+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 62

Thread: Kathy Najimy Sounds Off

  1. #51
    FORT Voyeur Aceon6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by dogabone View Post
    When we say "runway fashion," it is important to distinguish between couture and prêt-à-porter. Both are runway fashion, but couture features the more artistic, out-there ideas that will be tamed down considerably before they reach the mass market. Prêt-à-porter (ready to wear) is more conservative and usually undergoes very little editing before it appears in stores.

    PR is supposed to be more about the latter, and many of the designers have been criticized for being "too couture" (think Austin Scarlett). (Of course, they are also criticized for not being "fashion forward"! Go figure.)
    Good point. It might be quite interesting if, instead of using size 2-4 models, they use size 6-8 as the standard. That way, we could get a better idea of the designers skills in prêt-à-porter.

  2. #52
    FORT Fanatic texasgal26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Big Easy
    Posts
    760

    Kathy's Comments

    I think it's also important to consider the difference btw runway models and commercial or other models. Of course the word "model" suggests an ideal, but really runway models, for the most part, are not supposed to represent an ideal standard of beauty - they are, as someone else brought up, supposed to have beanpole bodies with few curves and very plain faces. If you watch a show like American's Next Top Model, they constantly refer to the better models' faces as "blank canvases" - not really a compliment! Also, I recall Adrian Curry from ANTM commenting that models don't really work out, they starve... too many muscles are bad for runway mods.

    I'm bringing this up b/c I think that just b/c one of the PR models is accused of not having a good runway model body doesn't mean she is "fat" or "unattractive" or "doesn't conform to our standards of beauty." I feel like the contemporary standard of beauty is, as ComputerSaysNo said, "active and healthy" - someone with curves but who takes care of herself. I say "standard of beauty," not the only kind of beauty.

  3. #53
    Fight Queen corprip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Roeland Park, KS
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by dogabone View Post
    I think this episode provided evidence that FIT, Parsons, and the other fashion schools need to educate their students better when it comes to fitting a variety of shapes, sizes, and ages. Design students are taught with a runway model template; the real fault is in the schools' curricula.
    Very good point! I think that's why Tim Gunn is so unapologetic in his assessments of models he consider unappealing (Alexandra this season, Rachel last season). He buys and sells the image of models as toothpicks to his students and sees nothing wrong with holding such a limiting prejudice.
    "I've got soul, but I'm not a soldier." The Killers.

  4. #54
    Dreamer rt1ky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Trying to free myself from the snarkside.
    Posts
    3,153
    Quote Originally Posted by dogabone View Post
    When we say "runway fashion," it is important to distinguish between couture and prêt-à-porter. Both are runway fashion, but couture features the more artistic, out-there ideas that will be tamed down considerably before they reach the mass market. Prêt-à-porter (ready to wear) is more conservative and usually undergoes very little editing before it appears in stores.
    I'm glad somebody cleared that up. I was about to post the same thing. "ready to wear" lines are targeted to store buyers who in turn try to sell the clothes to the masses.

  5. #55
    Harmless and unoffensive ComputerSaysNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by rt1ky View Post
    I'm glad somebody cleared that up. I was about to post the same thing. "ready to wear" lines are targeted to store buyers who in turn try to sell the clothes to the masses.
    Kinda, sorta.

    "Couture" is something that only a tiny amount of fashion houses (a dozen or two at most) make anymore. Couture typically loses money on its own, but the theatrical and fantastical nature of the clothes is good advertising for the relatively more accessible pret-a-porter line of that house.

    More women can afford a $3,000 Dior pret-a-porter cocktail dress than an $120,000 (No, that's not a typo. One hundred and twenty THOUSAND) couture evening dress with hand-beading and embroidery.

    Ready to wear is anything basically off the rack, but does of course apply to what the fashion houses send down the runway.

  6. #56
    harmless dolphin martini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The new South
    Posts
    356
    I'm new to the show this season but it seems to have a bit of an anti-fat (or more accurately anti-real size) women bias. It is even somewhat reflected in the choice of designers. However, let's face reality. The women who are buying clothes look more "zaftig" than like any of the models. The "everyday woman" challenge was very telling. And notice that the winner was a designer who designed a dress for a slim woman?
    Shaken, not stirred.

  7. #57
    FORT Fogey Brandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,245
    martini: Yes - and even Tim (who made the zaftig comment, and the Gumby legs comment last season) said that Uli should have won, because Vincent's 'everyday woman' could have been a model herself. (Plus, the dress was oogly Lol).

    I loved Uli and Robert's attitude... well, Robert's up until I read his interview.

