When my proofs from the test shoot arrived, I was eager to choose which shots would be printed for my modeling portfolio and composite card. Originally, Bobby expressed his plan for choosing the images on his own; however, I was eager to see the results of my long day of posing and dressing up and insisted that I join him. I wanted my voice to be heard in the deliberations.
Upon viewing the images through a photographer’s loop, I marveled at the results. As Bobby summarized, I photographed well—I successfully engaged in affective labor during the shoot and it came across in the proofs—though problematically thinner than my actual size ten frame, which appeared more like a size six or eight body on film. I secretly reveled in the news, my merriment only dampened by the fact that I was in the office of the director of a plus-size agency.
Bobby described the last look from the shoot as the plus-size “money shot,” which highlighted “the bum, boobs, and arms.” In my personal opinion, I thought that particular image was unflattering precisely because it emphasized my “bum, boobs, and arms.” I secretly wished a warning could appear with the image, “Objects in this photo are smaller than they appear.” I argued with Bobby over his selection of that particular image, but he reasoned:
I picked this one [he points to one image in the biker series] because it shows off your body and the angle of your cheekbones. Your eyes are beautiful . . . You look like a plus-sized girl here. Look, in this one [pointing to the proof page from look three] you don’t, you really don’t. You really don’t shoot plus-size at all. You look really skinny here—no curves. Here, you don’t have any form. No one can get a really good look unless you do another shot with, like, something that is body. There is no body here. The client needs to see what the body looks like. Get it?
I understood the rationale underlying his analysis of the film and agreed with the need to display the body, but I hesitated to finalize the selections. My image was immortalized in those photographs. Those images represented me. I wanted to protect my image, especially since I felt it was not satisfactorily depicted. I equated thinness with good looks and, from the entertainment industry perspective, good work. After countless years trying to look thinner for my acting career, I would not permit any wide angles or stray rolls of skin to be visible in the photographs. I wondered, too, how much of the “excess” could be retouched.
This clashed with my personal preconceptions of beauty, derived from a cultural perspective where thinness equates with desirability, and professional expectations of plus-size models to display what Bobby referred to as “the bum, boobs, and arms.” Instinctively, I wanted to cover my arms and suck in my stomach. Rather, a plus-size model displays those exact parts, areas of the body that the popular cultural discourse maligns and subjects to modification. New to the industry, I had not fully fathomed the personal implications of putting my body on display nor the demands these fashion tastemakers would require of me.
Stubborn, I continued to debate Bobby on the merits of that singular image. Ultimately, he gave me a choice:
None of these are bad. The photographer did their job. If I thought it was terrible, I would say “Oh, my god, please re-shoot it.” I think that these are really nice for a first shoot. You are lucky that you got so many good shots. Some people have less to choose from than this. Sometimes people come back with terrible pictures and I go, well, I can’t work with you . . . If you don’t like it then certainly by no means print it. It’s up to you whether you want to blow it up [to enlarge the image to a 9x12 print] or not. It’s your money. But, um, if you are going to spend money on your card, I would say you are going to need at least another body shot. There is no body here. If you want to shoot again or test with someone else, fabulous. It’s totally your call. We are not here to not serve you.
If I intended to make a genuine effort at modeling, I needed to curb my bodily anxiety. I needed to work with Bobby, form a partnership between fresh model and knowledgeable agent. By the conclusion of the meeting, we agreed on three images, compromised on the fourth, and organized the layout of the composite card.
Shifting from the aesthetic labor of a plus-size model, in this chapter I focus on the gateway to the production of beauty—the modeling agency. I examine the work agents do and their relationship with their models. Agents develop a paternalistic management style with their models, in which these models become subordinate and subject to specialized management tools and practices that coordinate the modeling work processes. A prime example of this is the “booking board,” which serves as the tangible nexus of power in an agency. A booking board is a pictorial roster of signed plus-size models, a physical catalog of the collective body capital of an agency. Agents take great pride in their board and continually work to improve its overall image by manipulating the images, themselves, as well as the models depicted in them. I conclude with an examination of the consequences of a paternalistic management style, when an agent’s involvement in his or her model’s life ventures beyond professional matters. Individual body projects are no longer private but, rather, group efforts. The aesthetic labor models undergo requires them to self-surveil their bodies on a daily basis; their agents, as referees, ensure they are keeping up with the demands of the job. Agents evaluate, critique, and motive their models. Sometimes, this mentorship can cross the line from acceptable and necessary to unwarranted and destructive.
