate and complete to "real". 

I am just having a bit of fun at Udor's expense.  He wants me to pick at him or he would not have baited (trolling) me with his first post.  He would simply have said he disagreed and pointed out where.  Go back and read.  That is not what he did.  He wants me to fuss at him and call him names, attack his credibility and make fun of his photography.  Why else would an "industry professional" provoke one of the great unwashed masses like myself?

So your idea of "fun" is to insult someone and post false & misleading "information"?
That's terribly useful.

Colin Rowe wrote:

jealousy is the only thing I can think of.

Jealous?  How about concerned that this lie that Udor is furthering continues unchecked? 

Jealous...  Jealous is what I am of Eric Striffler and Chip Willis and Don Nelson and Nico Vision.  If these people who's work I admire were here furthering the same misinformation I would correct it as well.  Not out of jealousy but out of a sense of concern for accuracy.

TXPhotog wrote:

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:
i would have quite a distance to go to equal Udor's rude comments about women.

Ok, I think I've figured this out.  It seems we have a White Knight, folks.  He's off busily finding and slaying Dragons, and somehow has decided Udo is one.

A trip to the optometrist might be in order.  Udo hasn't made rude comments about women.  Even his comments about you have been pretty restrained, given your attacks on him and total lack of qualifications to even be in the conversation.

He posted a simple truth.  Is it the whole story?  No.  It's the story - an accurate one - seen from his perspective as a working professional in the field.  Is there more to the story?  Yes.  There is more to every story.  But we need not get into a 50,000 word dissertation on each and every aspect of the reasons for why short, heavier models are selected for the fashion industry.  It suffices that there are reasons, that the industry does not do these things capriciously, and that the next 5'4" 140 pound model that waltzes onto the forums is not going to "change the industry" precisely because there are reasons.

Udo's stated reasons, partial though they may be, are adequate for the task, and he does a service to the community for articulating them here.  This carping and complaining by people who have no knowledge of their own just to be a White Knight or to pull someone down is, quite frankly, symptomatic of the worst of the forums.

And when I try to point out that partial means in accurate I am attacking the Great One.  His first post to me speaks for itself.  Even if he thinks I was dead wrong that was not the jist of his first answer to me... the jist was how-dare-I.

Udor brought the 7-kinds-of-smoke on himself with his Udor-ness.

SLE Photography wrote:

Actually Udo didn't say that.  He just said you have NO REAL KNOWLEDGE of the fashion or runway business.
But since YOU know it maybe you should work on improving your skills? 

I do.  Thanks for the concern.  Udor is not aware of what "real knowledge" I do or do not have.  Besides, the question is not one of industry knowledge it is of thousands of years of programing as to what we find attractive and how giving us what we want is then marketed back to us.  Nothing to do with seeing the clothes.  Pardon me for exposing an "Industry" myth.

bencook2 wrote:

Jealous?  How about concerned that this lie that Udor is furthering continues unchecked? 

Jealous...  Jealous is what I am of Eric Striffler and Chip Willis and Don Nelson and Nico Vision.  If these people who's work I admire were here furthering the same misinformation I would correct it as well.  Not out of jealousy but out of a sense of concern for accuracy.

What "lie" is that, exactly?

StratMan wrote:
look at it this way......

runway models are just "human hangers"... they gracefully carry the garments up & down the runway...drape & flow are very important, as this is how many clothing lines are purchased by buyers for the upcoming fashion season. form models need to be size 2-4, think of them as a "master cast" for the designer's new concepts. fashion is a multi-billion dollar industry, the big wheels will not stop or alter their course for one model...there are simply too many of them, so they just pick another who fits the mold, and she is their newest "shing star."

is it hype? sometimes yes, the industry sells dreams, think of how many women buy designer outfits they see in vogue, elle, w, etc... cause they think that when they wear it, everyone will recognize what they are wearing, and how smashing they look.

i doubt very seriously some 5'4" model will change the industry...too much $$ is being made by too many people within the industry.

strat


"mi dos centavos"

Perfectly said.*  This is what people think I am argueing against.  NOT.

I am merely saying that the reason we want tall models is because that is what we want to see.  If we/collective wanted to see short models the clothes would be cut to "drape & flow" on 5'4" models instead of 5'9".


