Well yes. There seems to be some odd concept that supermodels or even fashion models and such are supposed to be sexy- clothing models exist primarily as walking coat hangers, makeup models exist as a pallet for product and so forth.
The model often serves as a brand ambassador- especially a “super model” who must both be a walking mannequin for product as well as brand and media savvy- so please don’t think I’m insulting models or saying they don’t need skills or have intelligence etc- but the ultimate purpose of a model is to serve as a way for designers and artists to display product- not as a “sex symbol,” or even for being “pretty.” As a matter of fact, especially “super models” are usually selected for having some “unconventional” beauty. That is to say- models aren’t chosen primarily off what even most people think is attractive or pretty so much as for visually interesting faces and bodies that make it easy for designers to display their garments. You don’t generally want…
A fashion model that has a particularly captivating body because you want the focus to be the garment and presentation- not the model. The model tries to stand out through their movements and poise and perhaps where applicable their face- this is their brand and how they can get recognition and advance their careers- but the ones hiring fashion models want to showcase product above all, or product image. Hence why traditionally models, especially high fashion models, often are very…. Lacking in curvature. Underwear and swimsuit models often are desired to have some degree of anatomy to fill and hold up those garments- but as many people may know who have more “everyday” bodies and have tried on clothing based on a model etc- curves can make a garment look very different.
It becomes more difficult to create garments, especially complex garments, when you are dealing with more complicated body shapes. What’s more, the ability to predict and control where each fold or accent or seam falls or such becomes more difficult. For very complex fashions, you get to a place where to fit a more complexly shaped body as envisioned by the artist, the garment needs to be bespoke to a specific body. So models in general are often chosen for having bodies that are relatively simple in shape and follow fairly uniform ranges so designers know that their clothing can be placed on almost any model in a bunch and display correctly, drape correctly, etc.
Longer torsos and legs and arms and necks are common- these features tend to give off an elegance and generally make showcasing most fashions more presentable as the proportions make it so that garments tend to show well and more creative designs are easier to “pull off.” This is a big part of why when many “regular” people try to emulate these runway type looks it often looks odd- models are often chosen BECAUSE comparatively to what is sort of a mathematical formula for common attractiveness- models tend to be “odd” in proportions and appearance.
An analog is in food pictures. We all know that when advertisers photograph food they often substitute non food items for food. While part of this is because things like ice cream tend to melt under studio lights- most os because the “fake” food looks more like delicious food than actual delicious food.
Another example is that, especially with older photography equipment, but to this day for stage performances, it is often practice to use VERY heavy makeup. This was and to a degree still can be observed at weddings, award shows, and other documented events where people want to records to look “great.” The type of makeup that often looks “best” in many regards in person can appear too subtle in pictures or from a distance from an audience. In many picture mediums or stage, make up that looks heavy or perhaps very “fake” up close often looks just right from a distance or in photos. So models are often chosen with similar concepts- what will make the clothing look best from a distance and in photos? Just the same as your “average” delicious burger is more appetizing than plastic and colored wax and such- but those things often appear better when lit and staged to show off.
Somewhere along the line it becomes a snake eating it’s tail- because models are considered to be glamorous and a standard of beauty, the “odd” looks of models can become beauty standards and by extension people start to view models as inherently the standard of attractiveness, or through exposure they start to gravitate towards such looks. The best way I can put it is this- when an “average” person sees some high concept new age art they often scoff, they “don’t get it” or don’t think it looks appealing The same is true of many cases of culinary art- it’s for people who have acquired a certain pallet, but to most average folks, if money wasn’t an issue that still wouldn’t be their first choice for a regular dinner.
The model often serves as a brand ambassador- especially a “super model” who must both be a walking mannequin for product as well as brand and media savvy- so please don’t think I’m insulting models or saying they don’t need skills or have intelligence etc- but the ultimate purpose of a model is to serve as a way for designers and artists to display product- not as a “sex symbol,” or even for being “pretty.” As a matter of fact, especially “super models” are usually selected for having some “unconventional” beauty. That is to say- models aren’t chosen primarily off what even most people think is attractive or pretty so much as for visually interesting faces and bodies that make it easy for designers to display their garments. You don’t generally want…
An analog is in food pictures. We all know that when advertisers photograph food they often substitute non food items for food. While part of this is because things like ice cream tend to melt under studio lights- most os because the “fake” food looks more like delicious food than actual delicious food.