Talk:Supermodel/Archive 1

Cleanup Tags
I put the cleanup tags on the page; at present, it is cluttered and somewhat ambiguous. While there is no ironclad set of criteria for what makes one a "supermodel", the definition should be more clear than it is. Also, the format of the page should be adjusted. Juansmith 06:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The following people, listed on this page, do not appear to be supermodels:

 * Christina Leardini
 * Anna Nicole Smith
 * Lisa Boyle
 * Jenny McCarthy

Being named Playboy Playmate of the Year does not qualify one as a 'supermodel', either in the conventional sense or in the deinition proposed in the article. ("a famous and extremely highly paid fashion model".)

Moreover, Cameron Diaz is noted for her acting career, not her modeling career. She did not become famous as a model, and therefore was never a supermodel.


 * Agree, and I've removed A.N. Smith, McCarthy and Diaz from the list. Leardini and Boyle I don't know about, so I've left for now. Fuzheado 03:46, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I removed a few more:

I refuse to say why I know so much about these women ;)--Mishac 12:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Monica Bellucci - more famous as an actress than a model
 * Caprice Bourret - more of a pinup girl than a fashion model (youd find her in FHM or playboy, not cosmo or glamour
 * Lisa Boyle - nude model/b-movie actress
 * Erika Eleniak - baywatch actress
 * Christina Leardini - playboy
 * Cindy Margolis - see caprice bourret
 * Kiana Tom - fitness model, host of an exercise tv show on espn

Stacey McKenzie should be added. She gets paid supermodel $, supermodels know and rate her. check http://stacey-mckenzie.com/pix/Stacey_45.jpg or http://stacey-mckenzie.com/pix/bella%20freud.jpg, notice she is closing the show, that's Kate Moss in front of her... if you know anything about fashion shows, the openers and closers... -gangalee

But she isn't in the same league as Naomi, Christy, Claudia, Iman..When you hear those names together or see them together. You won't find Stacey there. Nobody knew who she was until CNTM. I kept the likes of Tricia Helfer, because she won the FORD Supermodel of the World contest in 1992. She's been a model for 14 years. She was a big high fashion model and commercial. She was very well known especially to fans of her sci fi show. Lil Flip246 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the list of models on this page since that list had many questionable entries (women who were not necessarily "a famous and extremely highly paid fashion model") and the page links to Category:Supermodels and Category:Models. --Lowellian 16:15, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

A supermodel is not necessarily a woman, right? Changing "woman" to "person". dpol 15:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shut up you idiot. have you nothing better to do in your small and very sad life??!! Personally, people like you make me sick to my stomach and if I ever see you on the street, I will take the liberty of bashing the living shit out of you. this witty remark contributed anonymously at 11:18, 2004 Nov 24 by 202.89.167.101

Those models you mentioned are more of glamour pin up girls. They are not fashion models, or supermodels. Supermodels are fashion models. Models who have modeled for the likes of Versace, Valentino, Dolce and Gabbana, Anna Sui, Louis Vuiton. None of those you mentioned have. Mayve Monica, but she wasn't that big of a model. More of an actress.Lil Flip246 20:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not every top model is a supermodel. If Stacey was known by her first name to the general public, she should be included. Nobody who is not into fashion knows who she is. How many magazine covers?? Lil Flip246 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Alaina Kennedy and Sara Durante
Alaina Kennedy and Sara Durante do not exist and are a hoax created on Nov 15 at the same time.

No one with these names exists in any of the major search engines.

A search of People Magazine returns no one named Sara Durante or MMM.

So I removed Alaina Kennedy and Sara Durante
 * Re Alaina Kennedy:

http://www.runhigh.com/2005%20Results%20B/R103105.html Trekphiler 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes people just like to spam by placing their names. Unfortunatley..Lil Flip246 10:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Janice Dickinson
I've removed "made popular by Janice Dickinson". That is (her) POV, one that is widely disputed.

Gia
Anybody think she belongs? Sometimes called "first supermodel" because she was the first known by one name (by people evidently having forgotten Twiggy...) Trekphiler 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course Gia belongs. She was one of the most iconic supermodels. It's like saying is Cindy Crawford a supermodel? Gia and Janice were among the small group of ethnic models in the 70s that changed the model perception. Lil Flip246 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the bad sentance "In the past, many supermodels were female" - as if today there are not many female supermodels anymore.

There are still supermodels. They just don't get as much exposure as they did back then. Actresses now hog the spotlight. People are more interested to know which celebs have the front row at fashion shows. But there still are supermodels in the fashion industry. For example, Gisele, Adriana, Petra, Ana B, Alessandra, Jessica Stam, Gemma, Heather Marks, Lily Cole, Vlada.... Lil Flip246 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

??????????????
Why did someone REMOVE THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GREAT SUPERMODELS including Niki Taylor, who has graced over 200 magazine covers and was dubbed the Baby Cindy???? Lil Flip246 02:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not do it, but I do point out that by definition, a supermodel is great; and if not great, then not a supermodel; and if not a supermodel, then not a great model. Savvy? Use a little logic....

..... I did extensive research on the origin of the term "supermodel." You can use it or link it if you wish. My NYC site is linked to many Wikipedia pages--Barry Popik, 5-6-06 http://www.barrypopik.com/article/154/superman-superstar-supermodel

FALSE INFO
Since people started editing after my post, this is full of hundreds of grammer mistakes. Please help me to fix it. Lil Flip246 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) PLEASE, stop vandalising this page. I filled this page with true facts, then a bunch of users started vandalising it with false information. i.e. Tricia Helfer is a waif, Natalia and Karolina came out in the 90s...Please stop vandalising it with false information. Lil Flip246 01:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ugh, there's so many typos. I'll try to fix it as much as I can. Please don't hesitate to fix my mistakes if any occurrs. mirageinred 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need a long list of supermodels for each era? Many of them don't really have a page either. I think 10~20 of famous models for each era would do just fine. mirageinred 22:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do, since these were the notable ones. They all rised in their own era, while some continued modeling for over 10 years. For example, Tyra 15 years..Naomi 20 plus years... Lil Flip246 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant the ones that are less known or less remembered than the models you have mentioned. mirageinred 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying models not better known as their first name should be removed, but some of them just seem less notable. mirageinred 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They're actually very well known. For example, Gail was one of the few top black models of the 90s. These girls were the Darias, the Gemmas of the past. Lil Flip246 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I just thought that they should have had a page in Wiki. mirageinred 20:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good someone should make them. Lil Flip246 11:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
I was thinking of splitting Trivia in two by making a "Firsts" section, so I can put all the firsts that occurred there and other records/interesting facts can remain in the Trivia section. Would that be okay? mirageinred 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's a cool idea. Lil Flip246 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So.. I made the "Firsts" section as I said. How does it look? If there are any mistakes don't hesitate to fix them. The order might have changed. The order doesn't have any significance do they? mirageinred 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The order doesn't matter. Lil Flip246 20:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Valid Information being removed by 'Unregistered users'
I don't know if "Lil Flip246" is an employee of Wikipedia - but this site is supposed to be accurate information - user Lil Flip246 continues to bio of supermodels - lifted off another website - several times I have attempted to update this page with accurate information and Lil Flip246 continues to revert invalid information - like listing porn stars on this site as well as drag queens. There is such a model named Lisa Cooper and Cyndee Margolis and Caprice are not the same person! In protest this user should be removed from the site!!!!!!!!
 * really? porn stars? Are you sure? mirageinred 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you might want to sign your comment=). And I'll look "Lisa Cooper" up on Google or something. Is she American? mirageinred 20:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find her on google. At least not a supermodel. Do you know any sites of Lisa Cooper? mirageinred 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * my information/edits & comments were all made with my login - RE: Lisa Cooper - She was model who appeared on several international Vogue covers and worked with almost every american and french designer - she worked alongside such 70's models Lisa Taylor, Patty Hansen and Janice Dickinson. The information I provided in my update to the text for supermodel is accurate. The names I did not recognize and did searches on came up with either the model was small time and never any major magazines. Other notes that Lil Flip246 made that are not correct, include the following:

- Karolína Kurková started modeling in Europe in 1998, she did her first US Vogue editorial in 1999 - that's the 90's and I listed her in group of models that appeared after 1997.

- Natalia Vodianova also begin her modeling care in the late 90's - hitting Paris runways early 1999

- Lisa Cooper does exist and just because you can't find information on goodle or yahoo does not mean its not the truth. If you were serious about making sure the facts on this site were correct - you would inclinded to research magazines from the time periods or even reading articles or books written on the subject. (hint - if you don't have Arthur Elgorts "Models Manual" and Micheal Gross's "Model" on your bookshelf, then you shouldn't be updating this site!) Just to show you Lisa Cooper exists, I just scanned this from A. Elgorts "Models Manual" - image to the right.

- Evelyn Kuhn had a Revlon contract for almost 10 years - from the 60's leading into 70's - a favorite model of both Irving Penn and Francesco Scavullo

- Dayle Haddon began her modeling career in 1968 after becoming Miss Montreal - She's numerious cosmetics contracts spanning over 5 decades, most notably Revlon. Not to mention she was even on Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

- Lisa Taylor career began in 1972 and remained a high booked model internationally until 1981 when she decided to get into acting.

- Kim Alexis is listed twice although I corrected that in my version

- ditto for Robyn Mackintosh

- FYI the Waif models hit the runways in 1993 - after both Marc Jacobs for Perry Ellis and Anna Sui presented the grunge look on their runway for S/S 93 - So Carmen Kass, Malgosia Bela, Mini Anden, Gisele Bundchen, Heidi Klum, Isabeli Fontana and Ines Sastre are NOT waif models - most of these models did not begin their careers till 1997.