  8. #58
    Harmless and unoffensive ComputerSaysNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by martini View Post
    I'm new to the show this season but it seems to have a bit of an anti-fat (or more accurately anti-real size) women bias. It is even somewhat reflected in the choice of designers. However, let's face reality. The women who are buying clothes look more "zaftig" than like any of the models. The "everyday woman" challenge was very telling. And notice that the winner was a designer who designed a dress for a slim woman?
    High fashion is primarily about fantasy.

    Not all the women who are buying clothes are "zaftig". I live in Manhattan and shop at places like Bergdorf's and Barney's. Very few large women shop there. And they manage to stay quite busy.

    I'm 5'4". You don't see petite women complaining that high fashion tends to look better on taller women, do you?

    I have c-cups. There are a lot of great clothes that I love, but they don't look good on me because I have boobs. Do you see women that are thin but busty complaining?

    Most women don't want to be "real". If they can't afford the clothes, they read magazines like Vogue to escape for their "real" lives. I can guarantee you if designers showed their clothes on a runway worn by women that were 5'2" and 180 pounds almost no one would buy them. Because they would not look as good. Because clothes drape better on a tall, thin body.

    And the fact is, even 20 years ago the plus market was not what it is today. Sure, there were overweight people, but nowhere to the degree there are today. So what happened over the last few decades? Millions of people suddenly developed thyroid problems? What happened to personal responsibility? Why is it so offensive to people when you confront them with the fact that, just maybe, they could be responsible for being overweight?

    Women should be healthy. This means not starving yourself into submission, but still nourishing yourself with food that's good for you and still enjoying a hot fudge sundae on occasion. And it means being active. Women who do this are not guaranteed to be a size 2.

    I've met women who abuse their bodies are and still tiny and gorgeous and women who take great care of themselves and are a size 12. And gorgeous. And vice versa.

    So to summarize: How fashion is presented? Not real life. Like with any other high-end consumer product you are being sold a fantasy. If you choose to buy it or not is your responsibility. You want "real"? Go to Dress Barn.
    Last edited by ShrinkingViolet; 09-07-2006 at 04:00 PM.

  9. #59
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,053
    ComputerSaysNo, I couldn't agree with you more! Well said.

    signed, another 5'4" C cup.



  10. #60
    harmless dolphin martini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The new South
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by ComputerSaysNo View Post
    High fashion is primarily about fantasy.

    Not all the women who are buying clothes are "zaftig". I live in Manhattan and shop at places like Bergdorf's and Barney's. Very few large women shop there. And they manage to stay quite busy.

    I'm 5'4". You don't see petite women complaining that high fashion tends to look better on taller women, do you?

    I have c-cups. There are a lot of great clothes that I love, but they don't look good on me because I have boobs. Do you see women that are thin but busty complaining?

    Most women don't want to be "real". If they can't afford the clothes, they read magazines like Vogue to escape for their "real" lives. I can guarantee you if designers showed their clothes on a runway worn by women that were 5'2" and 180 pounds almost no one would buy them. Because they would not look as good. Because clothes drape better on a tall, thin body.

    And the fact is, even 20 years ago the plus market was not what it is today. Sure, there were overweight people, but nowhere to the degree there are today. So what happened over the last few decades? Millions of people suddenly developed thyroid problems? What happened to personal responsibility? Why is it so offensive to people when you confront them with the fact that, just maybe, they could be responsible for being overweight?

    Women should be healthy. This means not starving yourself into submission, but still nourishing yourself with food that's good for you and still enjoying a hot fudge sundae on occasion. And it means being active. Women who do this are not guaranteed to be a size 2.

    I've met women who abuse their bodies are and still tiny and gorgeous and women who take great care of themselves and are a size 12. And gorgeous. And vice versa.

    So to summarize: How fashion is presented? Not real life. Like with any other high-end consumer product you are being sold a fantasy. If you choose to buy it or not is your responsibility. You want "real"? Go to Dress Barn.

    I couldn't agree with you more -- I'm among the short, slim and busty set -- a challenging physique for a distance runner. I think that treating your body as the temple of your soul (which it is) is the key.

    However, my point doesn't have anything to do with how people should look or should treat their bodies. Until we understand the compulsions that lead to the obesity epidemic, I don't think any of us are really fit to stand in judgement.

    My point is that the challenge was aimed at the "Everyday Woman" and the average sized woman is closer to a size 12, than the sample size 2. Hence, being able to design something that would look acceptable on THAT female form seemed like the point. And think about how much harder that is? Creating something for a walking clothes hanger = not so tough. Making Angela's mom look/feel high fashion = really hard.
    Shaken, not stirred.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.