If these are ‘realistic’ models, then what are regular people suppose to look like?
Here’s an interesting concept – a modelling agency positioning itself as providing clients with “realistic” models.
Called Pure Talent, apparently the idea came about following a roundtable discussion the agency held with fashion and beauty industry heads who all agreed that they were struggling to source “non-model” models for their campaigns.
Now, it does seem like a great idea – but when sent photos of some of these so called “realistic” models, Dr Mumbo was at pains to identify what exactly it was that made them different from a regular model.
If they mean ‘realistic’ as in the fact they are acutally real people and not life-sized dolls, I guess it’s true.
I don’t see anything different from usual model photos though.
Hilarious.
Perhaps they’re just shorter than 5’10?
I think they are sending the wrong message to the population, and specially women. What does a “real” model is supposed to look like? and then what is a “real” woman for that matter?
I agree — that one with the moustache is the kind of pinnacle of perfection that drives women to anorexia trying to emulate. Why, I’m feeling an attack coming on right now.
I always thought that Merv’s moustache looked supsiciously unreal.
They all look pretty everyday to me. Where do you guys all hang out? Blacktown RSL?
Realistic is code for has boobs and does not look like stick insect on smack. Tim what is your point here? This is just a bunch of people trying to earn a buck. Quit being so painfully PC.
I’m sorry, but I’m so over this debate. Real people are all around us everyday, including these girls … every single one of us is a ‘real’ person. The definition of ‘real’ is sitting next to you in your cubicle, on the bus, walking down the street … models are real people too and that includes Miranda Kerr!
Real is the wrong word for this argument, may be they should be asking for everyday girls?
Don’t Girlfriend Mag, Cleo and/or Cosmo, can’t remember which one they are the same to me, use everyday girls in some of their pictorials? Some magazines it’s appropriate to use everyday girls, others not so much because we buy them for that fantasy/aspiration aspect.
Everyone needs to get ‘real’ over this argument!
Maybe the people who get upset when the word “real” models are used for those who are still gorgeous looking and slender would be happier if the agency called themselves Plain Jane… Or would that then be insulting the models? Each person has their own perception of what is beautiful or real some like curves, some don’t, others like height, others don’t…. Slap a bit of makeup on a girl, have a great photography and do their hair nicely and these ‘real’ girls can look like super models too!! It is a world of make believe…. trust me, I was in it!!!!
Hello,
I would like to provide some more information about us to avoid any potential misinterpretation. The roundtable found that there was a strong demand for more realistic and diverse personalities, faces and bodies in models. And I’m sure you’d agree that, while attractive, the models highlighted by this blog we represent a far wider variety of faces, races and, yes, body types than are normally seen on magazine covers and billboards.
Pure Talent is an agency dedicated to providing a broad range of talent and aims to encourage and support a more balanced representation of images to the market place. If you would like any more information or to see the variety of models represented by Pure please feel free to visit http://www.puretalentagency.com.au
Best Wishes,
Sophia Razzaque-Prieto
“Real” is hard to define as it’s something that in itself celebrates the beauty of diversity.
Claire – Just to clarify I have absolutely no issue with ‘real’ models who are gorgeous etc as you described. I love seeing everyday girls in the magazines as appropriate.
I personally love the high end glossy mags and the glossy girls in the magazines, it’s my escapism. But I have a very healthy and realistic view that the models are not representative of me and my world and I have absolutely no aspirations to be like them or them.
And to be honest, I also don’t want to see very unattractive people in my magazines either. A nice mix of everyday people and ridiculously beautiful models is a nice balance (as appropriate to the story or editorial).
By calling ‘select’ girls as real still invalidates the rest of the population, at the end of the day Sophie your agency has a certain brief to meet for your clients with the models you provide so therefore everyday models sounds much better to me.
The only real difference I can see is that the models aren’t skeletal like ‘regular’ medels.
I would like to see a ‘real’ model agency, that in their model shots, only use pictures from the models’ facebook page.
No touched up artwork from magazines or campaigns, or publicity shots when they have been pasted with make up. Just pictures taken in day to day life – now that’s real!
I too would like to see some ugly models with no make-up on the TV and in magazines. Followed by some six-foot jockeys, clean-shaven IT consultants and a Muslim pope.
Step to it, evil media!
I think what mumbrella is trying to say is that if this company is the same as any other modelling agency (as they appear to be), they shouldn’t pretend that they’re not. Which I totally agree with.
The author can only deal in the uber-literal, it seems.
Missing the point. Embarrassingly so.
Fat people take out their inability to exercise and control what they eat on models by saying they’re not “real”, and not representative of them. So sick of it. Models are hot. Fatties are not.