- Male Models, please note Will Chalker was never a high profile male model - the following male models should be added - Mark Vanderloo, Jason Lewis, Alex Lundqvist, Scott Benoit

Whoa, that was A LOT of info!!! I certainly want to hear what Lil Flip has to say about this. mirageinred 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG! Can you please check history. You are falsely accusing me of putting them. I wasn't the one who put them!!! Lil Flip246 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

NEW NOTE. Did you check History? If you so you will learn that 203.120.68.68 vandalised the page not me. Please check before you accuse a user of false doings. Lil Flip246 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again. If you take your time to look at history, you'll see WHO REALLY PUT THOSE IN. I can't believe I'm being accused of doing something someoneelse did. Lil Flip246 11:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you actually look at HISTORY, you will SEE that THIS user: 203.120.68.68 spammed the site. Don't accuse someone of spamming when you haven't took the time to see who it actually was. Lil Flip246 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's replying. Lil Flip246 20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This user: 203.120.68.68 is continuing to vandalise. And I am getting the blame by someone who doesnt look in history. Lil Flip246 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This user 208.58.196.156 has also been vandalising the page with personal views. Lil Flip246 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, non registered users have been vandalising this page. This is why only registered users should be allowed to edit pages. Lil Flip246 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This user 208.58.196.156 has continued to fill this page with FLASE INFORMATION. I am dissapointed by the lack of attention this issue is getting. This is why Non registered users shouldn't be able to edit. Lil Flip246 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This NON REGISTERED ANSWER 208.58.196.156, is repeatedly SPAMMING this page with his/her's personal views. I am tired of re editing after 208.58.196.156. I hope this "user" will be taken care of, because his/her's spamming is getting in my nerves. Lil Flip246 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:208.58.196.156 has a talk page. Constructive comments could be left there. Rich Farmbrough 18:50 27 June 2006 (GMT).

Gail O'Neil and Gail O'Neill
Are those two models listed above two different models or just a repeat of the same name listed twice? mirageinred 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a repeat. She was a top black model in the 80s and 90s. There were alot of black supers during the 80s and 90s, but Beverly Peele, and Tyra vs. Naomi just hogged the spotlight. Lil Flip246 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cutlures
Is it necessary to put their cultures??? I mean we could just check their pages. Lil Flip246 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * if so, definitely make a Jamaican section! gangalee
 * I think that a good bit of the information on this page could be found from the individual pages. It is already getting out of hand in my opinion. Doc 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why I removed the cultures section because it is not needed. We need to keep the trivia section because it shows how supermodels are part of pop culture. Lil Flip246 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
Really, the list of quotations at the bottom should be moved to wikiquote and linked from the entry. Alexx 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved this to the bottom where new subjects should always be placed on the talk page, but I agree. This is just one of many things that are needed for the cleanup tag to be removed. The page seems to get worse instead of better as it becomes more cluttered with information that doesn't belong in this article. For one thing many if not most of the names do not belong on this page. There is both a category and a list of supermodels that should sufice for listing those that are considered Supermodels. This page should be limited to defining and fleshing out the meaning of a Supermodel and the "firsts". The quotes belong on wikiquote, and much of the individual information on models belongs on their indvidual pages not here. Doc 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It belongs in wikiquote.Lil Flip246 11:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Carlson Twins
Aren't they male supers?? Lil Flip246 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's Tyson Beckford as a male supermodel? You guys are funny... gangalee

He's in the male supermodels section. Lil Flip246 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Marisa and Marissa Miller
Is this another repeat? Sure sounds like it. mirageinred 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC) She is not included, because she is not a high fashion model. You never see her in Vogue or ELLE, or W, or I-D...She is not a supermodel. She is only a commercial model for likes of VS, SI, etc..

Asian Supermodels
Are there no asian models?

Anna Bayle is called the world's first asian supermodel in the Philippines because she was the first major asian model overseas. There are asian top models like Ai Tominaga but they're not really supermodels, cause their names aren't that big. Devon Aoki is an asian. Lil Flip246 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Supermodel
What happened to it????Lil Flip246 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_11#Category:Supermodels_to_Category:Models --PTSE 23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

PICTURES
We should replace the pictures because they seem very amateur. The photographs don't do them just. We should show them in a more professional view. For example photos of them in advertisements. Lil Flip246 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should choose the best pictures available, but we can't throw away the Wikipedia policy of giving preference to free pictures. Photos from advertisement almost always have all rights reserved. For available free pictures, I suggest taking a look at the Supermodel category at commons. --Abu Badali 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not make magazine covers that are noted not eligible for inclusion. Particularly for historic ones. Doc 02:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, the normal wikipedia rules for magazine covers apply here. If some magazine issue is worth enough to be subject of criticalç comentary (and it happens to be mentioned on the article), we may use it cover image. What is not acceptable is using magazine covers just to show how this or that model looks like, or just after adding a line of text sayng "Model X was N times on the cover of Y magzine". Hopefully, we have some good free images for using in this article. --Abu Badali 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we don't, and aren't likely to have the most notable supermodels historically that should be the ones representing the article. This entire article is getting to be such a mixed up mess of material with everyone shouting at each other and reverting each other without listening or communicating that the article has become almost worthless. Doc 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this article worthless? It has important facts like supermodels of each generation. Firsts, Supermodel salaries, etc..Lil Flip246 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've put a cleanup tag on for four reasons that I can see:
 * 1) Incorrect capitalisation in section headers
 * 2) Information from lead repeated verbatim in article
 * 3) Some very bad grammar
 * 4) Section structure to pot

I will attempt to sort out 1 and 4. Rich Farmbrough 18:37 27 June 2006 (GMT).


 * Oh and sentences like this "The Trinity is known for having a great impact on the supermodel era." Rich Farmbrough 18:39 27 June 2006 (GMT).

What is "The London Daily Press", "the London daily press" or some publication I have never heard of? Rich Farmbrough 18:46 27 June 2006 (GMT).


 * Some of the sections are just lists, I'm sure this could be improved. Rich Farmbrough 18:52 27 June 2006 (GMT).


 * "Supermodels of the post-supermodel era included" ...
 * Also for too many weasel words "many say" "some think" etc.. Rich Farmbrough 18:56 27 June 2006 (GMT).

Current Supermodels
I removed a bunch of names, because they lacked celebrity status. Supermodels like Naomi Campbell and Lauren Hutton are famous both in and out of fashion. They are houshold names and icons of fashion. I doubt the likes of Michelle Alves are on US Magazine or People Magazine. I removed Petra because she only became famous because of the tsunami case. Since that time, she's consistently on tabloid magazines. But she doesn't have a big high fashion career. She isn't on demand in high fashion, but she is in commercial. I kept the likes of Gemma Ward because she is the biggest model today. She is every1's muse. Plus she is quite famous. She is on non fashion sites like AskMen.com. For more questions, feel free to ask. Lil Flip246 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Highest Paid Supermodels
The Chart someone has written was really nice and clear, i dunno why someone decided to get rid of it.

We should make like a section of the top 10 highest paid supermodels for each year. Some info is already available on Trivia. Lil Flip246 16:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made the section and will continue to edit it. Please do not make a drastic change to that section. Lil Flip246 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Hurley
Is NOT a supermodel. She is more of an actor. Her modeling credits are average compared to real supermodels like Kate Moss. Lil Flip246 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
I came across this page when cleaning up some related articles. I'd like to contribute to this page or help copyedit and wikify, but am finding it extremely difficult to do so because of the lack of clear criteria within the article itself. The introductory body of the article obstensively provides objective criteria (i.e.: which kinds of magazines supermodels do and do not appear in; salary; area of work; etc.). However, it appears that past edits have employed an equally arbitrary set of criteria as well and the article itself contains a lot of subjective criteria (i.e.: "Supermodels are household names"; are "globally famous"; etc.). The article itself is replete with weasel-words: "claim to"; "people consider"; "many suggest". There are also numerous statements of fact with no verification or sources: "The supermodel era ended around 1997" and "Supermodels are, almost by definition, sex symbols". The section on the "trinity" perplexes me as it is without indication of how these facts are so, and whether the importance of the era was a trio or quintet of models. Frankly, I have no idea by what standards to include or not include information. It does not help that the revision history is full of value-loaded statements and debate rather than a summary of what actual edit occurred. It appears that the principles of WP:OWN are not being followed. Agent 86 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Every1 in the fashion industry knows who the Trinity is. Ask any1 in the fashion industry!! Lil Flip246 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad that someone else sees this Agent 86. In my opinion the article is a travesty at present and there are many things that need to change, but so far no one has been willing to that the time that would be needed to override the prevailing current and clean this article up. There has been little dialogue and seemingly no willingness for team spirit or cooperation here. I, for one am willing to give some focus if we can get several others to do so as well. All the trivia section needs to go, either incorporated in the article body or placed in the individual models articles as it has been decided as a guideline that all "trivia" is un-encyclopaedic. Doc 16:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The trivia needs to stay. It's important information. It seems as If you want to make this page into a one paragraph article with your personal views. I am the only user contributing important info. The trivia section shows how supermodels are part of pop culture. It also shows important info. The highest paid section is a good database of salaries. Lil Flip246 16:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Trivia is 'out' per the MOS for Wikipedia. They have been deemed un-encyclopaedic and all Trivia sections will, in time be removed from Wikipedia. The recommendation is to incorporate the material into the article if it is considered important. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about personal views, as some of you wish to put. Lil Flip246 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other views than yours and you need to realize that many editors will work with this and it would be good if your energy could be used productively by working with folks here on the talk page and reading more guidelines in MOS to follow standard practices. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a good source, go the thefashionspot.com, where I am also a user. The majority of the users there work in the fashion industry. They work in the runways in Paris, Milan, Tokyo, NY.. They are a reliable source, and I get my sources there because I too am a user. All that is on this supermodel article is TRUE. Trust me. I have more knowledge of the fashion industry than any1 here. I was shocked that you questioned The Trinity, which was the breakout of the supermodel in the late 80s. I was also shocked about the lack of knowledge users here had about fashion models. I even started the fashion models page on models. Lil Flip246 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am also a member at FashionSpot and it is no more a good source than any other wiki as it is also open source. There is a lot that you can learn there but it is not a credible reference for an article here. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, you have no idea who else is here and who may know more than you, Lil Flip, hard as that may be to believe. You give nothing about yourself or your background on your user page and you expect others to take your 'word' for it as to what is truth? and to 'trust' you? and that you have "more knowledge of the fashion industry than any1 here"? I think not. Doc 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been sourcing some of the stuff, since you guys are bothered by it. Lil Flip246 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:Reliable sources and WP:V. For example, one of your "sources" is an answers.com article, which is simply a reproduction of a wikipedia article. I also recommend that you read WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. Please provide some objective standards within the article so that the inclusion or exclusion of information is clear, and use the "Show Preview" button.  Agent 86 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that anyone here is 'bothered' by it, sources are necessary for a reliable encyclopaedia. They should not however be inline within the artice. For the article to ever be considered serously for a fine article here they need to be again in a standard wiki section.Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

