not for nuthin…

but this is kind of awesome,0,1936697.story

salient quotes:
Germany’s most popular women’s magazine announced Monday that it is banning professional models from its pages in favor of "real women" in an attempt to combat an unhealthy standard of rail-thin beauty that it says has isolated its readers.

The editor-in-chief of Germany’s bimonthly Brigitte told reporters that, starting next year, the magazine will feature a mix of prominent women and regular readers in photo spreads for everything from beauty to fashion to fitness.

"We will pay the same fee as we would for professional models," Lebert said, adding that the magazine views the move as an investment.

Lebert said his magazine’s move "should not be understood as a declaration of war on the modeling profession."

"We are not going to become a magazine for plus-sizes," he said.

Louisa von Minckwitz, who owns the German-based Louisa Models agency, told The Associated Press she believed the ban on models was a marketing gag that would not last for long.

"Women want to see clothes on a beautiful, aesthetically pleasing person," von Minckwitz said.

good?  bad?  ugly?  discuss.

11 thoughts on “not for nuthin…”

  1. There are two kinds of fashion magazines: the kind von Minckwitz is talking about, which are all about artistry and not about the reality of getting dressed in the morning, and then the kind where real women are looking for real advice on how to dress economically, sensibly, and fashionably. Which is hard. Especially when the fashion world has apparently decided to raise waistbands about three feet so it’s now stylish to look like Steve Urkel– and high waists are far less flattering on heavy women or even average women than low waists are. The idea of showing clothing on women who actually have a variety of body types is a breath of fresh air. It drives me nuts when I see those articles about what X for what body type and none of the models look different enough to tell how the item will REALLY look on a girl with a big butt or a poochy belly or wide shoulders. If that’s the kind of magazine they’re going for, I think it’s a great move and I’d like to see American magazines go that direction, too.


    1. yes, indeed. your point that skinny models don’t actually reflect what “real” people, people who may not be so kinny, look like in clothes….

      I like your point that “art” and “what people wear” sometimes do not have anything to do with each other – they don’t live on the same planet.

      I think it would be great to see “real” women mirrored as beautiful. many different shapes and sizes and the joy of diversity….

      thanks for posting.


      1. Yeah, and I think it’s important that at the same time that we celebrate a magazine that uses practical photos to depict practical fashion and practical beauty, I don’t think it means demonizing the other end, the fine art end of fashion, for using models that work for what they are trying to do. There are a lot of reasons for skinny models that have to do with everything from camera angles and film aspect ratios to materials and labor costs for haute couture that are plausible and not body-hating reasons (it is WAY cheaper to make a one-of-a-kind or a sample dress in a size two than in a size 10).

        But those standards shouldn’t be used for pret-a-porter or other practical fashion marketing, because they don’t appply when you are trying to show women why THEY should want to buy those clothes, or how THEY should look good. One problem with the beauty industry is that there are two ways the beauty industry can make money: by showing women how to look good, or by making women feel like they look bad. I think too often the modern beauty industry makes their money by doing the latter, and that needs to be fixed.


    1. I don’t like the “ideal” that only slender women are beautiful. I think it would be awesome to use women of a wide variety of shapes in print and media…


      I remembered what I was gonna say: the false dichotomy about “real” women” versus “models. and “We’re not going to become a large women’s magazine.”

      – e.g. we can use “real-live/non-model women” but we’re not going to use “chubbies” in our magazine. anyway.


  2. I had a conversation earlier this week about body types, and how over the years the ideals have changed. Now it’s considered aesthetically pleasing to be exceptionally thin, because it’s associated with being beauty as well as reproduction. It used to be women that were larger were considered beautiful not only because it denoted the possibility of healthy reproduction, but also because it meant you had money. You were able to feed yourself, where as being thin meant you essentially had no money and were ill.

    I would like to see people strive to be healthy. Not thin, and certainly not large. A healthy medium that is correct for your body. It’s not the necessarily the weight numbers that matter, because muscle is heavier than fat, but inches, and what actually looks appealing on ones person.

    Interesting this should come up when my first lab report/experiment for research methods is on body image, and how it affects confidence. The next one will be on cosmetic surgery. I’m really very excited.


    1. yepper – you had to be chubby to be hot in the middle ages!!! (cause it was political – if you could eat to excess, you were wealthy. so chubby was IN!) yeah!!! bad eating habits and unnecessarily starving the poor!!!


      I am interested in your research on body images and confidence. it sounds awesome. good luck with it. I occasionally repost something about fashion, but probably not anything comprehensive…



    2. what actually looks appealing on ones person.

      I understand what you’re trying to say here, but please be aware that what you actually said could very easily be read as judgmental. The idea of what is or isn’t appealing is totally arbitrary and (to a degree) varies from culture to culture and even within a culture.

      See, I’m fat. I’m way past chubby. But there’s been more than a few people in the world out there who think I actually look appealing just how I am. And they’re not wrong.


      1. That’s exactly it though, isn’t it? Everyone’s body does something different with their weight. I wasn’t saying that everyone needs to be one or the other. I’m not exactly a small girl, but I think in terms of the media/fashion industry, they aren’t conveying the best image. They aren’t telling girls that weight/body image is individual. That two people of the same weight can look different. It’s what looks appealing on the person. Whatever boosts their confidence, or where they feel the best. Hence the happy medium part before that as it’s all in context of the media, or at least my line of thought was. Next time I shall be more clear.


      2. No, I got that you didn’t mean it in a ‘omg, i judge you, you fattie’ kind of way. Just, you know, the way you phrased it gave me pause and I had to reread the sentence. It really was just a heads-up that it *could* be taken badly, which is kinda important if you’re going to be doing research in this area. 🙂


      3. Hee! I understand, no worries. I’m not sure this will be the lab report I write up though. I’ll have another experiment on cosmetic surgery, but that’s not for a while. Although this particular study will be looking a the body image states of men rather than women.


Comments are closed.