*I take slight issue with height having anything to do with drape and flow.  That can be accomplished with shorter proportional models and sample size clothing cut to fit.

bencook2 wrote:

I do.  Thanks for the concern.  Udor is not aware of what "real knowledge" I do or do not have.  Besides, the question is not one of industry knowledge it is of thousands of years of programing as to what we find attractive and how giving us what we want is then marketed back to us.  Nothing to do with seeing the clothes.  Pardon me for exposing an "Industry" myth.

Uh...I've studied a fair amount of sociology, evolutionary biology, and gender research dealing with things like sexual attraction.
Your information's off, and I noticed you didn't respond to my challenge above to present information to the contrary.
You say Udo doesn't know what you know, well, neither do the rest of us.
And since what you're saying flies in the face of what we KNOW through many sources it falls to you to tell us what you know, explain your credentials & background, and give sources to confirm why your "knowledge" is right & ours is not.

bencook2 wrote:

Perfectly said.*  This is what people think I am argueing against.  NOT.

I am merely saying that the reason we want tall models is because that is what we want to see.  If we/collective wanted to see short models the clothes would be cut to "drape & flow" on 5'4" models instead of 5'9".


*I take slight issue with height having anything to do with drape and flow.  That can be accomplished with shorter proportional models and sample size clothing cut to fit.

*headesk*
But clothes will not drape & flow or show as well on shorter models.
Longer cleaner lines & additional fabric allow for these things to show better.
Also please see this thread https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=152197 with a mathematical breakdown on how unlikely it is that a shorter model will have the proportions desired to best show the clothes.

SLE Photography wrote:
Please cite your information that this's "giving the consumer what the consumer wants."
Preferably without repeating your assertion that "the consumer wants this because the industry tells them to."
That's indefensible circular logic.
In fact, surveys have shown men prefer curvier Victoria's Secret type models versus the typical high fashion runway models, and women prefer shorter fuller figured commercial type models in terms of aesthetic preference & favorable visual reaction.
The points about how the clothes hang, drape, and show are entirely valid, please give some basis for why you dismiss them as "excuses."
Reality doesn't just get to be the way you say it is because you don't like it.

Try Reagan's "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts..." (not exact)  But, "Reality doesn't just get to be the way you say it is because you don't like it. " is pretty good too!  Made me giggle.

So you are suggesting that the main reason that runway models are tall is simply mechanics and physics.  Nothing to do with what I said?

Suggesting that you can't adjust visual perspective relative to the stage and model as well as adjust the cut of the clothes to give just as good a view of the clothing with a 5'6" model?

I don't disagree with your assurtion as to what men prefer.  Men don't drive the fashion industry with respect to women's clothing... women do.  I disagree completely with your assurtion that women don't want to see tall skinny girls modeling clothes.  As a collective they do.  If they did not, as the consumer, market forces would have dictated a change long ago.  No market is so powerful that it dictates to the consumer what it wants.  Not without interfering with the market forces.  When models get too skinny and sickly there is a consumer rejection and then we go back to healthier looking models for a while.  A market correction if you will. 

Sorry, but you are putting the cart before the horse if you think otherwise.  Not saying presentation of the clothes is less important.  Just saying it can be accomplished with shorter models if that is what the consumer truly wanted.

EDIT:  I learned long ago that giving my "resume" on this forum is a useless if not self-defeating act.  My arguement stands on its own.  My resume would neither defend nor take away from the arguement I have made.  A little time on google or a social psychology book and a little econ 101 is all the defense I need.  All of which is available via the internet.  Good luck.

SLE Photography wrote:

So your idea of "fun" is to insult someone and post false & misleading "information"?
That's terribly useful.

No apparently that was his idea when he lit into me.  Are you and Udor dating or something?  Brothers?  Because you have completely dismissed his aggressive posts towards me.  I am merely giving Udor what he wants.

SLE Photography wrote:

*headesk*
But clothes will not drape & flow or show as well on shorter models.
Longer cleaner lines & additional fabric allow for these things to show better.
Also please see this thread https://modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=152197 with a mathematical breakdown on how unlikely it is that a shorter model will have the proportions desired to best show the clothes.