These are reliable sources. BTW, That answers.com had another definition from another source. Lil Flip246 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * answers.com is another wiki, much of it taken for Wikipedia, so that is not a good source. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the stuff, I don't need to cite, because you can just go to their pages. Lil Flip246 17:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Other articles don't count as a source. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've sourced all that was needed. What more do you ask for?? I didn't source some because they were already in the individual's pages. Lil Flip246 17:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion. A good place for you to start is reading more MOS and following standard formats. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of these things are just random facts, which you can find in thousands of websites reliable or not.Lil Flip246 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates
I will slowly be dividing the 80s and 90s. So the 80s supermodels will have their section, same with the 90s. Lil Flip246 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

 * Some supermodels now host reality TV shows, including Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, Tricia Helfer, Jerry Hall, Mini Anden, and Janice Dickinson.


 * In 2003, VH1's "All Access:Access Hollywood Top 10 Supermodels", named the top 10 sexiest supermodels. In descending order, Heidi Klum, Gisele Bundchen, Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks, Karolina Kurkova, Molly Sims, Eva Herzigova, Carolyn Murphy, Daniela Pestova, and Adriana Lima.


 * In 2005, VH1's The Fabulous Life of Today's Hottest Supermodels, named their top 5 supermodels alive. Not listed in order, the supermodels were Adriana Lima, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Heidi Klum, and Gisele.


 * Niki Taylor, Karolina Kurkova, and Brooke Shields are the youngest models to appear on the cover of Vogue magazine. Niki and Karolina were 17, while Brooke was 14.


 * Claudia Schiffer holds the record with over 900 magazine covers. Cindy Crawford has graced over 600; Naomi Campbell has posed for over 400; Kate Moss over 300; Lisa Fonssagrives over 200; Niki Taylor over 200; Beverly Peele over 250 covers; Christy Turlington over 500; Stephanie Seymour over 300; Yasmin Le Bon over 200; Tatjana Patitz over 130; Renee Simonsen  over 300; Laetitia Casta over 100; Suzanne Lanza  over 80.


 * Pin-up models like Caprice Bourret, Pamela Anderson, Carmen Electra are not considered supermodels. These women are featured in men's magazines, and are not fashion models.


 * In 2005 British Television's Channel 5 aired a program called "The World's Greatest Supermodel". First place went to Kate Moss, followed by Gisele Bündchen, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, and Claudia Schiffer.


 * In 2006, FHM Magazine's "Sexiest Women" Poll, the following supermodels received spots: Adriana Lima (#27), Alessandra Ambrosio (#56), and Gisele Bündchen (#84).


 * In 2006, E!'s "101 Sexiest Celebrity Bodies" included supermodels Gisele Bündchen (#22), Laetitia Casta (#29), Milla Jovovich (#57), and Tyra Banks (#60).


 * When Cindy Crawford came out, she was dubbed "Baby Gia", because of her resemblance to supermodel Gia Carangi. When Niki Taylor came to the fashion industry, she was dubbed "Baby Cindy".


 * Devon Aoki is the world's shortest supermodel at 5'6".


 * Isabeli Fontana became the youngest model ever featured in the Victoria's Secret Catalog at age sixteen. It created a controversy because the label had announced publicly before that they would never use any model below the age of twenty one.

Please feel free to incorporate any of this information you consider encyclopaedic into the body of the article, but as a section called Trivia it is not by definition encyclopaedic. Doc 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should include all of these because they show how much of an impact supermodels have in pop culture. We should Really KEEP the magazine covers. I personally worked on that. I searched fashion model directory and counted how many magazine covers the supermodels had. I also went to their official websites to count. I update the number if it increases alot. I currently working on Tyra's magazine cover numbers. Lil Flip246 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Trivia" has no place in the article, unless it is information that can be incorporated into other topics. The "Firsts" and "Highest paid" also seem to be trivia, but under another name. Agent 86 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the "Firsts" and "Highest paid" need to be rethought too, but the "Trivia" by name was the best place to start and by putting it here, it makes it easy for someone to pick what might be worthy of article inclusion. As you can see I had posted this before and nothing happened so this was a way to start. For that matter there are way too many names listed as well and perhaps there should be a list for the 1980s 1990s etc which is linked from this page. The article is very confusing and needs a lot of work. Doc 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The highest paid and firsts needs to stay. They are important facts of the fashion industry. For example the first black model on the cover of U.S. Vogue was Beverly Johnson. The highest paid is important because it shows the highest paid supermodels every year. Lil Flip246 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then if you believe it is important incorporate it into the appropriate sections of the article. Saying it "needs to stay" is not a reason and doesn't cut it. Perhaps who was highest paid each year is not important here. Giving an idea of how that amount has changed over time is one thing and perhaps who is the highest to date is important. The rest can be on the articles of the individuals. Doc 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Highest paid is important because it shows the best paid supermodels every year. If we put them in like a graph or chart, the viewer can examine them and compare each year. It is useful for essays and researches for projects in case somebody is doing a project on top models. The firsts is important because it is iconic in the fashion industry. Like I mentioned an example is Beverly Johnson being the first black model on the cover of U.S. Vogue.Lil Flip246 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I slightly agree that the trivia posted above is pointless. But I think if we are to remove it, we should keep the magazine covers. Because it shows which supermodels have the most magazine covers. But it is unnecessary to remove firsts and highest paid. Lil Flip246 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Highest paid
The important facts can stay, as I said above incorporated into a paragraph, it's the lists that should go. This should be an encylopaedia aritcle where someone can quickly get an overview and understand what a supermodel is and is not. It should not be a disertation on supermodels. It's not a contest, first of all. While the number of covers is an indicator it shouldn't be given such heavy significance. For instance, I have no idea how may covers Lisa F did, but her Vogue covers alone were over 200 and there were many for other magazines too including Time magazine. The supermodel article should touch the highlights and give a good understanding of the subject, but not try to be a definitive book on the subject or you will lose most readers. Doc 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am slowly gonna work to make the Firsts and History into paragraphs. But I will need help. Can you guys please help me form them into paragraphs?Lil Flip246 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure others will help. I'm working on a number of projects right now, but I'll keep an eye and try to help too. Just remember to pick the most important facts, don't try to include everything. Doc 01:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just made the highest paid supermodels paragraph. It seems a little too sloppy. Please help me improve on the article. So feel free to edit it. What do you think of it so far?? Lil Flip246 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * O.K. I've reworkes this a bit, keeping what I think are the most important facts, but parring down a bit. Add an item or two if you really think they are important enough, this is just a start. Keep up the good work. Doc 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should still keep who were the top 5 each year. Here's the original paragraph for data: Supermodels are higly paid compared to the average the fashion model. These top fashion models are paid over $10 000 a day. Their daily earnings can go from $30 000 to $50 000. Forbes Magazine has a yearly list of the top 5 highest paid supermodels, representing how much the supermodel earned that year. In 1995, Cindy Crawford topped the list. The 1997 list of highest paid supermodels in descending order: Elle MacPherson ($40.3 million), Cindy Crawford ($37.7 million). Elle Macpherson also held this title in 2001 with $38.12 million. However Cindy Crawford topped the list again in 1999. Forbes' 2004 list of highest paid supermodels in descending order: Milla Jovovich ($10.5 million), Gisele Bündchen ($10 million), Heidi Klum ( $8 million), Carolyn Murphy ($5 million), and Tyra Banks ($4 million). Forbes' 2005 list of highest paid supermodels in descending order: Gisele Bündchen ($15.2 million), Heidi Klum ($7.5 million), Tyra Banks ($6 million), Kate Moss ($5 million), and Adriana Lima ($4.5 million). Zaz.com's list of highest paid Brazilian models from June 2004-June 2005, were in descending order: Gisele Bündchen ($15.2 million), Adriana Lima ($S 5 million), Isabeli Fontana ($2n8 million), Ana Beatriz Barros ($2.5 million), Fernanda Tavares ($1.8 million), Alessandra Ambrosio ($1.6 million), Letícia Birkheuer ($1.550 million), Fernanda Motta ($1.5 million), Raquel Zimmermann ($1.350 million), Michelle Alves ($800 000), and Caroline Trentini ($500 000). 

