Credit: Lindsay Lohan (Fashion Spot), Money (norquest.blogspirit.com) & Chloe S/S 2007 (Style.com)
What intrigues me rather, is why then, in a world where Jessica Simpson and Nicole Kidman sell more magazines than Tanya Dziahileva and Bianca Balti, do designers continue to fill their runways and ad campaigns with the “new girls”? If it’s a matter of inspiration, god knows that Mr. Lagerfeld has managed to find enough inspiration in Hollywood – think the fingerless-gloved Lindsay Lohan to the swashbucklin’ Kiera Knightley. With that same logic, it couldn’t be a matter of exclusivity driving this trend. I seem to believe that even the rich, Park Avenue women who purchase these designer duds would be equally, if not more, swayed to have that new LV bag if it were sported by a big-name celeb rather than some 17-year old Eastern European plucked from the streets of poverty and dropped onto the Prada runway (too many to name…)
So is it simply a matter of resistance to change – sort of a ‘this-is-how-we-do-it-and-this-is-how-we-will-continue-to-do-it’ thing? While Milan is as stagnant as Teri Hatcher’s forehead, I’m not convinced, since this paradigm has been well received in print fashion; When was the last time you saw a model on an American fashion magazine (Moss and Bundchen don’t count…)?
My theory? It’s two-fold, really. A mix of a self-generating tornado, which fuels fashion supremacy and the overly emotional relationship with celebrities. All it takes is for one photographer, agent, or designer to label someone an “It” girl and the chase begins to nab her for the catwalk presentation, the ad campaign, the editorial, yadda, yadda, yadda. It’s just yet another platform for designers/houses to stay ahead of the pack and reaffirm the social hierarchy in fashion. While the big, hot-name designers get the It-girls, the lesser-known, passe designers/houses are stuck with last season’s bones (literally…) and once again, peace is restored in the fashion world. Unlike with celebrities, it’s a domino-effect that can be wholly manipulated, which is why it’s preferred in an industry dominated by the big-guns.
On top of it, people are too fickle with their celebrities. Our emotional relationships have become over-developed and over-complicated as a result of their constant exposure to us. While a celebrity can inspire love and admiration, she just as easily can evoke bitterness and resentment. The name “Lindsay Lohan” , for example, will easily divide a room into hard-core fans and others whose food is regurgitated at the mere thought of her botoxed lips and pseudo-rocker Tees. Compare that to a lithe, full-lipped Unknown model from Ukraine and sometimes neutrality can be desirable.
Just another random theory of mine. Not that I’m complaining or anything. No, I’m serious.
Well..well…well it is all about getting the attention and if the “it” girls/women draw to much attention to themselves after ..how many seasons?…they are actually competing with the attention the ” designers/house” desperately need to sell their goods….Having said that in the end the whole “formula’ is not working……Why give more to who already has more than plenty to eat and has to much botox and boundeless attention?..Thanks to those designers who are “B” and ” C” class can poor girls from the street feed themselves again and become rather pretty to look at !..Bonne Appetite !!
Another great idea succintly delivered. I do think the general public is highly overexposed to celebrities. I have never seen an Olsen twins movie but knew about Mary Kate’s anorexia/cocaine problem two days after returning from two years abroad because every magazine cover in the grocery store was emblazoned with the story. The way the public can turn on someone (Jessica Simpson) or forgive someone (Britney Spears) makes it too difficult to have them walk runways. I think Jennifer Lopez is an even better example of this. She was LVs spokeswoman for a while but those contracts are for a year at most for a reason. The public just gets exhausted much faster with the level of inundation we’re all at.
i do agree with you to some extent, but then please do not target the Eastern European girls. There are many girls from well developed countries who are big to the industry, but to the outsider they are nobody. Daria, Coco, Agyness, Heather Marks, Stam…what about those girls?
Using celebrities as spokespeople is extremely risky for the brand and the business.
Outside of fashion, look at products hawked by Martha Stewart (pre-insider trading) or Kobe Bryant (pre-raping). They had to do damage control because their brand borrowed image from people they can’t control. So when you use a real person to hawk products, your business can be impacted by all of the crazy stuff real people tend to do.
That’s not to say there aren’t business advantages to the well-loved celebrity spokesmodel, but brands need to manage their risk, and when you get into LiLo territory, things get risky…
That being said, I <3 your blog!!