Asymmetrical Information

Barbie's proportions are what they are because she is 12 inches tall and forced to work with normal-human-sized fabric.

And most clothing designers design for tall, skinny people because that's easier.

At brunch on Wednesday with a bunch of bloggers, there was a longish discussion of my white jeans, and whether white jeans only look good on tall, skinny people. This segued into a conversation about why designers only design clothes that look good on tall, skinny people.

Well that was rude of them!

I'm not sure about the real fashionistas, but I do believe that a lot of the more popular clothes that look bad on people with "imperfect" bodies are hip precisely for that reason. The people at the top always want to differentiate themselves from their lessers. Wearing outfits that their lessers can't get away with provides them with a net social gain. Clothes that look good across the spectrum of bodies would be far too egalitarian.

Well I can certainly see why fashion designers would want to only design clothing for a certain body type; it makes their job a hell of a lot easier.

The goal of "skinny clothes" is to show off the body underneath. The goal of "fat clothes" is precisely the opposite, and designing them is an entirely different skill set.

I'm sure there are lots of awesome fashion designers who specialize in fat clothes, but given the structure of Project Runway, they wouldn't make it past the first episode (if they even passed the auditions).

perhaps it's just aspirations gone astray... there are certain things that people have always wanted to emulate in various cultures. Corselet that doesen,t allow you to breathe, anyone? Bind your feet to make them small? For this moment in our culture tall and thin for women? Will we go to the opposite as some in Africa do and require looks to prove that you can feed your family? There are places there where a thin woman is a sign of failure.

How much of what is designed a reflection of what is wanted? And how much of what we want is based on the design?

This question never goes away...

because it relates directly to how realistically we see ourselves...

guys are not off the hook either, it's just a different hook.

and yes, I'd wager that the answer is: "Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon." It being a movie line doesn't make it untrue...
or so they say ;) D

White jeans look good on exactly no one, which a New Yorker (in spirit, at least) like Jane should understand intuitively.

And, really, linking to Ampersand without even a hint of scorn or mocking? So disappointing.

Maia will be hard-pressed to find any article of clothing, from fashion past or present, that does not look better on tall, thin people. Even clothing for short, fat people, like double-breasted suits or muu-muus, looks better on tall, thin people. This is just one of many reasons that it is better to be tall, and better to be thin.

As for "how we got here," as if ideals of beauty were a nefarious creation of capitalism, we were never anywhere else. Foot-binding and corsets have already been mentioned; neck rings also deserve a nod. Almost nowhere do women find their unadorned face sufficient; in societies that lack cosmetics they employ face paint, or even coal. Now why particular standards of beauty prevail in particular cultures is an interesting question, and beyond the scope of this comment, but Maia appears to find any ideal, insofar as it differs from the way most women look, a "ridiculous artifice." Perhaps she ought to reflect on the various meanings of the word "model."

*Now* does anyone believe Megan's claim to have no vanity? 8-)

(Posted by a short, fat regular reader.)

Not contesting other points by a previous commentator, just an aside note on double-breasted suits, to clarify:
they were created for tall people, not short. The silhouette of the era (1930's) was elongated acute triangle standing on its farthest point:

1930s: ...Men's suits were restructured in the hopes of creating the image of a wider torso, and shoulders were squared-off by wadding or pads. The double-breasted suit was steadily growing in popularity

It would make no sense trying to widen torso if the legs were short - it'd just give an image of a squat square, not in a streamlined elongated Art Deco mode at all.

Designing for a standard model simply makes the work easier.

If you design for diverse shapes you not only add to your design problems you also take on the problems of finding diverse models. So instead of three models you may need eight. The smaller lines can't afford that.

IMHO the eye naturally prefers sharp vertical lines rather than horizontal or oblique. Look at photos of mountains.

But in clothing avoiding sags and controlling lines was hard until lighter modern materials were available.

For this moment in our culture tall and thin for women? Will we go to the opposite as some in Africa do and require looks to prove that you can feed your family?

For sure!