Also I think we should make it into a chart instead. So we could include all the top 5 for each year. Don't you agree?? Lil Flip246 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made it into a chart, because I was inspired by the charts on the page: America's Next Top Model. I think this is a great way to represent the data. Please keep it this way. Thanks. Lil Flip246 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree. You asked for help improving your paragraph. Two editors worked with your wording and the important information. Then you just go and override all of that and put all the information back in with just a new form - a chart. That much information is not important to the article, in my opinion. If you feel strongly about something such as that when you have worked with two other editors, don't just change ships mid stream, but post the idea here on the talk page and wait a day or two to get consensus. Doc 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. But I thought it was best to put it into a chart. I feel that it best represents it. I was inspired by the charts on the America's Next Top Model page. I hope you understand. It's just better to represent it that way. Lil Flip246 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that I understand, but I don't believe that you do. It is very bad form to rv back to your chart without awaiting more discussion here. I will rv one more time and I would suggest that you wait for consensus here before adding the chart again. This is not your page, there needs to be agreement by several editors that are now participating. I hope that you understand that. Doc 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this chart does belong here. It is more reasonable to use this chart: ====Highest Paid Supermodels==== Lil Flip246 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Again like I said I was inspired by the ANTM pages.. Because they had charts which carefully represented data. It is useful for people doing projects. Lil Flip246 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your inspiration. That does not make it right here. First and foremost, even if it were complete, which it is not, I don't believe all those figures are necessary for every year. Second if you are going to use dollar amounts you must indicate that they are US dollars if indeed they are in all cases. Lastly there had been agreement on a paragraph. You wrote it, you asked for help, two other editors worked on that paragraph, then you just dis the whole thing and go another direction without any discussion. That just won't fly. Doc 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the sudden rush. I was not aware that you took so much time to edit it. I hope you forgive me. But I do believe this chart is the best choice. I am not going to include every year, because the list I believe started only in the 90s. So it won't be filled with every year. Please, I hope you see that this is the best way to represent the data. Please!! Lil Flip246 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the chart is the best choice. I am more that willing to accept consensus if several other editors agree that the chart is the best. At the very least you need to allow a day or two for the other editor of the paragraph, Agent 86, to express his view. It is not that I spent 'that' much time on the paragraph, but I did drop other things as you did seem to for the first time be seeking cooperation, and I did give some careful consideration to the fact to include. Again this article should define and give an overview of what a supermodel is. It still has way too much information for that and needs some serious paring down. It should be clear, consise and not give more information than is needed. Doc 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This chart is the best way to represent it. Don't you think so too?? Lil Flip246 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Did you not read what I just wrote? Doc 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the text that existed before its deletion and replacement by the chart to actually be useful. One of the reasons I put the POV template on the article is because there is no objective criteria as to who is and who is not a "supermodel". At least the statement that supermodels are paid in a certain range and "normal", non-super, average models make a lower amount provided an objective criterion. That first paragraph, in one form or another, should be returned to the article. A handy chart or table of the top 5 highest paid at the end of the section might be useful for illustrative purposes, but ought not to be the main way to convey the information. Agent 86 01:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't think that we need the highest 5 from many years. The chart above is confused and uses conflicting figures from different sources, Forbes vs. Brazilian figures. Doc 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you think a chart will be useful. It best represents the data. Lil Flip246 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read what has already been said above and your question was already answered: maybe some chart, but only in addition to the paragraph and not the chart as it is already done. Please don't put up anything more on the chart until we can reach consensus here on the the talk page Doc 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about if we keep the paragraph, make a seperate page for the chart. So above the highest paid paragraph there's a link to the chart. This way it won't fill in too much space. Lil Flip246 23:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Firsts
How should I fix the firsts??Lil Flip246 23:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * let me think on this one a bit, but again, I don't think all of that is necessary. Only the highlights or most important facts are important to an article in an encyclopaedia. This is not a book on supermodels. Doc 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But they are all important facts. Lil Flip246 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted allegation of vandalism
Edits made by Iperlchen were reverted with the edit summary, "Removed vandilism of unknown names". There is no evidence to indicate that the editors who added these names were acting in bad faith. This only highlights the current problems with this article. It is far too subjective and editors (including myself) have no idea who does and does not qualify as a "supermodel". Agent 86 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to read the definition in the opening paragraphs?? Lil Flip246 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft in disguise?
It seems to me a large part of the problem in this article are the sub-headings by decade that are unencyclopedic lists masquerading as narrative. If we excise these from the article that will go a long way in improving the point of view issues. It also solves the problem of verifying who is or is not a supermodel (which is currently impossible given the criteria in the article). The article really doesn’t need more than one or two examples of people who may be properly regarded as supermodels during a particular period of time. Otherwise, it’s largely a matter of subjective opinion who should be listed. Let’s separate fact from opinion and cut out what is essentially listcruft.

Besides, there is already an article for List of supermodels (although that article has some serious problems itself, including WP:POV and WP:V. Agent 86 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How is the history unencyclopedic? It shows the transformations of the supermodels. How the look changes and so on. Lil Flip246 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say the history is unencyclopedic. In fact, the problem with the subheadings by decade is that they don't convey the history of the subject. It's just lists of people in the form of paragraphs. These lists do nothing to clarify the topic. It does nothing to explain why these people are on the list. It only leads to confusion.
 * At most, the narrative of any given period only needs to have one or two illustrative examples of who might have been a supermodel at that time. Instead, we have what appears to be an attempt to exhaustively catalogue whoever is a supermodel, by no objective standard. Who is included and who is excluded seems to be according to your whim. Agent 86 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly the problem, trying to list everyone. This should just touch the highlights and give examples...not be an ongoing edit war of who is and who's not by trying to list every possible supermodel Doc 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. These are models that fit the definition in the opening paragraphs. They are iconic, highly paid in the millions, on demand in their markets, are famous, etc.. These are all models that fit the definition.


 * Earlier I removed those unknown models in the 2000s because they do not fit the definition. They are merely unknown models unlike the likes of Gemma Ward, Daria Werbowy, Jessica Stam, Beverly Peele, Beverly Johnson, etc.. These are big names in the fashion industry. Those names I removed were unknown. The user just randomly added names of models which had pages on wikipedia. They are far from supermodel because they do not have the lifestyle of supermodels like Twiggy, Naomi Campbell, Gisele Bundchen, Adriana Lima, and the likes.


 * They don't convey the history, because it is not yet complete. I just added parts that are from that era. All the supermodels from each generation were iconic at that period. For example, the 70s supermodels were Janice Dickinson, Jerry Hall, Beverly Johnson, Iman, etc..These were fashion icons. I didn't just put random names. These are real supermodels who have been given the term. Not random models who are unknowns. The history is fine as it is. We just need to add more information.


 * "It does nothing to explain why these people are on the list." That's why we have the definition of it in the opening paragraphs. If someone reads that they will have a clear understanding of who is a supermodel. Some users didn't listen so they put random names of random unknown models in the 2000s section. That was why I removed them, because they did not fit the definition. They were not in the same league of the likes of Linda Evangelista, Stephanie Seymour, Cindy Crawford, Gia Carangi, etc.


 * The article in the history section should explain how the supermodel standards changed. In the past the likes of Twiggy only did editorial not commercial work, but they were icons of fashion. They were known worldwide. In the 70s the likes of Christie Brinkley mainly did commercial modeling and rarely did high fashion. But she was still considered a supermodel because she was among the most famous models at the time. The 90s standards are the supermodels who ruled both high fashion and commercial. The history should explain how the standards and qualities of the supermodels changed throughout the history. Today models who are famous are mainly commercial models. But Gisele is the closest model to fit the standards of the 90s supermodel. This is what the history should also explain. Lil Flip246 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point here Lil Flip. There are far too many names. What is here needs radical surgery and editing before more is added. The decades should have a sentence or two which tells how things changed and give one or two names as examples, that is all. Re-read the above comments, you are on the wrong track here. Also re-read your own talk page there are many useful suggestions there from several editors. Doc 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The history should do a lot of things, but it should not be listcruft. Lil Flip actually highlighted the inherent problem with the attempt to exhaustively list everyone. Lil Flip says the definition is set out in the opening paragraphy, but then goes on to say the the standards and qualities of the supermodels changed as time goes by. Clearly there is a contradiction. Lil Flip also highlights numerous inclusions that are contrary to the so-called criteria but who (s)he says ought to be listed anyway. Many editors, including myself, have read the so-called criteria and it is patently obvious that the criteria is ill-defined and is subjective (i.e. by what standard is someone " iconic"?). It seems the only real criterion for inclusion is whether or not Lil Flip believes a person ought to be on the list. Agent 86 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The other problem here is that Lil Flip seems to view him/herself as the final authority without the need to defend or cite sources. s/he has repeatedly put down other editors who may have had even more background. S/he gives little attention to following any conventions or standards and has ignored repeated requests for at least some information on background on the user page, based on the assertions made. My own experience albeit is from the 1960s & 1970s when I was the partner of an editorial/commercial photographer in several businesses in New York City. My particular interest is the models of that period that I knew, Lisa, Dovema, Wilhelmina, etc. That said, I still research and try to add appropriate information with references. Doc 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what you're saying. But I think those names are necessary. We can just add how the standards and qualities changed to the paragraph. Those names are necessary. Not all the models have their own page. Either that, or they are stubs. Lil Flip246 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you don't know what we are saying if you still think the names are necessary! If the models don't have their own page or are stubs and they were supermodels then that's where you should work to improve. It should not all be here in this article. Doc 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't do it all on my own. But I still feel that those names belong there. Lil Flip246 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just repeating yourself is not helpful. You need to read your user talk page and you need to follow conventions. You still are not following the indentations on the talk pages here or many other usual guidelines on wiki. You have too much energy and add far too much material to not to be following these guidelines. Your failure to do so just makes more work and frustrates other editors. Doc 00:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

New edits
Fantastic job Agent 86, big improvement. Doc 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job! By the way, I've made seperate pages for highest paid and lists of supermodels. I've made links to them on See also. Lil Flip246 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Supermodels pay
I've reverted Lil Flips changes on pay as they seem to waffle. We need to get an accurate differential. If they can begin at anything, as he said in the edit summary, then that negates the whole point of a higher minimum. Doc 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Average models don't get paid $10 000 a day.. That's what seperates average models from supermodels. Linda Evangelista's famous quote is, "I don't get up for less than $10 000 a day." Lil Flip246 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the supermodel payment sentence, with a reliable source. Lil Flip246 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No professional model gets paid as little as $25 an hour today. Doc 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But professional models don't get paid 10 000 a day either. Lil Flip246 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not the point, you were misquoting the reference that you gave and made it sound like a direct current comparison. Doc 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Side
Why was this section removed?? It shows how the supermodel lifestyle isn't always glamourous. Lil Flip246 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not remove it, but if you would read the edit summary you would see why it was removed. Doc 03:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

2000s post supermodels
Please, stop adding things back to the article when another editor has removed them without discussing it here first. We do not need examples of each decade, particularly of the post supermodel period. Please follow the suggestions that have been made before you edit more Doc 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
An editor has proposed that Highest Paid Supermodels be merged into Supermodel; however, no reason has been provided on this talk page (I've invited the editor to do so). Normally it's pretty self-apparent why there should be a merge. In this case, there has been a lot of discussion of what belongs in the supermodel article and what does not. The list of highest paid was removed during these discussions and revisions.