Hogwash!

I disagree.  I have seen with my own eyes proportional models that have the same "clean" lines you speak of that are not 5'9".  Sorry but that is just wrong.

bencook2 wrote:
And when I try to point out that partial means in accurate I am attacking the Great One.

You did not "point out that partial means inaccurate".  Your actual claim was "complete bollocks", which is considerably less nuanced, and inaccurate.

Udo's information is correct.  It is posted in response to a need, and it serves that need adequately.  The need is not "tell us everything there is to know about why fashion models need to be tall".  Rather, it is "is there a good reason why a 5'4" 140 pound girl can't change the industry?"  It uses the demands of runway specifically, because on these threads models are always confusing "fashion model" with "runway".  And the answer is sufficient to the need.

No, it is not an encyclopedic description of all the many reasons why tall models are used.  But guess what?  Neither is your description.  You have a partial, and largely correct, answer, valid within its limitations.  Does that mean your answer is "complete bollocks" also?

bencook2 wrote:
His first post to me speaks for itself.

His first post, understandably, takes offense at your inaccurate characterization of his post, and your attempt to substitute your partial answer for his, while claiming that partial answers were not appropriate.

bencook2 wrote:
Even if he thinks I was dead wrong that was not the jist of his first answer to me... the jist was how-dare-I.

Again, understandable.  A person with no known or evident industry experience falsely claiming that a partially true (and sufficient) answer from a person with industry experience is "complete bollocks" may be expected to garner such a response pretty much every time.  If you would like to qualify your experience and your answer, you'd be a lot less likely to get that kind of pushback.

bencook2 wrote:
No market is so powerful that it dictates to the consumer what it wants.

Pet rocks.

Cabbage Patch Dolls.

Need I go on?

The temptation to scream "complete bollocks" at this point is strong.  It is tempered only by the fact that your statement is partially correct.

bencook2 wrote:
I don't disagree with your assurtion as to what men prefer.  Men don't drive the fashion industry with respect to women's clothing... women do.  I disagree completely with your assurtion that women don't want to see tall skinny girls modeling clothes.  As a collective they do.  If they did not, as the consumer, market forces would have dictated a change long ago.  No market is so powerful that it dictates to the consumer what it wants.  Not without interfering with the market forces.  When models get too skinny and sickly there is a consumer rejection and then we go back to healthier looking models for a while.  A market correction if you will. 

Sorry, but you are putting the cart before the horse if you think otherwise.  Not saying presentation of the clothes is less important.  Just saying it can be accomplished with shorter models if that is what the consumer truly wanted.

A little time on google or a social psychology book and a little econ 101 is all the defense I need.  All of which is available via the internet.  Good luck.

A little time on Google would show you that most women, especially in America, do NOT respond favorably to runway-style models in ads for clothing or especially other products.
But on the runway it's about showing the clothes & models who show the clothes best are selected because you're not supposed to NOTICE the model.
Also, that other thread I posted pointed out, as I said and using this exact word, it's UNLIKELY to find a shorter model with those stats.
Not IMPOSSIBLE.

TXPhotog wrote:

bencook2 wrote:
And when I try to point out that partial means in accurate I am attacking the Great One.

You did not "point out that partial means inaccurate".  Your actual claim was "complete bollocks", which is considerably less nuanced, and inaccurate.

Udo's information is correct.  It is posted in response to a need, and it serves that need adequately.  The need is not "tell us everything there is to know about why fashion models need to be tall".  Rather, it is "is there a good reason why a 5'4" 140 pound girl can't change the industry?"  It uses the demands of runway specifically, because on these threads models are always confusing "fashion model" with "runway".  And the answer is sufficient to the need.

No, it is not an encyclopedic description of all the many reasons why tall models are used.  But guess what?  Neither is your description.  You have a partial, and largely correct, answer, valid within its limitations.  Does that mean your answer is "complete bollocks" also?

bencook2 wrote:
His first post to me speaks for itself.

His first post, understandably, takes offense at your inaccurate characterization of his post, and your attempt to substitute your partial answer for his, while claiming that partial answers were not appropriate.


