Thursday, November 25, 2010

It seems that there is a little confusion.

Okay, overeager modern-day fashion. Let me break it down for you.

 Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin = iconic.

 Vivienne Westwood= iconic.

 Breakfast at Tiffanys + being a muse for Hubert de Givenchy = Audrey Hepburn is undisputedly iconic.

 Grace Kelly = uh, YEAH she's iconic!

 Katharine Hepburn? ICONIC.

Don't even get me started on Coco Chanel.

Every one of the Supers is iconic in her own right but en masse they represent the pinnacle of Eighties-Nineties modelling.

And heck yes Kate Moss is iconic. Not even a coke scandal could keep her down.

but Eniko Mihalik?

Sure, her career took off two years ago and she has been a campaign and editorial favourite ever since, but I don't think she warrants the 'i' word yet. What influence has she had on fashion, on modelling? how does she embody the zeitgeist? how does her influence go beyond who she is to represent some bigger idea or movement? how has she transcended or epitomised her time? 
She's cool, for sure. A good model with an unusual face. My problem is not with Eniko and her achievements so far, it's with the hyperbole underneath her name and the tendency of the fashion media to hysterically hype whatever they're producing to make it seem like THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVER. It kind of undermines their credibility, don't you think?
And it irritates me no end.


Images from Google, as usual.

1 comment:

  1. I could not agree with you more. I adore fashion but this element of it is something that I find increasingly irritating. And if you dare suggest that you don't like a model or think she's an instant icon (or that you don't think heels are necessary elements for successful fashion blogging) then you are somehow being a downer. As for your true icons listed above: love.

    ReplyDelete