Thinking of it, it strikes me that a list of highest paid models is too subjective and adds nothing to this article. I even doubt it merits its own article:
 * 1) There is the fact that who is or is not a supermodel is highly subjective (a topic well canvassed on this talk page). That brings into issue whether or not a list of highest paid models wouldn't be too subjective (especially if List of supermodels is deleted as a result of the current AfD. If one cannot have an objective list, it follows that a list of highest paid is also subjective.
 * 2) What constitutes income for the purposes of highest paid is also subjective. Do you count all income from entertainment sources? Which currency is being measured? How much income is paid directly to the model?
 * 3) The Highest Paid Supermodels is, but for one table, merely a collection of links. But for the table, the article could probably be speedy deleted.
 * 4) Even if the list is from a "reputable" source (i.e. I believe a past incarnation on the supermodel article cited Forbes. Forbes (and other mags) can fix whatever criteria they want, it still isn't definitive. What if Forbes creates a list using one set of criteria, and People uses another? Which prevails? There are also a whole lot of other issues of picking one mag and using their list as the basis of an article/list, such as copyright. Another is that I think there is a definitive trend of there not being articles or lists of "top" anything unless it is a definitive list made using a specific objective set of criteria (i.e. Billboard top 100 lists come to mind). Agent 86 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The editor who proposed the merge reverted his edit so that the merge isn't proposed. As Emily Litella would say, "never mind". Agent 86 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should merge highest paid with the supermodel thread. Lil Flip246 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Glamourous" and "glamorous" - dahlings, you look fabulous!
I am finding the ongoing "corrections" of the spelling of "glamourous" to be amusing, given the bigger issues that have been dealt with on this page. If anyone is interested, "glamourous" and "glamorous" are both equally correct spellings of the word. Most dictionaries I've checked show this. Out of laziness, I'll just provide a link to the entry on dictionary.com. Let's not get into an edit war on that point! Agent 86 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, knew the original one was correct, thought that the other might also be correct and was too lazy to check. Doc 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Return of The Supermodel??
I found these useful articles...

From The Daily

Donatella's Bold New Era: Testino and supes reunite for Versace's fall/winter ads

Images from Versace's fall/winter campaign www.fashionweekdaily.com

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

(NEW YORK) A fabulous trio of supermodels from yesteryear meet their modern day counterparts as Christy Turlington, Carolyn Murphy, and Kate Moss converge with Daria Werbowy and Angela Lindvall for the fall/winter Versace advertising campaign. Here, The Daily gets a first look at the campaign in its entirety.

Foregoing the celebrity path of the past three seasons, which starred Halle Berry, Demi Moore, and Madonna, respectively, Donatella Versace has decided to recapture the spirit of the supermodels—a path not visited with significance since the fall 1994 campaign, when Richard Avedon lavishly captured Nadja Auermann, Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, Stephanie Seymour, and the aforementioned Turlington, surrounded by five naked men that served as “props.”

“I started my career working with the Versaces and it had been years since I had seen Donatella,” Turlington said. “It was great to spend a day catching up with old friends and familiar faces. Shooting the campaign was definitely much more fun than work.” The ever-elusive Kate Moss added, “It was great to see faces I haven’t seen for a while. We have all grown up and had children, so there was a lovely family atmosphere on set, with all our kids coming and going.”

“It was time to do something different,” Versace said. “People are really looking at the ‘super’ models again today—how they dress—both casually and on the red carpet, where they socialize, how they live. They are glamorous and they lead glamorous lives. Many are married to rock stars or to actors. Created by Versace in the early 90s, the supermodel phenomenon has recaptured the media’s attention completely.”

Styled by Brana Wolf, the four images selected to run in books were taken in a studio in New York by frequent Versace lensman Mario Testino at the end of April, just days before the Costume Institute Gala, which Versace and several of the campaign models subsequently attended. "There was a great vibe in the studio and everyone was really relaxed," Wolf said. "This collection and campaign was a sort of tribute by Donatella to Gianni [Versace] so it felt appropriate to be shot this way."

The company plans to run the images in select fashion and lifestyle magazines beginning in September. While Versace declined to reveal her women’s ad budget, it is said to be on par with seasons past, if not a tad higher due to the increased size of talent.

Stripped of the excess of the past, and with a noticeably diminished focus on the background atmosphere, Versace is paring it down and casting the light on the designs themselves. “It’s taking it back to the glamour moment without it being too ornate,” said a company spokeswoman. “Everything is still sexy, but simplified and more focused.”

Indeed, gone are the often garish gold Medusa heads and Baroque elements that sometimes overpowered campaigns from the late 80s and early 90s. Instead, Versace’s glamour girls of today are clad in simple, almost sedate, monochromatic outfits that barely register the superfluity of Versace’s past. About the only indication that this new Versace woman likes to take a walk on the wild wide every now and then is through her hair, which has been professionally teased to maximize its effect.

In one shot, all five models are wearing tan dresses accessorized only with Versace watches and heels and boots. Turlington has on a one-shoulder cocktail dress, which retails for $1,624, while Werbowy poses in a $1,595 Twiggy-inspired pocket a-line dress. Two images feature the group of models clad in all black ensembles—one with accessories. In that photograph, Moss is holding a $2,080 mini Club clutch. Murphy is shown wearing a black patent leather trench coat that retails for $4,431.

Throughout the campaign, the models are accessorized with four styles of footwear: a black patent leather décolleté heel ($845); a black patent leather décolleté with slanting closure ($740); slip-in ankle boot in patent leather with cross sewing and mirrored heel ($1,077), and motorcycle knee-high patent leather boots ($1,840). All are wearing Versace leggings, which retail for $652.50. In the one shot with a focus on sunglasses, the two models wear $340 black sunglasses with signature Versace silver logo on the temple. “It’s great to see celebrities in ads, but this return to a selection of top models demonstrates a different element of strength and diversity,” said Lindvall. “Donatella loves what she does and does it well.” JIM SHI

Source: http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f96/truth-about-return-supermodel-6369-2.html

Designers return to supermodels after celebrity flops

By Rachel Dodes And Cheryl Lu-lien Tan | The Wall Street Journal ASSOCIATED PRESS 07/26/2006

Italian fashion house Versace SpA is practically synonymous with celebrity ads: In 1995, Prince appeared with the word "Slave" scrawled across his face. Last year, Demi Moore lounged in a cleavage-baring halter dress; Madonna perched on a glass desk in a tight taupe shirtdress.

For fall, in a move likely to be widely watched in the fashion hothouse, Versace is planning another provocative advertising move: using professional models.

But not just any models.

Christy Turlington, Kate Moss and Carolyn Murphy will grace the new Versace ads in September issues of Vogue, Harper's Bazaar and Elle, wearing minidresses, A-line coats, black leggings and patent-leather boots. "This is a new angle for today," says Donatella Versace, creative director of the fashion house, who says she wants to draw attention to her creations, rather than to the celebrities who wear them.

Louis Vuitton, owned by LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, is also returning to supermodels, after relying on actresses Jennifer Lopez, Christina Ricci, Scarlett Johansson and Uma Thurman in recent years. Gisele Bundchen stars in its spring ad campaign; Ms. Moss, Naomi Campbell and relative newcomer Daria Werbowy appear in the fall campaign, which launches this month.

The change is also evident at Vogue, where the August cover features a pregnant Linda Evangelista, the first model to appear on the cover after 14 straight months of celebrities.

The pendulum's swing back to models reflects what some fashion marketers are calling "celebrity fatigue": A-list entertainers are so overexposed that "there is a major lack of trust," says Milton Pedraza, chief executive of the Luxury Institute, a New York consulting firm.

It also underscores the tension between serious fashion magazines and celebrity books like People, USWeekly, Star and InStyle that increasingly feature pages of head-to-toe red carpet shots of celebrities sporting designer fashions.

"Ten years ago, having a celebrity in your ad would class it up," says Robert Thompson, founding director at Syracuse University's Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture. "Now, there's something cheesy about it. ... There are so many celebrities on so many magazines all the time."

The return of the supermodel also follows some celebrity-ad bellyflops. This summer's multimillion-dollar campaign for St. John Knits Inc. starring Angelina Jolie hasn't plumped up the brand's sales and may even have alienated core customers, marketing experts say. Officials at the company weren't available for comment. Gap Inc.'s three-season contract with Sarah Jessica Parker, which started in 2004, seemed like a smart move at first, but by the time the campaign's third season rolled around, the series "Sex and the City" had ended, and consumers grew tired of the ads. A Gap spokeswoman declined to comment.

Of course, Ms. Moss, Ms. Evangelista and other supermodels are celebrities in their own right -- a fact not lost on Nikon Corp., which chose Ms. Moss for its digital-camera ads precisely because of "all the buzz that comes along with being Kate," according to Danielle Korn, an executive vice president at Interpublic Group's McCann Erickson, New York, which produced the ads. Tabloid newspapers chronicled Ms. Moss's recent drug problems, which led to the cancellation of the 32-year-old model's contracts with Hennes & Mauritz AB's H&M stores and Chanel SA. (Burberry PLC cancelled its fall 2005 campaign with Ms. Moss by mutual agreement. But it is using her again for fall 2006.)

Still, style experts say that models may convey more fashion gravitas and sophistication than screen actresses. "They're specifically related to fashion," says Sally Singer, fashion news features director at Vogue, which mostly used models on its cover until 2000, when the magazine started featuring mostly actresses, partly because readers were identifying with celebrities more.

