Fashion models almost always pose with what I would call a "sour face": tight lips, a cold stare, and a hard frown.
Both male and female models do this. Not all, but seemingly the vast majority.
On the face of it (pun intended), I have trouble understanding how this "look" could possibly sell clothes and other fashion accessories. Is the idea that if you buy these items, you will then become as unhappy as the models appear to be?
It just doesn't make sense to me. Personally, if I'm going to buy a product, I want to think that having the product will make me feel happier than not having it.
Most kinds of products other than fashion have typically used pictures of people who are smiling and look like they are happy to have that product. That's something I can relate to and makes me want to buy the product.
I realize that modeling may not be the happiest of professions, but I have to think that it's not just the models themselves who are so unhappy - they must be instructed to give this look.
Why do they do this? Was it always this way, or was there an earlier time when models looked happier? If there was, who started the sour face trend?
First of all, I'm tagging u/chocolatepot as I'm sure they'll have a valuable contribution to make here.
Before human fashion models began to be deployed in the late 19th century by leading couturiers, the latest styles and designs in European clothing were disseminated via dolls, dressed in reduced-size versions of fashionable clothing, and printed fashion plates. The emphasis was always on the garments themselves, and thus the fictional 'models' (whether doll or printed figure) existed solely to display the clothing. 18th century couturiers, such as Rose Bertin (dressmaker to Marie Antoinette) made use of methods such as these.
The flourishing of couture between c.1850-1950, between the establishment of the House of Worth and the rise of prêt-à-porter or ready-to-wear in the 1960s, is really the period in which the 'sour faced model', as you dub it, flourished. Couturiers such as Worth, Redfern, Chéruit, Doucet, Poiret and others working in late 19th/early 20th century Paris used 'house models', often also employed as saleswomen, to show off their wares to visiting clients. The idea was that these models would save clients the inconvenience and embarrassment of removing their cumbersome layers of clothing to try things on. Because they were selling to wealthy, elite women, they were encouraged to project an air of hauteur and a blank, emotionless expression, allowing the clothing to speak for itself. The earliest models didn't even go by their real names when working - the couturier Paul Poiret, for example, gave his models false, exotic sounding names as a means of promoting his revolutionary, 'Oriental' inspired fashions. Lucille, Lady Duff-Gordon, was the first designer to stage what we would now recognise as a catwalk show, and these became the norm from the 1920s, albeit a much more sedate, private affair than the extravaganza shows we see today; aimed instead at an elite group of clients, journalists and buyers.
Things began to change in the 1960s and 70s, with a younger clientele, a group of innovative photographers (Snowdon, Bailey etc.) and groundbreaking, youthful clothing designs demanding a more dynamic, personality-led approach. At the same time, individual models became celebrities in their own right, e.g. Jean Shrimpton and Twiggy (a.k.a. Leslie Hornby).
In short, the glum expression on many models' faces, even today, is a result of the idea that the clothes should speak for themselves. The models are there to do a job, rather than be the focus of attention in their own right. There is a noticeable difference between catwalk shows, and editorial photography in magazines such as Vogue, which is more narratively driven and thus allows more room for expression and 'acting' on the part of individual models.
Hello everyone,
If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the rules, as we don't want to have to warn you further.
You'd definitely have a sour face if we temporarily or permanently banned you for making rule-breaking posts, which we will do.
It is very rare that a decent answer doesn't result in due time, so please do come check back on this thread in a few hours. If you think you might forget, send a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot, and it will ensure you don't!
Finally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!