Monday, January 11, 2010

reponse to the jablonski v. renn post

i've never blogged a comment before, but i found this commentary left in response to the jacquelyn jablonski versus crystal renn post by an anonymous source to be particularly profound. the comment addresses why the plus sized model exudes more sexuality, and why high fashion demands skinny models. i think this comment speaks to the fact that the fashion industry is much more esoteric than popular and celebrity culture commonly observes. high fashion (form) and street fashion (form meets function) are abundantly different.

thank you for your thoughtful words.

Crystal Renn and Jacquelyn Jablonski for V MagazineCrystal Renn and Jacquelyn Jablonski for V Magazine
Anonymous said...
if we're talking about fashion, we're not talking about mainstream society. like painting or opera, high fashion is really geared to a narrow audience of those who are interested in it as artistic expression and/or (perhaps more importantly) those with the means to actually participate in the market. why do they want models to be asexual? because they're showcasing fashion, not sex. a sunset is beautiful but i doubt many find it sexually arousing. my point is, there are many types of beauty that don't deal with sexual appeal. if anything, sex takes attention away from the clothes. as do curves. curves are sensuous and luxuriant. a more tenuous form is subtle and elegant. for instance, look at the third pair of pictures. i find the contour of renn's right arm to be visually more interesting than the fabric laid across it. it's captivating but it's not about the clothes. in contrast, the other models figure draws less attention away from the fabric and how it's cut. compare the figural sculptures of matisse and giacometti. while matisse's full, round forms are beautiful they do not exhibit the same simplicity and elegance that giacometti's work exudes. i believe the fashion industry's propensity for displaying thinner models is an attempt to achieve a consistently elegant or sophisticated aesthetic more fitting with the "high society" in which fashion is a real pursuit. it's an unfortunate consequence that so many are misled to view these women as examples of beauty and sexuality when, simply put, they are little more than frames for the real spectacle: the clothes. if you want to make fancy expensive clothing, you make it looks fancy and expensive, not just sexually appealing.


MissMoss said...

I totally agree, that's probably the best argument I have ever read regarding the thin/curvy "debate" in fashion. thanks for sharing.

google_account said...

I've always been a fan of fuller-figured models. There's a great site with many images of Crystal and other plus-size models here:

They're all gorgeous.

The site's forum also has thought-provoking discussions about body image and the media.

Scorpion Disco said...

I completely DISAGREE! I think clothes can be art, but ultimately, it needs to be art that you can look and feel good in, and not just as a size 0. I think this ad served to show that normal women can wear the same clothes as models and look and feel just as good, if not better!

And another thing about "art" - it is not just meant to be displayed or seen in just one way! Fashion, like art, should be played out in several different ways (i.e. the same piece on on different sized models) and thus can be appreciated by more people and in more ways! If there was only the opportunity to see this outfit on the same type of body, we wouldnt gain new and unique perspectives on it!


Recent Posts