Others see an unmistakable climate change. "We're seeing a return to the focus on the product rather than just the image," says David Wolfe, a New York fashion consultant and creative director of the Doneger Group. "People have decided that when they buy the image they are not really getting anything."

The shift back to models also involves practical considerations. A new model may make as little as $5,000 to $10,000 a day, industry executive say. Supermodels can get $1 million for two campaigns -- spring and fall -- for the same client in a year. Actresses, as a rule, can command several million dollars for a single campaign. Celebrities often demand more creative control and are difficult to schedule, since they are often juggling movie shoots or tours.

The new Versace campaign, completed in two days and shot by the fashion photographer Mario Testino, cost around $500,000 to produce, the company says. (For Versace, that actually exceeded the cost of some of its recent campaigns featuring Madonna, Ms. Moore, Halle Berry and other "friends of the house," who posed for nominal fees, free clothes or charitable contributions.)

Models can also be easier to work with, says Ivan Bart, senior vice president of IMG Models, which represents actresses and models such as Carolyn Murphy, Kate Moss and Shalom Harlow. "They're professionally trained to be photographed incredibly well," he says. "They know which camera angles work."

And models are also more timeless. "People are getting afraid that actors are only as hot as their last movie or TV show," says Faith Kates, founder of Next Model Management, New York, who expects her firm to see a 15 percent to 20 percent increase in revenue this year as a result of supermodels' return. Besides, shes adds, "models don't show up with an entourage."

Luxury labels, of course, aren't swearing off celebrities cold turkey. Dressing stars for their red-carpet appearances remains a fundamental tactic. The free clothes that fashion houses often lavish on stars help perpetuate the practice. Versace itself frequently dresses actresses, including Jessica Alba, who wore Versace to the Golden Globes and the Oscars this year. The company says it doesn't pay Ms. Alba to wear Versace but does "lend" her clothes.

Interestingly, the fashion industry has shied away from models for so long that advertisers seeking a well-known face have to go back to supermodels like Ms. Turlington (age 37) or Ms. Campbell (age 36) or Ms. Moss (32), says Sean Patterson, president of Wilhelmina Models, New York. "The industry hasn't allowed a new set of supermodels to be created," he says.

One exception is the 22-year old Ms. Werbowy, who is set to appear in coming Versace ads. She was born in Krakow, Poland, and lived in Ukraine before moving to a Toronto suburb when she was 3. Still, while she may be famous within the industry, Mr. Patterson says, "if you went to a mall in the middle of America, nobody would know who she was."

Meanwhile, as those in media and advertising search for the next fresh face, one publication has gone an intriguing route. Elle magazine last month featured an interesting choice of model in a fashion spread: Isabel Dupre, its very own style director.

Same source.

Maybe these articles can be useful for this article at wikipedia. Lil Flip246 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More Useful articles: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 Hold on to your sickbag - "aspirational" models are about to hit NYC... You knew something weird was going on - first some bozo claims that the usual suspects are ready "to explore good taste", starting this Fall. Then, US Vogue mentions the word "supermodel" again - and is ready to feature fashion models instead of celebs on its September issue cover! The latest "Vogue supermodel", Natalia Vodianova, seems to be absent from the group - there is something fishy here...and the original "Vogue supermodel" - Gisele that is - will be on the Sept H Bazaar cover, alone - which may be a problem! The NYTimes "reveal" what's behind all that...(free registration needed)"...We are trying to bring back the concept of models with a real identity and a memorable face," said Raul Martinez, a partner in A/R Media, whose clients include Versace. " I think we've kind of lost that for a while. When was the last time you looked at a model and said to yourself, `My God, she is a stunner'?"..." Gee wheez Mr Martinez - wasn't it yourself, your photographers/stylists and the rest of the voguey crowd who tried so hard to kill the fashion supermodel and the "memorable" and "stunning" faces? Why was model recycling/turnover so popular in NYC? Didn't your friendly model agents proudly hype "non-descript" models just a couple of seasons ago? Why did the "biz" bring the "knobbly-kneed Belgians" to the forefront and told the glam Brazilians that "they shouldn't bother showing up for castings" just before the Milan shows three years ago? What was wrong with the Brazilians? They became too popular for their own good? As for "stunners" - there are those who appeal to straight men, and those who appeal to the types who enjoy watching drag queen acts in certain clubs - it would be useful to define exactly which kind of "stunner" the "biz" wants to promote from now on - although I did like B Nielsen myself..."... The new generation of models "are much less sulky, tough or waiflike," said Cindy Gallop, the president of the New York office of Bartle Bogle Hegarty, which has created ad campaigns for brands like Levi's. "These days we seem to be going for a much more luminous, movie-star feel."..." "much less waiflike" - does this mean models won't be told to lose a lot of weight before they can get high fashion jobs anymore? I doubt it. The whole NYC "Top 50" needs to be thrown into the trash can if "waiflike" mods are no longer "trendy" - even Isabelli was forced to lose a massive amount of weight before she could become officially "hip"."...Fashion's relentless focus on marginal, and often unremarkable, faces has engendered its own fatigue, said Linda Wells, the editor of Allure magazine. "We're tired of seeing models who don't inspire some kind of longing," Ms. Wells said. "We just want to be seduced again by a more conventional type of beauty."Wow - how many Allure covers did Mrs Wells give to "unremarkable" fashion models? Does this mean that "remarkable" models were left without jobs on purpose? (Get ready for the next lawsuit..) Maybe she is among the ones responsible for getting people "tired"? Was all that done on her own free will, or was she following orders from higher Conde Nast echelons? Not that yours truly didn't notice that high fashion "beauty" was hardly "conventional", but there is a whole army of clueless suckers out there who kept comparing the Vogue/Allure faces to the pre-1998 "conventional beauty" models - maybe it's time they find out what was really going on...btw, if Vogue models too are "marginal and often uremarkable" - since that was what fashionable trends dictated, until now - why are the very same mods being recycled for the Sept. "beauty" cover? What changed? They got a new "Meisel makeover job"? One small detail - what about the mods who had their eybrows shaved my Meisel in the past? They had little troube getting "beauty" jobs lately - in fact the Parisienne, who have a "beauty" tradition, loved them. Maybe some need to be re-educated?I would love to know who exactly are these "marginal and often uremarkable" faces - although you only have to look at which agencies were the hippest in the past few years, and their "top" model lists...When Women Agency head honcho Rowland goes to Brazil, talks some crap like "any Brazilian mod is OK for NYC and international fashion, as long as she dosn't look Latin" and then picks Eliana Weirich, claiming that she looks like Jackie O or Cleopatra or whatever - not even close btw - isn't it obvious what kind of "beauty" the hip NYC agents were after? It certainly isn't "conventional" beauty, as "conventional" people define it...Shana Zadrick, Meisel's old fave, again in US Vogue?