Again, understandable.  A person with no known or evident industry experience falsely claiming that a partially true (and sufficient) answer from a person with industry experience is "complete bollocks" may be expected to garner such a response pretty much every time.  If you would like to qualify your experience and your answer, you'd be a lot less likely to get that kind of pushback.

well reasoned and welcome!  thx.

I have made the arguement about five times already.  It in the post.  It is clear.  It is intellectually sound.  It is complete.

I am satisfied my position is well defended and clear.

Fair play that Complete Bollocks was a too harsh.  90% Bollocks would have been better but it doesn't have that ring in the ear!

I don't have to be an industry professional to know that Udor's explination was very lacking.  I don't have to have run my own agency.  I don't have to have contacts in the modeling world.  I don't have to have shot a runway show.  I don't have to have done anything at all in the industry other than have been an observer for over 11 years and know a thing or two about psychology and economics to know that the MAIN reason that we have tall skinny girls on stage is because that is what we want to see.  If we wanted to see short fat girls that would eventually be what was on stage.  And... we would still be argueing this but vice-versa. 

So is Udor wrong.  Yes.  But more accurately he is both incomplete in his answer and he is wrong in characterizing the importance of "seeing" the model/clothes better with tall models.  You can accomplish "seeing" the clothes with shorter models by adjusting perspective too the model as long as the model is proportional.  If that is what the industry and consumer wanted that is what we would see.  It is not.

TXPhotog wrote:

Pet rocks.

Cabbage Patch Dolls.

Need I go on?

The temptation to scream "complete bollocks" at this point is strong.  It is tempered only by the fact that your statement is partially correct.

Apparently the amount of bollocks you express is very important in this arguement!

Someone made you buy a Pet Rock or Cabbage Patch Doll?

bencook2 wrote:
Apparently the amount of bollocks you express is very important in this arguement!

It is when you falsely claim something to be "complete bollocks" and it is not.

bencook2 wrote:
Someone made you buy a Pet Rock or Cabbage Patch Doll?

No, but millions of them were sold for the sole and only reason that marketing "made" people buy something they had no genetic or cultural predisposition to buy.  Your claimed factors do not apply.  Read:  they are incomplete explanations.

TXPhotog wrote:

bencook2 wrote:
Apparently the amount of bollocks you express is very important in this arguement!

It is when you falsely claim something to be "complete bollocks" and it is not.


No, but millions of them were sold for the sole and only reason that marketing "made" people buy something they had no genetic or cultural predisposition to buy.  Your claimed factors do not apply.  Read:  they are incomplete explanations.

I am going to have to stop cause I got to run.  But I am enjoying this engagement with you.

"No, but millions of them were sold for the sole and only reason that marketing "made" people buy something they had no genetic or cultural predisposition to buy."

"cultural" care to retract or explain how our consumer "culture" doesn't apply here?

GAETANO CATELLI STUDIOS wrote:

it seems that aggressively and noisily crushing the dreams of newbie women models is Udor's reigning obsession.

Oh... THAT's it... you are a troll!

Sorry I fell for it.

bencook2 wrote:
I have made the arguement about five times already.  It in the post.  It is clear.  It is intellectually sound.  It is complete.

As I said earlier, it is accurate to a degree from its own point of view, within its own limitations.  But complete?  Not by a long shot.  It may simply be as complete as an

bencook2 wrote:
You can accomplish "seeing" the clothes with shorter models by adjusting perspective too the model as long as the model is proportional.

external observer with no access to the internals of the process can imagine.  That's not the same as "complete".  Udo's explanation isn't complete either, but it is supplementary to yours and accurate from its own point of view, and within its own limitations.  That proves that your answer is not complete.

bencook2 wrote:
Fair play that Complete Bollocks was a too harsh.  90% Bollocks would have been better but it doesn't have that ring in the ear!

It's nice that you acknowledge that.  However, your acknowledgment bring with it two inescapable truths:

1.  If it were only "90% bollocks", that leaves the other 10% as truth.  Truth that is not contained in your "complete" explanation.  See above.