All the novelty of the fashion industry may overwhelm the fledgling fashion model. Factor in dreams spun from designer threads and hopes captured in a Times Square billboard, a woman may easily get lost amid the hoards of other doe-eyed wannabees. The field of fashion has its own rules, rules that are in constant flux with the shift in seasons. One day, you are “in,” and the next you are “out.” Auf Wiedersehen, as supermodel Heidi Klum would say.
As one of these aspirants, I walked into open modeling calls unsure of the appropriateness of my dress, shoes, and degree of makeup application while being surrounded by a clique of boisterous plus-size models who enjoyed flaunting their size and shape in front of one another like proud peacocks. They had confidence in their bodies and their work. They all seemed to know each other. I, on the other hand, felt unknown and alone. I did not know how to present myself as a model. I lacked style. I did not know the standard operating procedures or the jargon.
As an actor, I had a manager, agents, and an acting coach help me navigate the whole process. They guided me through each step, from how to greet the casting directors to how to look and act like a scripted character. For auditions, I wore a specific outfit meant to convey the “girl-next-door” persona. At auditions, I studied the “sides,” i.e., script of a short scene to perform in front of the casting directors. All the actors quietly prepared before being called into the audition room. An apprehensive silence, broken by the occasional faint mutterings of actors rehearsing their lines, filled the halls. Few actors interacted with each other, since we were all busy preparing ourselves and “getting into character.” This was in sharp contrast to the rambunctious party atmosphere of plus-size modeling castings. Without a script to study, models simply had more time to chitchat before casting called them into the casting room to perform. Socializing became their way of stimulating their energy reserves and engaging in affective labor. It also served as a means of gathering information on additional job opportunities.
Similar to my acting management team, models have an equivalent support system. For many plus-size models, their help comes in the form of a modeling agent. Agents across the various performance careers perform similar tasks. As in body performance-centric fields such as boxing, dance, and modeling, social actors (here, the models themselves) “create and mold their bodies in accordance with the fields in which they are involved and the demands of those specific fields.”1 In the field of modeling, these plus-size models are classified and molded by the institutional habitus of the fashion industry, where agents play a central role in preparing women to be models by instilling in them a particular mind-set.2 These women not only engage in aesthetic labor to physically alter their bodies to meet the demands of the profession; they also alter their self—their feelings and dispositions—according to fashion’s tastes. Transforming a “fat woman” into a “plus-size model” takes a team of aesthetic professionals. Both models and agents engage in work practices that are focused on harnessing aesthetic labor and developing marketable bodies.
As described in chapter 4, a model prepares her body for the performance of modeling. Her job is to use her body to strike the right pose and “sell a garment” for the client. In order to effectively do so, a model regulates and disciplines her body. By way of toning and shaping her body through diet and exercise or artificial enhancements, the model prepares her body for the changing needs of clients. As freelance workers, models continue to modify their physical capital amid fluctuating conditions in the fashion market, as their agents guide and approve their actions.
While plus-size models self-monitor and train to increase their model physical capital, their agents network with fashion clients on behalf of the models. They negotiate the market’s demand for models and evaluate their models’ potential. Agents within a modeling agency cooperate to develop their talent, investing time and money. Specifically, modeling agents represent models, working to prepare and develop these women for the fashion industry, i.e., guide them through the initial steps of building a modeling portfolio. As talent scouts, modeling agents serve to find and produce marketable models. They meet with their models in the agency office or email them, provide details on bookings and castings, discuss career options, or check-in on the condition of their bodies. For example, one agent cheerfully described her division as “a family-oriented board. We are constantly advising our models and discuss among ourselves [the agents] what direction to take each of them.”
This hands-on approach takes time and energy. In agencies with upwards of forty-something plus-size models, it would be impossible for an agent to contact each model daily while also dealing with clients, so, like in every family, there are favorites. The level of instruction differs depending on each model’s stage of career development. For new models “fresh off the boat,” agents will take a more hands-on approach to develop the woman into their image of a model. The agency will direct the fledgling model to a photographer for test shots, confer with hair stylists for the appropriate color and cut, and shop with her to find outfits to be worn for castings.