Well I don't think its terribly suprising clothes are designed for what is (for whatever reason) considered the most beautiful body type: Tall and thin. If you want to design a beautiful car, you're probably not going to start with a hatchback. And since fashion is all aesthetics and no functionality, you're always going to go for the sports car. Why thin is considered the golden standard is a long discussion that I don't want to get into. I think it might just be that while there are both disgustingly thin people and disgustingly fat people, there are a lot more disgustingly fat people out there, so to the extent that beauty is the result of differentiation, society's conception tends towards the thin side. The tall part follows, since being tall makes you look thinner for a given 'width'.

Perhaps its simpler than that: While a short, cuyrvy body might look just as attractive in the nude, tall thin bodies just make clothes look better due to some trick of the eyes. It's not so much a bias of body types, as it is how those respective types hold up with clothes on.

It's my understanding (although it could be PC cant) that at Yale "naked parties", those with a little bit of curve end up looking better than the very skinny.

Homosexual designers are responsible for the "skinny" look. It's very un-PC but it's the truth, when gay men design they don't see women qua woman they see boys. Oh well. Let the firestorm begin.

Ah, possibly my last post on the old site...

Tall and thin has absolutely not been the norm until very recently. For example, I look amazing when dressed in the style more in keeping with the 18th and 19th century. It accentuates my breasts and small waist while hiding my short, stubby legs.

Tall and thin has never been the standard of beauty until recently. Look at all those old paintings with the chubby nekkid women in them. Trust me, the clothing was designed to make their breasts look bigger, their waists look smaller and their hips look fuller (a good hip to waist ratio implies good childbearing ability). It wasn't until the 20th century that we picked the current standard of beauty.

Tall and thin really didn't become the norm until very recently, really after WWII. Once people could feed their families easily then the idea that one was a little plump was considered unpopular.

And the funny thing is that clothes may be designed for the tall, thin woman, but they're not made for them. Meg, when was the last time you bought a pair of pants off the rack? They're made for slender women between 5'6" and 5'9" Anyone shorter better have a good taylor and anyone taller has to check the hems.

The reason tall, skinny models exist is because it's easier to showcase the design of your clothing on a walking coat hanger. That's why they were originally picked. They had pretty faces but were otherwise nondescript so they won't get in the way of the clothes. It just so happens that as our culture has become more media-driven those women who are walking coat hangers have developed more prominence. As they have become more famous, they have developed the beauty standard and, thus, we aspire to be tall and thin to be beautiful, just like the models.

And, in fact, I find lots of clothing designed for me (5'2"), but not mini-skirts, and not belly shirts, and not white jeans. And not that aweful dress which made me look like a nurse with HUGE boobs. But then again, I'm really not sure who it was made for, since Meg looked equally goofy in it, like some psychopathic candy-striper.

But I look awesome in a taylored gown with a full skirt and a low-cut bodice.

Perhaps its simpler than that: While a short, cuyrvy body might look just as attractive in the nude, tall thin bodies just make clothes look better due to some trick of the eyes.

mtc takes it. In general we find longer lines more attractive; skyscrapers, mountains, and people all look more aesthetically pleasing when they're tall, and preferably fairly slim. Note that this is disjoint from sex appeal per se; a curvy woman is really attractive in a sexual manner, but doesn't have the same abstract aesthetic appeal that a tall, slim one does. So pretty much any fashion design will look better on a tall, slim person.

And then the fashion designers, who are trying to make works of art and not practical clothing (or seductress suits), pick the models who will look best and then design clothes to accentuate their advantages. So high fashion is designed to accentuate lines that non-models don't actually have.

I know this because it also comes up in ballroom. As a 5'9" guy, I can basically never be competitive even at high amateur levels, because taller guys will have a better line. (Apparently for the pro divisions, guys want to be 6'3" and even the women should be pushing six feet). It's not that they're sexier, it's not that they're an agent of societal oppression or some nonsense. They just have better lines.

I suppose that's why eating disorders are so prevalent in our society. Being thin equates into being successful, popular and attractive. Never mind that few women fit the ideal. A few centuries' ago, the ideal of beauty was large women with wide hips ... this signalled that they had lots of available food and would be fertile.

It has always fascinated me as to why the same sorts of standards don't apply to men as they do to women.

