Clothier Slammed For Using 'Perfect' Virtual Model

Hugh Pickens writes "Swedish Clothing Giant H&M recently disclosed that the images from the company's website, showing models wearing the latest swimsuit and lingerie in generic, stock-form, are not just photoshopped but entirely computer-generated. 'We take pictures of the clothes on a doll that stands in the shop, and then create the human appearance with a program on [a] computer,' H&M press officer Hacan Andersson said when questioned about the company's picture-perfect online models. Advertising watchdogs elevated the controversy by criticizing the chain of lower-cost clothing stores for their generic approach to models, accusing the chain of creating unrealistic physical ideals. 'This illustrates very well the sky-high aesthetic demands placed on the female body,' says a spokesman for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, one of the groups most critical of H&M. 'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'"

Comments

Cheaper

[l00sr]

Why hire a model, photographer, etc., every time you change product lines, when you can just mass-produce images on a computer? I'd guess that the motivation here is more cost cutting than aesthetics. Still sounds like a terrible idea, but I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this in the near future.

Re:Cheaper

[Chris Mattern]

What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.

Re:Cheaper

[TheCRAIGGERS]

Perhaps, but the same could be said for real models. If all they really cared about was the clothes, they wouldn't show the model's faces, either.

But they do, and for obvious reasons. They're not just trying to sell you $2 of fabric for $55- they're trying to sell you a self-image boost. And they must have found that a beautiful face is a big part of a beautiful body.

Re:Cheaper

[Superken7]

Absolutely. I doubt they can't find a model with such a body; sure they can. It's about making the process much shorter and cheaper.

I don't see anyone complaining for the mannequins not being human beings and being too idealistic. Also, keep in mind that this was done for both women and men, and yet protests are raised only for the aesthetic demands placed on female bodies.

Re:Cheaper

[Baloroth]

What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?

Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.

"Yet" being the key word.

Re:Cheaper

[Ihmhi]

Fashion designers apparently use rail-thin models because they lack the curves of your average woman and therefore the folds, lines, depths, etc. of their clothing will be more emphasized.

That is, fashion models are generally nothing more than walking, living mannequins. I'd be glad to see this particular part of the fashion industry disappear altogether. How many of these women are naturally that skinny, and how many torture and damage their bodies to fit into that archetype?

Re:Cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so offensive. I've dated a lot of models, there are slutty, dumb girls, but there are just as many nice, smart, good girls. They're just normal people.

If someone came up to you and said "I'll pay you $1000 to let me take a picture of you,", and you say "ok"... that doesn't make you a dumb slut.

So what

[Anonymous Coward]

'The demands are so great that H&M, among the poor photo models, cannot find someone with both body and face that can sell their bikinis.'

Deal with it. Modern concepts of beauty as promoted by clothiers might be unrealistic, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell them what they can consider beautiful.

If you can computer-generate the models...

[DeathToBill]

...couldn't you come up with some that are attractive? I'm not into fat chicks, but bones sticking out is not a good look. Curves, please!

Re:Excellent

[uncle slacky]

All very well, but I get the feeling that the things that most people would be "freed up to do" in those circumstances are likely to include starving and becoming homeless.

It *should* of course be used to create a basic income for everyone in order to allow us to pursue higher things, but I'll bet you it won't.

Re:I'm not seeing the down side here

[GameboyRMH]

The argument some women put forward is that idealizing these models perpetuates anorexia in the population due to women starving themselves to achieve the same body shape.

But if you hear the argument that it's the fault of men, don't buy it. It's not men, it's the fashion industry who wants living mannequins. Best case in point: Most porn stars do not have this kind of figure.