Fashioning Fat: Inside Plus-Size Modeling (10 page)

Modeling agents catered to their designer clients, who, in turn, looked at their customers and requested models who walked the line between presenting a desirable image for the customer to aspire to and that which resembled them as well. This resulted in a circle of blame, where agents blamed designers for their model demands and designers blamed agents for their supply of models. Fit model Samantha explained this runaround, “The [magazine] editors told me they couldn’t use larger models ’cuz designers don’t make big clothes. Then, designers told me it cost too much [money] to create larger clothes.”

Still, there were times when the pool of available plus-size models did not match the need of the clients. While preparing for a shoot of an editorial fashion spread, an assistant at a youth-oriented fashion magazine had trouble finding the right plus-size model for the shoot. She complained that “there aren’t any models of the ‘right size.’ They are either too small and don’t look plus because all the clothes are black or too big and don’t fit the sample [plus-] sizes.” In my case, I modeled a size fourteen dress, which was at least two sizes too big for me, in a runway show because it was the smallest available dress in the collection.

It is not unheard of for models to be hired to advertise for plus-size clothing lines while they, themselves, normally do not fit into plus-size sizes. Sharon Quinn, a veteran plus-size model with over twenty years of experience, acknowledged that there was evidence of this size discrimination in the fashion industry, as clients hired non–plus-size models and then added padding to their frames to fit the plus-size clothing:

Look more closely at some of the current window display ads for some of the major plus sized stores. Notice anything off? It doesn’t seem to matter that the models look like little girls playing in their mother’s clothing—all that seems to matter is that their faces are slimmer.
⁶

This tactic of hiring “smaller” models to wear plus-size clothing raised some eyebrows within the fat activist community. Maryanne Bodolay, executive administrator for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, warned:

It’s common in the fashion business to use average-sized models for plus-sized advertising. Some lines like Lane Bryant will hire normal-sized models and pin the plus-sized clothes on them so they fit.
⁷

While not fully admitting to the practice of purposefully hiring “smaller” models, Sharon Lippincott, spokesperson for Lane Bryant, acknowledged that the company used size fourteen models in their advertising
campaigns, who were sometimes “only size fourteen on the bottom half of their bodies.”
⁸

At a size fourteen, Samantha witnessed this practice firsthand when she lost a commercial print job to a “smaller” model for a client that used her as a fit model. The irony was that Samantha was hired by this designer to help construct the very same garment used in the print advertisement but not to sell it in a catalog spread. The designer did not deem her size fourteen body desirable for commercial advertising. As Michele Weston, former founding fashion and style director of the now defunct
Mode
magazine, clarified this practice:

Most plus size fashion companies produce a line that ranges from a size fourteen thru [sic] twenty-four with a totally different ease for waist, hips, thighs, upper arms, back and bust! When the fashion company builds their line, all the sizes they will carry are built from one pattern that is designed to fit the most common size worn by the general curvy public. Instead of a size eight for a missy line, a curvy fashion company builds their main pattern from a size eighteen fit model who generally is an average height of 5’6”–5’8. When they do a photo shoot, this shoot is happening generally six–nine months prior to it appearing in a magazine or ad. Since production is never completed by this point, they build two size samples from the initial pattern: One in a fit size where they can work with a size eighteen fit model to perfect the garment and one made specifically for the photo shoot requested by the magazine. A model must then be found that can fit the sample garment.
⁹

As Weston described, the sample garment used in the advertisement is often a smaller size than the fit garment.

Samantha also revealed that she worked with models who, under the advisement of their agents, used padding to add inches to their dimensions in order to book work with potentially more profitable clients:

They’ll use padding to size a girl up. A girl may be a size ten/twelve but the client wants a solid size fourteen. They like her thinner face but want
a bigger body, so they’ll make her wear foam padding under her clothes. It’s a win-win situation for smaller models. The model gets the job and the client gets the look they want. Unfortunately, it hurts larger models.

This padding technique, which involved inserting foam pieces that are over an inch in thickness underneath hosiery, allowed another model, Alex, who is in-between sizes at a small twelve and large ten, to change her dimensions for a commercial print client who wanted a solid size twelve or even size fourteen body. “Whenever I get a call from my booker about a casting, I make sure to ask which size they [the client] want,” she confided.

As a photographer who has shot for catalogs, Velvet D’Amour asserted that advertisers rely on “smaller” plus-size models to boost sales:

If they put a size eleven girl in and she’s wearing butt padding and boob padding and they sell a muumuu with this girl in that outfit, they’re going to get more sales having her in that outfit than they are me [at nearly 300 pounds].

Velvet argued that the capitalistic nature of media and retail fashion created this size inconsistency in marketing. She explained, “They need to create the unattainable because the unattainable is what drives capitalism. If everyone accepted themselves, just as they are, imagine how sales would go down the tubes.” This tactic of hiring “smaller” models and then padding them up and pinning them into garments is simply part of a larger process of image manipulation aimed at increasing sales.

This focus on a “thin” face reveals another component of fashion’s construction of beauty beyond size, proportionality, and firmness. Thinness is still highly valued. The focus is simply shifted from the body to the face. This preference for thin faces echoes the experience of disembodiment in fat women. Plus-size models like Alex literally model from the neck up since their bodies are hidden by padding. Their “thin” bodies are concealed in an attempt to transform themselves into marketable
“fat” bodies. These practices reaffirm thin privilege by using “smaller” plus-size models and perpetuating thinness, albeit of the face, as an ideal component of beauty. These “thinner” plus-size bodies, too, are objects in the spectacle of fashion.

