the Fashion Spot

model love · 31-08-2008

I have heard a lot of discussion recently in regards to what actually constitutes one being bale to be called a supermodel.

I think mainly in Australia, with the launch of "Make Me a Supermodel", people have been disagreeing weather or not a commercial model can be a supermodel. As the media here makes Jennifer hawkins out to be a supermodel. when in my opinion she's only a celebrity as she only got work from winning Miss Universe, for as a model prior to this she didnt do much work at all.

for example, Miranda Kerr is often called a "supermodel" here as she is very high profile, but do you think high profile is enough? or does it have to constitute certain types of work for someone to be classed as a "supermodel"

and how long does someone have to be around for for them to be able to be called a "supermodel". i know catherine mcneill has been everywhere for the past year, but as she's only been around for a little while, does it mean she cant be classed as one yet?

and if you were going to say who THE supermodel of the moment is, would it be Kate or Giselle? In my opinion, i think Giselle is in the classic sense of the word as she has a whole brand name. but i would think Kate is more a Supermodel as she has more longevity and is more "high end" fashion.

I just thought it'd be interesting to see others thoughts on this.

modeldom · 31-08-2008

The term "supermodel" is over used. For me, models who should be given supermodel status are those that achieved fame outside the fashion circle like Naomi, Christy T., Cindy, Linda, etc...
As much as most of us tFSers would gush over models like Sasha P., Gemma, Olga Sherer, etc...these models can't be called supermodels 'cause the average joe does not know who they are. They are simply top models but not supermodels.
Today, I think Gisele should get this title only 'cause almost everyone knows who she is. Personally, I don't like Gisele (too VS for me) but she deserves this...

**softgrey** · 31-08-2008

i agree mostly with modeldom...

but it's not only about being known outside fashion...

i think it's mostly about the AMAZONIAN SIZE of the girls from the late 80's and early 90's...
like niki taylor, claudia schiffer, stephanie seymour, estella, yasmeen ghauri, yasmin le bon, even helena christiensen...etc...
*i know i spelled some of these names wrong...sorry*

these girls are really almost superhuman..
if you stand next to one of them you feel like a hobbit!...

...

they are just incredible...and we don't seem to have girls like that anymore...
it's really weird!...
i know the agencies are looking for them...
but they don't seem to be out there...

and kate moss changed the industry forever when she came along as well...
so i don't know if we will ever really have supermodels again...

but we don't really have any now...
not in the true ORIGINAL definition of the word...

...

Fuune · 04-09-2008

The term supermodel is so loosely used these days.

Jennifer Hawkins is definitely not a supermodel though, she is more of a beauty pageant. Real models won't be too pleased to have a beauty pageant winner to be called a supermodel...

To quote Cindy Crawford (or was it Christy Turlington?), the only model now who can be considered a supermodel is Giselle Bundchen. Kate Moss is definitely also a supermodel though.

For me, a supermodel is a model that can do both high fashion and commercial. A model who can appeal the to fashion industry, and also appeal to the masses. The problem right now is, most commercial models don't do high fashion. Most high fashion models don't do commercial. The normal public doesn't even know about Gemma Ward, even though she is considered very popular in the fashion industry. That is why, the era of supermodels is over, and we don't know when it will be back.

á la Balenciaga · 04-09-2008

in this thread you'll find the definition:

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f63/naomi-campbell-slams-supermodels-70467.html