2.  Overstatement of criticism tends to result in overreaction in response.  Need I explain this?  If, as you claim, Udo is reaping from you what he sowed, so are you from him.  There is a certain balance to that, tipped in his favor by the fact that you struck first with an inaccurate, unfair statement about him.

bencook2 wrote:
I don't have to be an industry professional to know that Udor's explination was very lacking.  I don't have to have run my own agency.  I don't have to have contacts in the modeling world.  I don't have to have shot a runway show.  I don't have to have done anything at all in the industry other than have been an observer for over 11 years and know a thing or two about psychology and economics to know that the MAIN reason that we have tall skinny girls on stage is because that is what we want to see.

Wrong.  You don't have to be any of those things to know that is A reason why we see tall, skinny girls on runways.  But you do have to be at least one of those things to know that there are other compelling reasons also, none of which you apprehend because they are outside your experience.  You expand your "complete" analysis to the limits of your own limited knowledge, and mistakenly believe it is a full, complete explanation.  It is not.  Not even close.

bencook2 wrote:
If we wanted to see short fat girls that would eventually be what was on stage.  And... we would still be argueing this but vice-versa.

Perhaps, if the "wanted" were strong enough to overcome the other reasons.  But it isn't, and we won't, and that fact does not prove that consumer taste (or industry taste, as you have also claimed) is the sole or even main determining factor.

bencook2 wrote:
So is Udor wrong.  Yes.  But more accurately he is both incomplete in his answer and he is wrong in characterizing the importance of "seeing" the model/clothes better with tall models.

No, Udo is correct, only just partly correct.  You are correct also, but only partly so.

bencook2 wrote:
You can accomplish "seeing" the clothes with shorter models by adjusting perspective too the model as long as the model is proportional.

Let me give you just one of the many issues which must be dealt with to form a "complete" answer, which is outside your claimed "complete" answer. 

Runways could be "adjusted", I suppose, to "adjust" viewer perspective, but it would be an engineering challenge, and likely reduce the functionality of the runway.  Perhaps you would like to speculate on how it could be done?

While you are at it, please speculate on how it could be done in the context of a designer's showroom, in which there are no runways, but the same clothing samples are used?

Or in trunk shows or tearoom shows around the country.  How, exactly, will that "adjusting perspective" thingy work.

When you tell us your answer, which of course will be economically feasible in the context of live fashion marketing, you will have taken us into new territory.  Territory on which historical and contemporary decisions about models will not have been based.  Again, the lack of such an answer to date is one more element of the lack of completeness of your claimed "complete answer".

bencook2 wrote:
"No, but millions of them were sold for the sole and only reason that marketing "made" people buy something they had no genetic or cultural predisposition to buy."

"cultural" care to retract or explain how our consumer "culture" doesn't apply here?

No, I don't feel any need to do either.  Let me remind you of the thread context in which my statements were made:

bencook2 wrote:
I am merely saying that the reason we want tall models is because that is what we want to see.  If we/collective wanted to see short models the clothes would be cut to "drape & flow" on 5'4" models instead of 5'9".

It's not hard to make a case that there is a cultural predisposition for tall, slim women as objects of desire in at least a major, economically important segment of the population.  In fact, you made that case, and I do not dispute it.

It is hard to see how there is a cultural predisposition for rocks in the same sense as your earlier statement.  Yes, marketing in the consumer culture can create a demand, and did - but that flies directly in the face of the argument you were making.

bencook2 wrote:
It has to do with giving the consumer what the consumer wants.

That's another fallacy of yours Ben!

Fashion Week is NOT for the consumer!!!

It's an "Industry Only" event where designers show their new lines to fashion editors and buyers, who make a decision on the spot which garments they like when the model walks by.

They make their notes on the "run of the show", which is a list that shows the exact order the garments are being presented, the name of the model as reference, the name of the garment and usually a short description of the garment.

The "run of the show" is what the people in the photo below are holding in their hands, looking at and making notes!



Those are the people the shows are for... and those people are the ones that are writing about the next seasons designs and the buyers have an idea which one they will order in large quantities for Bloomingdales, Macy's or JC Penney. Those people are responsible for the bottom line of the companies they are buying for... and it's a business for them.

Trust me when I state that they don't look at the model as if they are in a meat market. They have seconds to observe the flow, details and overall impression and make a decision if that garment fits into their company's fashion line.