As the high-fashion runway model shrinks toward a size zero, a plus-size model may feel constrained to get bigger. For example, Alex, a size ten/twelve model, contemplated, “Since I am in-between [sizes], I wonder if I should just gain some weight. I keep padding for these jobs. It might be easier if I was a real [size] fourteen.” Kay, another size ten/twelve model, also felt torn about her size. Exasperated, she explained, “I know I am on the smaller side of plus, but I was told that being smaller was going to be a real ‘plus’ for me, instead it’s been a curse.” Kay was frustrated because she personally knew a few plus-size models who worked steadily and were on the smaller end of the spectrum, at a size eight or size ten, but had not secured representation for herself. While Kay had proved her marketability by booking commercial print work with a junior plus-size retailer, agents told her that she photographed too small for their clients, i.e., in photographs Kay appeared smaller than her dress size, and would not take the chance to sign her. She did not look “plus” enough; she would not pass as “plus size.” Fortunately, as a teenager, Kay was not worried about her long-term career prospects. Rather, she focused on going to college and pursuing modeling on a part-time basis.

Some models, however, fall victim to changes in idealized aesthetics, manifesting itself in altered size preferences among agents and clients. When modeling agents scouted for “larger” plus-size models, Sharon Quinn noticed a backlash against “the plus-sized girls on [the] smaller end of the spectrum”:

You’re too big to be standard size models and too small to be a true plus-sized model . . . It’s really a catch-22 and a hard place to be right
now . . . Your bigger sisters are not feeling you because you all (the [size] ten, twelve, and even fourteens) have dominated the industry for so long and now the bigger girls are finally getting a foot in the door and they have way less tolerance for the smaller girls right now.
¹⁰

I, too, experienced what Sharon described as “less tolerance” from fellow plus-size models. At an open casting call, I was the smallest plus-size model present. While waiting with the other models in the reception area, I received more than my share of cold stares. It was as if they were trying to tell me that this casting was their opportunity, not mine. At a size ten, I was not “plus” enough among these “larger” plus-size models.

While a few models below a size twelve booked work in commercial print campaigns with national retailers, fit clients and designers in local markets prefer “larger” plus-size models at a size sixteen and up. I attended a casting where I was told that I would not be cast because I did not meet the minimum size criteria. Some clients refused to consider models below a size fourteen, as they deemed them “too small.” Already, the boom in online plus-size retailers has presented more opportunities for models who are larger than a size fourteen. In the summer of 2009, DeVoe Signature Events produced the first Full Figured Fashion Week as an alternative to New York’s biannual Fashion Week. Here, the runway show and accompanying workshops focused exclusively on plus-size fashions and all the showcased models wore at least a size fourteen.

The “right” size continues to be debated and changes with each season, but the presence of plus-size divisions in the top modeling agencies gives more credence to these plus-size models while at the same time “channeling and widening the gate” of what is considered beautiful. As Barbara, director of a plus-size division with more than twenty-five years of experience as an agent, explained, “All models are gorgeous but now there are more shapes and sizes. There is more cross-over than there ever was.” As an agent, she
longed for the day when the plus-size division would dissolve and be incorporated into the rest of the agency. Optimistically, Barbara noted that in recent years there were a few models who were shared between “boards,” i.e., the specialized departments within an agency that focus on a type of modeling such as runway work, fit jobs, or commercial print or a type of model such as plus size, male, or hand and feet parts models. At Ford Models, for example, Crystal Renn appeared on both their plus-size board and specialized women’s image board alongside straight-size models until the agency shut down its New York plus-size division in the summer of 2013. (The agency retained its plus-size divisions in other locations.)

In an industry where “thin is in,” modeling agents themselves disliked the plus size label. While agents lamented, they continued to use the term plus size because “it is what the industry calls it and everybody knows it as.” The term is vague, as a modeling agent, explained, with an increased level of political correctness: “They’re not big. They’re women with curves.” As discussed earlier, the term remained ambiguous and confusing for both retailers and consumers, but labeling a model or clothing item as plus size possessed distinct meaning. It carried the burden of stigma and complicated marketing campaigns.

With this in mind, agents believed that there should be just models, not agency divisions divided into straight- and plus-size models, as an agent asserted that “beauty is not only a size six.” As it stands, the distinction between straight- and plus-size models is based solely on size. The basic model requirement of proportionate facial and bodily features is standard across all modeling boards.

Challenging the necessity for these size distinctions is the Jag Model Agency, founded in the summer of 2013 by Gary Dakin and Jaclyn Sarka, former directors of Ford Models’ defunct plus-size division. The agency represents models of all sizes, without segregating them based on size categories. Dakin explained:

We are the first agency in New York that’s dedicated solely to women of all sizes. The goal is putting girls of all sizes on the covers of magazines,
in advertising, and not stopping . . . The average size of the girls [we represent] is a fourteen/sixteen but there are tens and there are eighteens and if there’s a size eight or a size six that we fall in love with we’ll take them on . . . We’re not going to limit ourselves, because the industry shouldn’t be limiting to anybody.
¹¹

Following Dakin and Sarka’s lead, IMG Models (the world’s top modeling agency) announced in the fall of 2013 that they, too, will no longer segregate models into different boards based on size. Senior Vice President and Managing Director Ivan Bart explained the agency’s goals and potential challenges:

We want to be an ageless, raceless, weightless agency . . . I feel like the consumer wants to see themselves. Sure, there are women who are naturally thin and can fit into sample sizes, and the plus size market begins at a size twelve, but where is the average consumer represented from a size two to ten? . . . We might not win in certain aspects of it and it might take a while for companies to adapt to what we’re trying to do, because we still have to work for the industry and if they ask for a sample size, we have to deliver.
¹²

The actions of Jag Model Agency and IMG Models signal a renewed renaissance of Boticellian curves and growing resistance to size-specific constructions of beauty.