"... Now, as in the era of Linda, Christy, Naomi and their lissome cohort, the screen-siren look of the hour is heavily indebted to stylized photography and fastidious grooming: crimson lips, powdered faces and cataracts of wavy hair. "A celebrity-obsessed audience will seek the sleek, picture-perfect look of the red carpet not only in its film stars but in its models..." Which explains why AW hired Demarchelier, and will probably use more of Lindbergh - and the sort of people who know how to do "stylized" photography. Meanwhile, someone should inform the clueless types at Lancome, who are planning to use "unknown" models, drop "beauty" from their ads and employ "cool" young photographers - please! I am not sure what Meisel has to say about all this - will he go back to Shana Zadrick types???? He usually signals major shifts six or more months ahead - looks like he was cought with his pants down...unless the Devo (remember the men with the flowerpot hats?) impersonators on the cover of the new Vogue Italia are the glam "beauties" he has in mind..."... Insiders applaud the return of an archetypically feminine beauty as a backlash against the eccentric features, bruised-looking makeup and unruly hair of the last decade..." This "last decade" stuff is very suspicious, and a desperate effort to fudge things. Detour - the first half of the 90s was mainly a battle between fashion and grunge (which was anti-fashion, as were the original waifs, and that was evil to AW and Co -rebellion is allowed only if it can help to sell merch) What happened in the second half of the 90s, after grunge went away, was that all these assholes tried to kill the elegant "drop-dead gorgeous woman" that Gianni Versace (but not his talentless sister) championed, the "archetypical" 90s model image (Tatjana Patitz, Eva Herzigova, Claudia S, Carla Bruni, Leticia Casta, Naomi C, etc) - and replace it with the tacky but chic "It Girl", as seen in posh London clubs.People need to differentiate between the "high fashion" supermodel and the mass-market fashion supermodel - the "Trinity" (L Evangelista/C Turlington/N Campbell) died in 1993, and that was the end of the "high fashion" supermodel - the names mentioned above were really mass-market models who still remain popular around the world (Naomi C, too). The "supermodel" phenomenon had spiralled out of control worldwide by 95/96 - although not as popular in the US/UK - and people now demanded "perfect" models, and payed little attention to Amber Valletta, Christy McMenamy, etc types, however hard AW tried. The truth is that Christy T impressed few people outside the fashion world - and Linda E was quickly forgotten after she left Bartez. Cindy Crawford remains the only universally accepted "supermodel", since Naomi C is mostly ignored in the US. Despite some debacles ("heroin chic" slowed them down for a while) the quirky-loving crowd succeeded after 1998, when the old model agency powerhouses - mainly Elite Models - effectively collapsed, and the modelling center swang away from Paris and Milan to NYC, along with much of the photography business. Almost all "major" fashion shows were now being produced by NYC PR firms, and the NYC types also dictate model selection in "major" Paris and Milan shows. The models who wanted to be at the top had to move to NYC - the ones who remained based in Paris or Milan suddenly became "B models" and were locked out of most "hip" campaigns. Modelling agency control - in NYC, as the agencies elsewhere mattered little - was given to some nobodies, most of whom used to get sandwiches and coffee for Casablancas and the old agency bosses (who were rensponsible for many unwise choices themselves). "Given" is the right word, coz the reason they were chosen was the fact they were spineless enough as to pose no real threat to the wills of the real fashion powers - AW and Co would never again allow powerful model agency bosses to dictate who appeared in their mags. The only really "eccentric" - looking models during the 90s were Kate Moss (who once admitted that she was an "anti-model") along with some fellow English gals, the US Vogue superwaifs (Trish Joff, Amber Valletta, etc) and a whole army of mostly US superwaifs who had disappeared by 1997, probably due to drug problems - plus a few quirky faces mostly represented in the mid/late 90s in Europe by Ford Paris (home of Karen Elson, Erin O' Connor, Alek Wek, etc) and Beatrice Milan - and that was it! In fact, these are the very same faces all these characters admire the most !!!!!They better leave the 90s crap aside, or they'll get more mud in their faces..."... Come September, those readers will see Ms. Bundchen on the cover of Harper's Bazaar and on Vogue, where she appears alongside Ms. Kurkova, Carolyn Murphy and Liya Kebede, replacing Hollywood celebrities on the September covers for the first time in many seasons. High-powered models, some of them evergreens like Linda Evangelista and Patti Hansen, will likewise get star billing in a flurry of mainstream ads, among them a multipage insert from Ann Taylor...""Multipage insert from Ann Taylor", ha ha ha - that's how Vogue got to be so thick !!! Liya is a "conventional beauty"? Next to Noemie Lenoir, Oluchi, Jessica White, Yasmin Warsame, etc she looks like a joke. The girl spend four months in Paris and not one agency was interested - before she headed to NYC, and stardom. The E Lauder heiress hired Liya, coz AW convinced her that this should be the proper image of the black "chic" woman - very thin, with a flat ass, just like their fave blondes. Linda Evangelista too looks like a joke nowdays - didn't someone inform cosmetics companies that the average woman won't buy products advertised by someone who had obvious massive cosmetic surgey and now looks "ten years younger"? I guess the success of Kate Moss selling Rimmel maskara with her fake eyebrows - despite charges of false advertising by UK authorities - made them more daring... As for Carolyn Murphy - when the Milanese in 1997 called the top US mod crop of the time "boring", they were referring to the likes of Mrs Murphy - why did she give up modelling, to follow her surfer boyfriend to Costa Rica, soon after? It couldn't be that she had an exciting modelling future ahead of her? Of course, the Lauder heiress rescued her too - and now she'll be foisted on the hapless fashion consumer as the leading "glamour" girl (you wondered why she was on the cover of the last Vogue UK? Now you know. You can bet she'll be smiling a lot more from now on...) Btw, if Liya and Carolyn are so good, why did the Lauder family had to bring back the hated (by AW's pals and every "cool" character) Liz Hurley? Maybe the IMG stars weren't selling the product as well as expected?Does all this mean that the usual female Hollywood celebs don't sell anymore? Looking at their faces, I am not surprised...Then again, if some US semi-celebs demand half a million dollars to show up in a Chanel campaign, maybe the fashion mags and the cash-strapped conglomerates need a cheaper alternative...but something that the average consumer would find acceptable.You'll hear a lot of stuff about modelling in the 90s and "supermodels" this season, with the Madonna movie coming up, auto companies coming out with "Fashion" car models and all that - but do these characters really believe they can sell sell revisionist history? They may think people were high on cocaine/heroin - like most of them - in the mid and late 90s, and didn't know what was going on - or that they didn't read magazines and don't remember what fashion models looked like in 95/96/97/98.I'll certainly be around to remind everyone.Why can't these assholes SIMPLY ACCEPT THAT THEY FUCKED UP, AND THEIR "QUIRKY" EXPERIMENT WENT BELLY-UP? Of course, that would mean that they are incompetent - like I have been claiming all along. And what about all the "London stylists" who championed the "quirky" look since 1994? Will they now have to find "beautiful" models? Will their mods now get automatic entry into the "hip in NYC" model charts? Is Karen Elson (and Co) going to be "glamourised", so that her illustrious career continues for another decade? Oh well...And of course, the infamous Ivan Bart of IMG Models couldn't be left out from the circus:"... There will be a return to glamour," Mr. Bart predicted. He is not suggesting a return to the Golden Age of supermodels. But the addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures of the catwalks will probably be pushed to the margins, he maintained, to make way for a new breed of swan..." Wot - so all those weirdo faces he was hawking for the past 6-7 years were not really "glamorous"? How many beauty/cosmetics customers got swindled then? Coz they were sold exactly the same "alien" catwalk queens!!! Will IMG reveal which of their hip mods look like "addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures"? Not that I don't really know, but there are plenty of clueless types out there..."...five years ago (1999 that is) a lifetime in mannequin years... was an era when runway divas like Gisele Bundchen, all screen-siren contours and luminous cheeks, were almost an anomaly in an industry dominated by raw, quirky beauties ? the likes of Stella Tennant and Eleonora Bose. What Mr. Bart had sniffed out, long ahead of his time, was a shift in fashion's wind, one that has gathered the force in recent months to spawn a trend..."Most of Gisele's contours (like her 86 cm hips) never really impressed anyone, I think it was her breast size that did it... That was a reference to how Mr Bart got impressed when he saw K Kurkova on the catwalk (is she about to join IMG?) - first time he felt that, since the Claudia S days...So - Ivan B "sniffed" that years after he was busy selling Anouck L and countless other 76cm chest and 24+ y.o. walking closet weirdos, his customers would demand Claudia S type "swaying" babes? The same Claudia S everyone in NYC called "terminally boring" in 97-98? Maybe his "sniffing" abilities couldn't go that far back in time... In other words, if Ivan B and Co had "sniffed" far ahead of time, maybe we could have sticked to the original "conventional beauties" and wouldn't have to put up with models without "real identity and a memorable face", "marginal and often unremarkable faces", who "don't inspire any kind of longing", or "addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures of the catwalks"Reminds me of the IMG roster btw... As for where the "fashion wind" blows - my hairy ass!!! They say that now, when G Armani and R Cavalli finally sold out to Ivan B and Co, and are using the likes or Erin Wasson and J Wheeler and Amanda Moore in their campaigns ? (do these IMG mods qualify as "addicts aliens or forlorn creatures" btw?) Who the hell demanded a return to conventional beauty? Viv Westwood or G Ferre? S Meisel? Katie Grand? M Testino? Can you name ONE person who demanded a return to "conventional" beauty up to two months ago?Weren't AW and Co doing just fine, selling their usual product? These characters faced no real opposition fromanyone in fashion - they have only one (but VERY big) problem - that the consumer said "fuck you" to them, every day for these 6-7 years After the "It Girl" market segment got wiped out, long before 9/11, Ivan B and Co tried to sell their weirdos to the upper middle class, to older women, to just about anyone - but very few bought the goods. Then, they tried beauty/cosmetics - Erin Wasson is not exactly a huge success for Maybelline, and that is the best IMG can offer - the bloody consumers still like Josie Maran better! What all this really is - AN ADMISSION OF A MASSIVE MARKETING FAILURE, INVOLVING EVERYONE WHO WAS IN CONTROL SINCE 1998 - THE CONGLOMERATE BOSSES, THE EDITRIXES, THE FASHION PR TYPES, THE STYLISTS, THE MODEL BOSSES, THE HIP AGENTS The fact that the "quirky" period in fashion modelling coincided with a period of negative -or at least unexciting- financial performances for high fashion magazines and fashion design firms alike, may be just a coincidence...The only two major companies really doing great profit-wise (without needing acquisitions) in the past 5-7 years were G Armani and R Lauren, which, by amazing coincidence, used non-"Vogue approved" and "uncool" models - although lately Giorgio sold out to AW's operatives, I bet his profits will head south soon...Speculation - there is really only one way out of all this for the "quirky" crowd, if this return to "beauty" doesn't work (and assuming it is not another single season trend)- they can blame everything on the "trendsetter", A Wintour. Nothing would suprise me anymore! Like I said - hold on to your sickbag as the "conventional beauties" (the Ivan Bart version anyway) show up - this will be fun !!!!!!

http://newmodels.blogspot.com/ Lil Flip246 17:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Another useful article: July 20, 2004 FRONT ROW Old-Style Glamour Makes a Comeback By RUTH LA FERLA

For Ivan Bart, it was a signal moment. Seated beside a fashion runway, Mr. Bart, the director of IMG Models, tensed like a setter, his attention fixed on the model in front of him. "Suddenly I saw this tall, leggy blonde, Karolina Kurkova, who sashayed down the runway like the sex bombs of the 80's," Mr. Bart recalled. "I said to myself: `Who is that? I haven't seen a girl like that since Claudia Schiffer's boom-boom days.' "

That was, perhaps, five years ago, a lifetime in mannequin years. It was an era when runway divas like Gisele Bundchen, all screen-siren contours and luminous cheeks, were almost an anomaly in an industry dominated by raw, quirky beauties ? the likes of Stella Tennant and Eleonora Bose. What Mr. Bart had sniffed out, long ahead of his time, was a shift in fashion's wind, one that has gathered the force in recent months to spawn a trend.

"There will be a return to glamour," Mr. Bart predicted. He is not suggesting a return to the Golden Age of supermodels. But the addicts, aliens and other forlorn creatures of the catwalks will probably be pushed to the margins, he maintained, to make way for a new breed of swan.

The new generation of models "are much less sulky, tough or waiflike," said Cindy Gallop, the president of the New York office of Bartle Bogle Hegarty, which has created ad campaigns for brands like Levi's. "These days we seem to be going for a much more luminous, movie-star feel."

Indeed, when August fashion magazines arrive on newsstands this week, readers long accustomed to idiosyncratic-looking mannequins will be treated instead to a parade of screenworthy beauties: Daria Werbowy, fashion's newly anointed "It girl," lolling in the August Vogue; Anna J., all high-sheen lips and scarlet-lacquered nails, posed like a starlet from Photoplay in the August W; Natasha Poly, a swag of hair draped over one eye in the latest MaxMara's ads.