Then they shoot the (for the consumer adjusted) garments (unless they were in a "ready to wear" category show), for their catalog which uses commercial models.

The latter is giving the consumer what the consumer wants.

The shows are a few steps before that one.

STUDIOMONA wrote:
if it's a petite runway show, they would be casting petite runway models, but I am sure they'd be making sure the models have good body proportions?

Udo has been to more runway shows than I have, but I've been to over 150 Fashion Week shows.  Not a single one of them was casting "petite models".  I've never heard of a Fashion Week show that did.

On rare occasion a petite model will be used in a show for other reasons, but that's not the same thing.

TXPhotog wrote:
It's a good point, Udo, but the next thing he will tell us is that all those fashion industry professionals and buyers are surrogates for "people", and they are subject to the same emotional desires as he has stated.

That will be a rationalization to jam the facts into his "complete theory", but I'd expect it.

Or perhaps we will see an addendum to his Complete Theory:  if Anna Wintour wanted to see short models, that's what would be on runways.

I edited a little bit and made some clarifications.

If he doesn't get it, I hope that at least those who are interested in that segment of the industry get some info out of it.

Udor wrote:
I edited a little bit and made some clarifications.

If he doesn't get it, I hope that at least those who are interested in that segment of the industry get some info out of it.

I doubt he will get it.

He is looking at this from the standpoint of an external observer, who sees "marketing" as a unitary process and does not understand the component parts of it, each of which has its own logic and demands.  He feels that his overarching "complete theory" should apply to fashion marketing in general, and therefore will be "complete" in explaining how pieces of the marketing effort are conducted, even though some of those those pieces (such as runway shows) in large measure violate his assumptions and are not driven by his overall claimed "complete" explanation.

bencook2 wrote:
...edited to save the reader's brain cells from having to deal with some really uninformed nonsense....

Ben,

You have no experience and no credibility on this issue. Simply look at the photo. Now tell me - how will a buyer from say Dillard's be able to to see a dress that he or she may wish to order 10,000 of from the back row if a 5'2" model was walking it? That buyer wouldn't and the designer would lose out on a large order.

This is a business, and therefore it has standards that have nothing to do with the verbal diarrhea you expounded. Unless you have some experience in the fashion industry I recommend you keep quiet or continue to savor the taste of your foot, which you have manage to insert as far as your ankle on this matter.

Carrie Ikerd wrote:
So if the models on the runway need to be above average height, and I'm 5'10, how come I can't find a damn pair of jeans that go past my ankles?

Your jeans aren't designer samples

215 Studios wrote:

The primary reason for this is, these women (0-4) are as close to a "walking coat-hanger" as the designer can get.  When designers send their clothes down the runway, they don't want you to look at the model.  They are not selling the model!  They want you to see the clothes.

-Major

well said.

Udor wrote:

I edited a little bit and made some clarifications.

If he doesn't get it, I hope that at least those who are interested in that segment of the industry get some info out of it.

A brickwall has a better chance of getting it

Junk Fashion wrote:

A brickwall has a better chance of getting it

I hope not! 

Udor wrote:

I hope not! 

I tried to help, Udo

bencook2 wrote:

Perfectly said.*  This is what people think I am argueing against.  NOT.

I am merely saying that the reason we want tall models is because that is what we want to see.  If we/collective wanted to see short models the clothes would be cut to "drape & flow" on 5'4" models instead of 5'9".


*I take slight issue with height having anything to do with drape and flow.  That can be accomplished with shorter proportional models and sample size clothing cut to fit.

long & flowy looks better than short & flowy, the industry decided long ago that tall & thin IS the way to go, I doubt the machine will change... 

o/~ big wheel keeps on turnin', svelt models keep on churnin'...roooooollin', roollin, rooooollin'  onna runway!...o/~

strat

215 Studios wrote:

The primary reason for this is, these women (0-4) are as close to a "walking coat-hanger" as the designer can get.  When designers send their clothes down the runway, they don't want you to look at the model.  They are not selling the model!  They want you to see the clothes.

-Major

exactly. this is what my mother would tell me when i was younger and aspired to do runway. ::sigh:: no one wants a 5'7" runway model that has a size 7/9 waist!