"It has always fascinated me as to why the same sorts of standards don't apply to men as they do to women." - katesmudges

Why would the same standards apply? We are very different female and male. Our motivations necessarily so.

Standards DO apply. As the Dancer before you mentioned, being short as a male is quite a difficulty, and there are a limited amount of options to change that...

That is only one example... as with the issues that women face, there are many that men face.

So. Think outside your own box...

It's all about class. When average people made barely enough to feed themselves, fat was in. Now, when single working moms feed themselves and their kids at McDonald's, upper class people get their protein from ingesting the bugs that infest organic vegetables bought at ridiculous prices.

Once upon a time upper class people avoided the sun because they did not want to look like laborers. Then when most people worked in offices and factories, a tan indicated someone who led a life of leisure.

Fashionistas have always designed clothes for those who could afford to pay for them. White jeans are the latest iteration. Who could go about in the normal, everyday world in white jeans for more than ten minutes without getting them dirty? You cannot just throw stained white jeans in the tub at your local laundromat either. What would it cost to clean them if a spot of grease fell off your cheeseburger? However, if you're going to spend the afternoon lounging at the yacht club, white jeans might be just fine - avoid the red wine and stick to the whites.

Most models are not tall and thin (like our hostess here judging from pictures) they are tall and emaciated, that is unnaturally underweight, which is not a natural or attractive look at all.

I think there are two main contributing factors here. One is the scarcity thing, beauty always tends towards what's scarce in a culture.

Second, because fashion is designed as far as I can tell in a two dimensional medium, the severely underweight model is as close as humans come to existing only in two dimensions (most models look like robot-designed simulacra to me) so of course the clothes look 'better' on them, 'better' is defined as 'looks like my flat drawing'.

It's all about the money. Many posters have it zeroed in, but in different ways. Yes, the thin, tall look is easier to get the money spent, because the designers SAY this is what is now beautiful. I can appreciate a woman who is tall and thin, but my preference in a mate is one who is on the much shorter side, with a thin waist, but someone with curves both top and bottom.

Short, tall, tendency for thin or thick, are all given by genetics. What each person does have control of, is what to do with what you're given. I've seen some amazing makeovers done the 'natural' way, with diet and exercise. Not extreme in diet, because anorexia and bulemia are unhealthy. But exercise can take legs and shape them, within a certain range set by the genes.

It isn't hard at all to find people of beauty in all sizes and shapes. I'm not a fan of the tall and emaciated, or of the Rubenesque look. After all, I'm just a little ol' moderate.

Four thoughts occur:

1) As people have already stated, tall skinny people are thought to be better looking (especially by women, for some reason).

2) If the beauty standard were different it would make no difference to humanity as a whole: some people would still fit the ideal better than others.

3) If beauty were less important for women, they would simply compete more on other qualities, such as wealth and power, like men.

4) I am not sure that this would make women happier: males are far more likely to be jailed, killed, or kill themselves, than women, largely due to that competition.

I second Bob Dobalina's tut-tutting about "linking to Ampersand." Quoting one of his foul-mouthed groupies making a slur that were sexes reversed and she was called a man-hating <insert word the PC Queens of New York City wish to ban here> she'd curl up and cry is just giving away undeserved credibility to birth-group bigots. Remember, whether or not they hate Barbie or wear lipstick, people who brand themselves as followers of an ideology with such a sexist name such as feminism aren't for any kind of real equality at all.

As for the white jeans, maybe they just need to be viewed under a Sunbelt sky instead of in the shadow of NYC skyscrapers and under the gloom of an East Coast overcast.

I second Bob Dobalina's tut-tutting about "linking to Ampersand." Quoting one of his foul-mouthed groupies making a slur that were sexes reversed and she was called a man-hating <insert word the PC Queens of New York City wish to ban here> she'd curl up and cry is just giving away undeserved credibility to birth-group bigots. Remember, whether or not they hate Barbie or wear lipstick, people who brand themselves as followers of an ideology with such a sexist name such as feminism aren't for any kind of real equality at all.

