Model's Digest

And so it seems the era of women of a certain age is upon us. Hallelujah says the majority of the population. After the transformation of the French cabinet courtesy of Sarkozy?' babes and the transformation of the Spanish cabinet courtesy of Zapatero's babes comes the transformation of the fashion magazine courtesy of the supermodel babes ? the original supermodel babes, to be specific: Linda Evangelista, Christy Turlington, Naomi Campbell, Stephanie Seymour et al. Reports have it that when the autumn/winter glossies hit the streets in a few weeks (like fashion in general, magazines have a singular calendar, and most issues are published almost a full month before their titular period), such 1980s catwalk stars will be smouldering out in new advertising campaigns from Prada (Evangelista), Escada (Turlington), and Loewe (Seymour); caressing Vuitton bags (Eva Herzigova) and swathed in Chanel (Claudia Schiffer) ? in all their late thirty-and-early-fortysomething glory. The talking heads are worked up.
"Actresses are out!" they cry. LV has given up on J Lo! The celebrity spokesmodel has finally been exposed as a fashion pretender, and the real models have returned. But why? Not, apparently, because ? of Sharon Stone ? companies have realised the dangers of employing celebrities but, rather, because "being the original in any field" ? including supermodeldom ? "gives you a very special and enduring cachet," or so non-super-user Donatella Versace told Women?s Wear Daily recently (given that Ms Versace?s brother Gianni was credited with creating the phenomenon in the first place, she has a certain perspective on the matter). Call it the theory of "Femogeniture". Still, there are others.
Some observers, for example, have posited more of a dialectic kind of a thing, a backlash against the ubiquity of actresses and skinny eastern European automatons, in the hemlines go up/hemlines go down sort of way. Then there are the proponents of the Carla Bruni effect, which states that the elevation of ex-model to role model has had a knock-on effect on her former colleagues. Personally, however, I think it?s more calculated and corporate than that. I think it has to do with purchasing power. Despite high fashion?s reluctance to admit to any recession effects on their businesses, despite the insistence that the type of very rich person who can happily drop a few thousand on a handbag each season is the type of person who is immune to economic downturns, despite the claims that it is the aspirational high-street shopper who changes their consumption patterns, there?s little doubt that unease is in the air, and such an atmosphere has a tendency to make even those with secure bank balances think twice about purchases. There's psychological fall-out for everyone. And when faced with that, the smart fashion brands start thinking about communication, and who their customers really are.
I'll tell you one thing: most of them are not giraffe-like 18-year-olds with Slavic cheekbones. Some may be ? second or fifth wives or heiresses or the like ? but chances are the biggest chunk of them are, rather, middle-aged women who?ve had the time to accrue a nest egg of their own. Women who may have grown up, or begun their careers, when the supermodels were actually becoming supermodels, and who may feel an odd sort of kinship with them. Not transference, exactly (no one who saw Christy Turlington ever thought they could be her), but a sort of friendly nostalgia, which easily segues into friendly associations. Hey: if this brand works for her, maybe it would work for me too. Plus there's the weight thing.
None of these women are, by any definition, big. Most of them are notably thin. But they are a lot bigger than the teenagers they share magazine space with; seeing them in clothes it is easier to see how the clothes might work on a "real" woman, even taking into account airbrushing. Also, they look grown-up, as opposed to like adolescents who have raided their mothers? closets, and they make the clothes they are wearing look right for grown-ups. They give a sort of market integrity to their brands, allowing them to drop the pretence of showing on children while selling to adults. Indeed, the older supermodels have a certain integrity, full stop, that actresses never had: they are clothes hangers pure and simple, and their appearance in an ad is a clear business transaction. By contrast, the use of a thespian model always seemed to include an endorsement subtext that also seemed vaguely suspect, as though said endorser was being paid to give her seal of approval. Whether she truly loved the product or not ? who knew? Models are supposed to be promiscuous in their style choices; actresses are supposed to be dependable in all their choices. Besides, for a supermodel to have survived this long, to have been up and been down, to have been out and been in and to be having a renaissance ? well, isn?t that even more aspirational than skin that?s barely seen two decades? Vive l'expérience! Olé.