Agents assume a paternalistic management style, guiding new models through the process of starting a career in modeling. The agent will walk a new model through the initial steps of the business by training her how to walk and pose, sending her for test shoots, organizing her portfolio, and putting together her composite card. Often, these agents affectionately refer to their models as “my girls,” highlighting the personal and possessive dimensions of the job as agent.
On the other hand, for established models who are either switching agency representation or have been working at the local level for some time, agents, in practice, tend to limit their contact with them to simple scheduling matters. As an agent confessed, “If a product works, why change it?” This candid revelation, where the agent equates the model with a product, speaks of the commodification of the model’s body and the role the agent plays in preparing it for “production.” In these cases where models continue to book work, agents allow the process to run without much interference.
The organizational structure of the modeling industry, built on the production and distribution of cultural items, relies on the work of agents acting as “gatekeepers.” This structure delineates the responsibility of discovering and sponsoring new models into the field to agents. Much of this work of scouting for new talent is done on the street. Scouting is a continuous process where agents do not always wait for models to come to them. They look for prospective models (of all sizes and types) while walking down city streets or riding on public transportation. For seasoned agents, it only takes a few seconds to evaluate a woman’s potential—her affective labor. While speaking with the director of a plus-size division, the agent informed me that she had an appointment with a potential model later that afternoon whom she first noticed while looking out of her office window. “I looked out [of my window] and saw a beautiful woman,” she recalled. “I sent my assistant after her to get her in.” For agents, scouting is an instinctual skill, cultivated over time. Some find it difficult to “turn off the eye” for scouting, even while vacationing. Another agent regretted the time he refrained from approaching a young girl while vacationing in South America. He was convinced she could have been a star with some training.
As sociologist (and former fashion model) Ashley Mears explained in Pricing Beauty: The Making of a Fashion Model, which focused on straight-size models, fashion professionals subject models to uncertain judging criteria:
Their key task [as agents and bookers] is to keep track of the field of fashion producers, to predict and produce the tastes of their clients, and to fit the right kind of bodily capital into the right opening at just the right moment . . . Bookers face an especially tough predicament, given the inherent uncertainty involved in selling something as ephemeral as a look.3
Plus-size models, too, are susceptible to this uncertainty and are at the mercy of an agent and his or her willingness to try to sell her look. Velvet D’Amour experienced this firsthand when she took her chances at a top New York City modeling agency after losing eighty pounds as a result of taking Fen-phen:
I remember going in and she looked at my pictures and she said, “You know, your nose is too wide. Your chin is too long. And your eyes are too close together.” It was very, very berserk. Here I had lost all this weight and I was thinking, “woo hoo,” and thought I looked really great.
This agent had a well-defined concept of a marketable model that Velvet could not match; yet, Velvet received more than a simple rejection. She gained insight into a beauty ethic espoused by the fashion industry that is not always consistent. One hopeful plus-size model may be turned away by one agency and signed by another the next day. Body aesthetics change. Agents, as gatekeepers within a cultural industry, navigate through a fluctuating market demand for models.
What these cases demonstrate is that the modeling industry has strict yet unpredictable standards of what is considered marketable. While proportionality of body and facial features is required from any model despite prevailing trends, a desirable look can vary from season to season because clients “shape taste and inculcate new consumerist dispositions rather than respond passively to consumer demands.”4 It is the role of the agent, as mentor and job hunter, to assess trends in fashion and guide his or her models through this uncertainty. It is the agent who advises the model on how to dress for a particular client and what to say to land the job.
Beyond possessing a desirable (i.e., marketable) look, a model needs to know how to sell that look through posing. To evaluate a model’s posing aptitude, an agent first sends her to a photographer for a test shoot. A test shoot evaluates a model’s capacity for affective labor, i.e., her ability to emote well for the camera. These shoots are also an opportunity for the model to test her skills and figure out which poses flatter her body. One agent equated this test shoot with entering a trade school to learn a craft. According to the agent, “This first step [the test shoot] is Modeling 101. The next step is Modeling 102, learning to smile and work with the arms.” A model can learn how to effectively pose from testing in front of a camera and later surveying the proofs. As one model mentioned, she studied her proofs to learn how to pose for the camera:
I analyze each shot on the CD to nitpick and improve on what I’m doing. Clients want the shot, so I need to deliver within a few shots. They’re not going to wait around all day for me to get into the zone.
By carefully examining each frame, she learned the most effective way to perform for the camera. Her goal was not only proficiency but also efficiency. This testing process is ongoing; it is not without cost.