Come September, those readers will see Ms. Bundchen on the cover of Harper's Bazaar and on Vogue, where she appears alongside Ms. Kurkova, Carolyn Murphy and Liya Kebede, replacing Hollywood celebrities on the September covers for the first time in many seasons. High-powered models, some of them evergreens like Linda Evangelista and Patti Hansen, will likewise get star billing in a flurry of mainstream ads, among them a multipage insert from Ann Taylor.

Insiders applaud the return of an archetypically feminine beauty as a backlash against the eccentric features, bruised-looking makeup and unruly hair of the last decade. Fashion's relentless focus on marginal, and often unremarkable, faces has engendered its own fatigue, said Linda Wells, the editor of Allure magazine. "We're tired of seeing models who don't inspire some kind of longing," Ms. Wells said. "We just want to be seduced again by a more conventional type of beauty."

Such a pronounced shift in tastes coincides with, indeed reinforces, the return of a relatively polished, conservative cycle in fashion. "Clothing tends to be prettier, more accessible and less about fantasy," Narciso Rodriguez said, "so it would only make sense to underscore that direction with a conventionally beautiful face."

Now, as in the era of Linda, Christy, Naomi and their lissome cohort, the screen-siren look of the hour is heavily indebted to stylized photography and fastidious grooming: crimson lips, powdered faces and cataracts of wavy hair. "A celebrity-obsessed audience will seek the sleek, picture-perfect look of the red carpet not only in its film stars but in its models," Ms. Gallop said.

In industry argot, the new look is "aspirational." "We are trying to bring back the concept of models with a real identity and a memorable face," said Raul Martinez, a partner in A/R Media, whose clients include Versace. "I think we've kind of lost that for a while. When was the last time you looked at a model and said to yourself, `My God, she is a stunner'?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/fashion/...print&position= Lil Flip246 17:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam
Please don't spam this page with all of this material. That is not the purpose of this page. It is for original sharing between editors. Occasionally give a link, but not this volume of clutter. Those that are interested will find their own searches. It is not pertinent to the discussion of a short general page on supermodels. This is not a blog! Doc 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought I would share some useful articles. :( Lil Flip246 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your intent may have been good, but it is not useful to this article. Secondly you continue to not follow form, use edit summaries and if you will read more of the guidelines you will see that this is not a proper use of the talk page. It has taken a huge amount of space for what is little more that spam for the topic at hand. Doc 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought the article would be useful, because it shows that the industry is interested in supermodels again. Lil Flip246 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One sentence with a link would have done that, but once again, only if it is for a proposed change to the article. Read the header at the top of this page. Again, this is not a blog. Doc 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought it would be useful information. :(Lil Flip246 22:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Supermodel Category
We should make a category for supermodels. Supermodels are top models who are famous, highly paid, and have modeled for all the top fashion shows like Prada, appeared in ads for top fashion labels like LV, and have graced the top fashion mags such as Vogue. We should make a category to seperate these top models from regular fashion models like Eva Pigford. Lil Flip246 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Supermodel" is inherently personal point of view and opinion, so a category is really not viable. In any event, this category was deleted on June 11, 2006, after this CfD discussion. Agent 86 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need that weasel section "Characteristics of a supermodel"?
I chopped the following paragraph: it's basically a bunch of weasel words. The next section starts with a reasonable discussion of the term "supermodel" so this weaseling is unnecessary. Also, the daily earnings were unreferenced. Evangelista's quote is cute, but doesn't belong here. Here is what I removed:--345Kai 06:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Characteristics of a supermodel


 * Since the term itself is a media creation, there is no set standard of what achievements merit the title; moreover, standards change over time. However, the elite models who are given the appellation of "supermodel" often share similar traits. These top models tend to have consistent and concurrent work in both high fashion and commercial modeling. Supermodels have often modeled for many of the top fashion designers and labels of their time, which in the 2000s include such names as Chanel, Gucci, Fendi, Christian Dior, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Dolce and Gabbana, Burberry Prorsum, Karl Lagerfeld, Balenciaga, Anna Sui, Victoria's Secret, Valentino, Versace, Hermès.


 * Supermodels often work as models in both high fashion and commercial modeling. They are the most highly paid models, earning $30,000 to $50,000 per day for modelling shoots. Linda Evangelista once infamously said, "I don't get out of bed for less than $10,000." [3]


 * Supermodels may be referred to as sex symbols in the media. Supermodels are sometimes able to parlay their celebrity into product endorsement deals and acting careers.[1]

OK, I am not about to get into an editing war with Lil Flip, who apparantly thinks the above nonsense helps the article. Let me just point out a few more things wrong with it:


 * The section is headed "characteristics of a supermodel", yet it doesn't list any characteristics beyond what's already in the opening paragraph of the article. It even promises "similar traits" but doesn't deliver any.


 * Why the long list of fashion designers? More appropriate would be a list of the top supermodels, if you want a list here.


 * the $30,000 to $50,000 figure needes a citation, please!


 * the last sentence about sex symbols and product endorsement is the only bit that contains information, but it doesn't seem to be enough for a whole section in the article.

I vote for removing that whole section!--345Kai 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep. And BTW, there is a source. Lil Flip246 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote to remove. mirageinred 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, if I recall correctly the intention of that section was to address the fact that the whole concept of a "supermodel" is a highly subjective one and that it's entirely open to debate. While I wholeheartedly agree that the section contains subjective criteria, I disagree that it's a "weasel section". Purhaps a better section title is in order (i.e. "Problems defining the term", etc.). I also agree that in the form it had prior to its deletion, it was rather poor (i.e. the unnecessary list of designers), but I did think that the previous incarnations of that section were better. That all said, this isn't a "vote". Either it's there, or it's not, be bold (hopefully after taking into consideration all the electrons that have been spilled on this talk page about what belongs and what does not). Just don't get into an edit war. Agent 86 00:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the paragraph is now more like a repeat of the opening paragraph. mirageinred 14:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Having sources or not is NOT the point Lil Flip! It's just way too redundant and sounds like a repeat of the opening paragraph and thus serves no purposes. Please leave your POV here before you add it back. mirageinred 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But there are sources. Lil Flip246 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just said that doesn't matter. What matters is that it sounds like a repeat of the first paragraph. mirageinred 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We should still mention the fact that it's a media creation. Lil Flip246 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not put it on the opening? And yes, it is necessary indeed. mirageinred 21:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing important Supermodels
There is something wrong with the working definition of "Supermodel", when it does not include the following women:

Elle MacPherson, Kathy Ireland, Rachel Hunter, Christie Brinkley, Cindy Crawford, Frederique, Cheryl Tiegs, Claudia Schiffer, Laetitia Casta, and Petra Nemcova. I could probably name a few more.

These all earn the top dollar, and are famous and recognizable. Their photos have appeared on thousands and thousands of magazine & newspaper covers and pages. Perhaps that is the key items that is missing: magazine & newspaper publications of the model.

Perhaps it could even be quantified: for an example, 250 appearances on the cover of a major magazine or newspaper, or in major articles within them, ALSO qualifies one as a "Supermodel". I do not propose deleting the existing definition, but rather, simply to add an additional path to it. All or most of the abovie models would qualify under this. I have read that Frederique appeared on the cover of Cosmopolitan (alone) 35-45 times. 65.4.23.179 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As per the header this new topic of discussion has been moved to the end of the page. First off, there is nothing wrong with the working definition if it fails to mention certain persons that my well fit the title. As has been discussed many times the goal is not to be inclusive of all supermodels, but to give representative names. The article has been cut several times because of getting too long and cumbersome. It is not the place of an encyclopaedia article on supermodels to list every possible candidate for the title, which by its very nature is subjective. Doc &#9836; talk 02:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't this whole article unencyclopedic? The best you could do is say 'Some people call other people supermodels, and for some reason other people start calling them supermodels too.' MGlosenger 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Second to last section
Does that second to last section with poor English seem like an advertisement to anyone else (How to become a supermodel?)? It links to one French site 64.253.97.182 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not seem appropriate to me and I have reverted it a couple of times now. This is not a "how to" book. I have asked that it be discussed her before being added again. If it is added without discussion again, I'd suggest rv it. Doc &#9836; talk 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article describes what / who is a supermodel, not how to become a fashion model.  Some of the points of "How to become a supermodel" are already mentioned in the fashion model article. Roaming27 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How to become a Supermodel ?
The beginnings of Supermodels

Many stories speak about models being discovered in discos ( Schiffer)on fruit market (Vodianova) or on some beach (Casta). Mostly they are inventions to add some wonderful part to a gold tale of modeling ... In real life models contact a scout or a new face responsible from a local agency or nowadays, via internet to be scouted by organization specialized in scouting and managing models worldwide (model management). Then the aspiring models are shot without make up (it s still called polaroids) to judge their photogenics, measure ( no use trying to model if you are not at least 1,75 for commercials and 1,78 for fashion shows, for women, and at least 1,82 for men)and send later on to do one or two test shoots. Then they start to do some work locally to learn their job or sent to Asia to gain experience and start to collect money, before starting in Europe (Paris, Milano, London)as "new faces" during the fashion shows season. Generally it takes at least one year to get some exposure, and make covers or opening of shows, sometimes more. Even for topmodels ! Evangelista ( five years in the middle of the armies of unknown models), Vodianova (four), Turlington (Three)... To get information about how to start as a model, good blog and useful advices on become a model blogfor beginners.Also an interesting annual guide book published by the model union in France with all applicable laws( guide des metiers du spectacle).
 * That's all fine and good, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a "how to" book. The article on supermodels is to define "what" a supermodel is. Not how to become one. Unless some consensus is gained here to add this section, please do not add it again to the article. So far everyone that has posted in the above section is opposed to it. Thanks. Doc &#9836; talk 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Picture
I think someone should replace the picture of Giselle. It isn't really on the topic on supermodel and a "supermodel picture". I think you someone should get a picture with models walking down a runway or something. Just something a little better the Giselle laughing as she doesn't really look like a model there - just an average person.