As for the white jeans, maybe they just need to be viewed under a Sunbelt sky instead of in the shadow of NYC skyscrapers and under the gloom of an East Coast overcast. IMO, white jeans on a woman of athletic proportions are very, um, attention-capturing.

"His day job is to design for Barbie."

I assumed that this was just a typical feminist slur against thin women, but it's not. He actually designs clothes for Barbie.

Brunch on a Wednesday implies not just that you don't ever have to do a single damn thing if you don't feel like it, but that you have at least several friends who don't either.

You can wear white jeans, a mechanic's coverall, or a rubber Statue of Liberty costume, but if you are eating brunch on a Wednesday then the whole world can just kiss your ass.

That's how I see it, anyway.

I'm 5'11 and pretty skinny, and I don't find that clothes tend to fit right. Shirts are either too baggy or too short. I remember wearing large t-shirts in HS, I'm certainly less skinny now than then, but now I wear medium and small t-shirts.

I think if anything, clothes are being made for bigger people. Which I suppose makes perfect sense, according to the news, people are getting bigger.

Justin

My wife has addressed this ad nauseum on her blog, Fashion-Incubator. I think the shorthand answer is, who wants to design clothing for blobs? Tall, proportioned people have interesting shapes and well-designed clothing looks good on them.

Shortish, over-50, and pudgy here, with a gonzo (according to moi) fashion sense, or at least interest --

Attractive clothing for pudgies is about camouflage, and there are a few tried-and-true shapes and materials that work well. Much less variation in the palette of possibility, which is what designers are all about.

Lots of female flesh is too, let's say, female.

Fat is not limited to ageing, but is associated with it. The appearance of ageing intimates death. The color-and-shape image of youth is about life, including baby-making. People more-or-less unconsciously prefer the latter association, including the many men who are far from promiscuous but don't want a woman in range that they would in no circumstances want to bed.

As repeated above, "rich, privileged, and intelligent" these days is associated with "thin." Non-prestige is socially contagious, as well as unprofitable.

Individuals with taste who are more blob-than-angular probably accept there is not a reliable mass design market to serve them. One solution is to find a few good fabric and design strategies, custom-tailor them, and assemble a reliable wardrobe of interesting individualized uniforms. Practical and enjoyable in the long run. Dressing with verve is fine entertainment, like any art stimulated by the difficulties which must be overcome.

I'm very surprised about the gross generalizations made here.

Technomad said:
most clothing designers design for tall, skinny people because that's easier.

Actually, *most* designers design for the average person. It's economics plain and simple. Doing otherwise is financial suicide.

K was closer to target with:
If you design for diverse shapes you not only add to your design problems you also take on the problems of finding diverse models. So instead of three models you may need eight. The smaller lines can't afford that.

The issue isn't the cost of models; it's the total cost of product development (patterns, grading, sample making, marketing etc) for eight different body profiles as opposed to the hypothetical aforementioned three. Most designers only target *one* body profile (per label). In comparison to modeling fees which run $50-$100 p/h for a fit model and only needed maybe 2 hours a week, it's the costs of everything else consumers never think of. Eight different profiles often mean 8 different demographies and lifestyles. This means 8 different sales reps, showrooms, show venues, catalogs and outlets. Only a large corporation with a stable of labels has the resources to target this many bodies. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

Jadagul said:
fashion designers...pick the models who will look best and then design clothes to accentuate their advantages.

It's only on project runway that this happens. In real life, never. Most designers don't hire fashion models that they then design for. It's absurd. They design for the average person in their target demography. Runways aren't reality. The models are there to make the clothes look good. In the store, the clothes are intended to make *you* look good.

Justin was absolutely right when he said:
I don't find that clothes tend to fit right. Shirts are either too baggy or too short...I think if anything, clothes are being made for bigger people.

Heavier people anyway. To compensate, things are being made more shapeless than ever before. It's no fun cutting patterns for those bodies with the specified (lack of) shaping. I don't do it anymore (I'm a pattern maker). Most big brands are using CAD pattern templates these days which is why stuff fits so crappy. Templates in Microsoft WORD are the literary equivalent of CAD pattern templates so that should be no surprise to anyone.

Comments are Closed.