The ever stunning Adele covers Vogue US this month and I have heard/read some "praising" the fact they have not just used a head shot (a la Vogue UK) and are "showing her body". Others getting riled up that they aren't. Well, they aren't, they are showing her glorious cleavage, which is a curve everybody embraces anyway.
I feel perhaps that we all may be over thinking this and, due to her having one of the most stunning bone structures, lips and eyes, that the best shots on the roll were head shots or close ups. Inside there are full body shots, so it can't because they think she doesn't look good in the clothes they have pulled for her; otherwise what would be the point in her being shot for a fashion magazine?
Adele is not a model, her job isn't selling clothes and she isn't launching a fashion range; she is opening "up about her life changing year". She is a gorgeous girl, with amazing style both in and out of magazine world. They have put her on the front cover because she is a highly celebrated song writer and singer. And I haven't heard anything from Adele about any disappointment about her covers, I bet she is just thrilled to be fronting two Vogue's.
------
I understand that size 0-6 isn't highly representative of the general population (and at the smaller end isn't usually healthy*) . But I don't feel represented by plus sized models either, and most of my friends and acquaintances aren't plus sized either. So if a majority of models were plus size, perhaps this would only be going to the other end of the same problem?
If I were to send my photos in to both a plus size model agency or a "normal" model agency. Size wise, I wouldn't qualify for either. (God knows what they would say about my face?!)
The only well known size 10 model I can think of is Daisy Lowe. But I don't even feel represented by her, she isn't "normal", because along with her beautiful face she has the perfect hourglass shape, with big boobs, small waist and a proper lovely sized bottom with no saddlebags!
That's the thing though, models aren't normal people. They are extraordinarily beautiful, that's why their models.
When looking at most models I envy their stunning faces not their waifish/plump bodies.
I wish I was half as beautiful as Tara Lynn, who by the way, graced the front cover of February's ELLE France:
If models looked (facially or physically) like the average person, would be buy what they were selling? Would we put their photos on our wall or fill our computers with images of them. Only the ones enjoyed looking at. . . and that's usually because they would probably be extra ordinarily beautiful........
* I say usually unhealthy because I have friends that are size 0-4 and I can't see their ribs and they don't look gaunt. They are completely healthy, they just have the body frame of a sparrow.
I don't agree with celebrating or idolising unhealthy weights. Be that size 0 or size 24.
Not many people mentioned that a full nude body shot of Beth Ditto on the front cover of LOVE may have been promoting very unhealthy weight. But I guess that opens a whole new kettle of fish.
Labels:
Thoughts
I feel perhaps that we all may be over thinking this and, due to her having one of the most stunning bone structures, lips and eyes, that the best shots on the roll were head shots or close ups. Inside there are full body shots, so it can't because they think she doesn't look good in the clothes they have pulled for her; otherwise what would be the point in her being shot for a fashion magazine?
Adele is not a model, her job isn't selling clothes and she isn't launching a fashion range; she is opening "up about her life changing year". She is a gorgeous girl, with amazing style both in and out of magazine world. They have put her on the front cover because she is a highly celebrated song writer and singer. And I haven't heard anything from Adele about any disappointment about her covers, I bet she is just thrilled to be fronting two Vogue's.
------
I understand that size 0-6 isn't highly representative of the general population (and at the smaller end isn't usually healthy*) . But I don't feel represented by plus sized models either, and most of my friends and acquaintances aren't plus sized either. So if a majority of models were plus size, perhaps this would only be going to the other end of the same problem?
If I were to send my photos in to both a plus size model agency or a "normal" model agency. Size wise, I wouldn't qualify for either. (God knows what they would say about my face?!)
The only well known size 10 model I can think of is Daisy Lowe. But I don't even feel represented by her, she isn't "normal", because along with her beautiful face she has the perfect hourglass shape, with big boobs, small waist and a proper lovely sized bottom with no saddlebags!
That's the thing though, models aren't normal people. They are extraordinarily beautiful, that's why their models.
When looking at most models I envy their stunning faces not their waifish/plump bodies.
I wish I was half as beautiful as Tara Lynn, who by the way, graced the front cover of February's ELLE France:
If models looked (facially or physically) like the average person, would be buy what they were selling? Would we put their photos on our wall or fill our computers with images of them. Only the ones enjoyed looking at. . . and that's usually because they would probably be extra ordinarily beautiful........
* I say usually unhealthy because I have friends that are size 0-4 and I can't see their ribs and they don't look gaunt. They are completely healthy, they just have the body frame of a sparrow.
I don't agree with celebrating or idolising unhealthy weights. Be that size 0 or size 24.
Not many people mentioned that a full nude body shot of Beth Ditto on the front cover of LOVE may have been promoting very unhealthy weight. But I guess that opens a whole new kettle of fish.
