The business of making ugly
Sarah Ridley

Everyone loves to hate the fashion industry. It's just about a bunch of superthin, superdone models strutting around in clothes no real person would wear, isn't it? Doesn't it just encourage people to strive for the unattainable ideal that it glorifies?

I think everyone has, at some time, heard all about the "beauty myth," and how society tells us we must all be thin and beautiful to have worth.

It is probably general knowledge by now that this perception is wrong and harmful. Many of us are probably sick to death of hearing about it.

That doesn't mean the false ideal has been eliminated, it just means more people are smarter about it. They don't buy into the mantra of, "Buying these clothes and looking like this model is the key to happiness."

It's an easy call, because models don't represent average people anyway - they look too perfect, too 'Barbie doll' to be real. At least they used to.

I was recently flipping through an issue of Vogue magazine, and I was surprised at the models in the ads. I used to look at fashion magazines while waiting in my orthodontist's office, back in the days when the only models who ever got attention were the Cindy Crawfords and the Christie Brinkleys.

In the September 1998 issue of Vogue, Cindy Crawford is modelling wrist watches instead of designer gowns. The clothes are being modelled by a string of unnamed and often ordinary-looking women.

Why the step down for Cindy? Has she got a bad agent? Probably not. It's representative of a shift in fashion advertisement. You don't have to open Vogue to notice the effects are everywhere.

As an extreme example, Calvin Klein's pierced, tattered, and often androgynous people are still showing up on billboards, television, and magazines. Jockey recently launched a campaign featuring actual Wall Street executives. Fashion as a whole has been moving towards portraying "real people" in their ads.

Fashion executives have finally recognized that most people can see through the supermodel facade. Supermodels are still admired, but they are no longer imitated.

The new so-called "un-model" is someone the average person can relate to, someone who is "real". Instead of models, fashion ads portray model lives.

But what's the difference really? We're still buying into an idea that if we have those clothes, we will live that life. The new models may be closer to reality, but they do not represent it completely.

Notice the flawless complexions, and the fact that many women's fashion ads still portray only thin women. There are minorities represented, but not proportionally.

No one ever has a bad hair day, and everybody is smiling and happy. Is this "reality"? It isn't my everyday experience.

We are being fed the same old message, just with different packaging. By appearing to represent real life, new fashion models are less threatening and more likely to be effective.

The beauty myth has become even more powerful. It's easy to see that we can't all be supermodels, but it's tempting to try and be like the "real life" people we see in ads now.

The problem is, it's still not real life. It's just a better thought out way to make people buy clothes and beauty products.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, that's what the fashion industry is all about.