The startup costs of modeling can be a heavy burden for a model, as photographer’s fees and prints resulting from a single mandatory test shoot can cost anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, depending on the photographer and the number of looks to be photographed. These test shots, along with composite cards, at the bare minimum, are required as the model’s basic marketing tools, but some models may also attend modeling workshops and classes, schedule regular salon appointments to maintain a camera-ready appearance, and invest in tailored garments. All of these preparatory expenses add up. These sunk costs do not guarantee future modeling work but are necessary to compete in the business.
While a single test shoot is not ideal, an agent may be sensitive to a model’s financial situation, as Bobby had been in preparing me for the economic reality of modeling:
You see, for every new model we work with, we would like to have them shoot four or five times. Realistically, who has that kind of money? I mean, unless, you are a countess or something or you have friends who are photographers who can work a shot. It’s a process. After you make some money, I would test again.
As stated earlier, building a model’s book is a process that involves capturing a variety of marketable looks that clearly display the model’s physical appearance and demonstrate her ability to convey personality on film. These looks can range from high-fashion editorial to commercial and catalog.
As fashion styles change, a model’s portfolio may need updating, as well. At the request of her agency, Clarissa, a size fourteen commercial print model, needed to update her book. After a decade of appearing in catalogs and promotional campaigns for both domestic and European retail outlets, her agency decided that she needed edgier, more high-fashion looks in her portfolio. Although she was a commercial success, Clarissa’s agency wanted her to widen her appeal to a market that was shifting to a younger, edgier look. So, even she, with a book full of tear sheets—a page cut from a magazine or catalog to prove the publication of an image—from dozens of ad campaigns, had to reshoot and overhaul her modeling image to remain current.
Even my agent made a similar recommendation: “You look young. Once you work a bit and need to reinvest, I will send you to someone else [a photographer] and go younger in the looks.” Unlike Clarissa, I had the opposite issue with my book. My original test shoot produced looks that were on the edgier side, so my second agency recommended I test again for more commercial looks. Since a model’s book is her resume, a diversity of looks helps to appeal to a greater number of clients and maintain employability despite fluctuating market demands. Above all, marketable youth and beauty are the goal of any look in a model’s book.
Some agencies, like full-service agencies that manage multiple divisions, will front the initial costs of a test shoot with an in-house photographer, printing fees for prints and composite cards, salon appointments for hair cut and style, and a suitable wardrobe for the beginning model. Later, they deduct these costs from a model’s subsequent earnings. This system can save a model from the initial financial burden; however, it also leaves models indebted to the agency until these “loans” are repaid.5 Models have gone into debt, despite a steady work schedule, because their agency appropriated most of their earnings to cover agency fees charged to their account. After all of these expenses and deductions, models make far less than expected. Consequently, any work becomes good work, as models cannot afford to be choosy in the types of job opportunities they accept. This leaves them vulnerable and dependent on their agency.
In smaller, boutique agencies, agents refer models to select photographers and stylists for their test shoots. The models, themselves, pay the expenses of the photography sessions, including the hair and makeup artists and the additional costs associated with retouching and printing the enlargements and composite cards. The agencies establish relationships with these aesthetic professionals and rely upon them to provide feedback about the model’s behavior and modeling potential while on set for the test shoot. These evaluations weigh in agencies’ general assessment of a model. If an agency decides not to enter into a contractual agreement with a model, she may use the photos from the test shoot with another agency but that agency may want something else, like the agent who wanted to see more commercial shots of me. For a model just starting out, retesting may be too much of an initial financial hurdle. With the high start-up cost and continual self-investment in the body, most models can only hope to break even in the end.
Is it necessary for a plus-size model to sign with an agency? Many of the plus-size models that I met during my fieldwork hopped from one open casting call to the next in search of work without being represented by an agency. Several freelanced with an agency or two, i.e., an agency agreed to send them out to castings without signing an exclusive contract but collected a commission from any booked jobs through them. Models without agency representation trudge through what one agent described as “the underground modeling market” alone and often unprepared.
Marilyn, who as a teen started her fashion career as a straight-size model and transitioned to commercial print, runway, and fit modeling as a size fourteen/sixteen model, offered advice on how to navigate this “underground modeling market”:
If you are looking for a fun and interesting hobby, then by all means shoot with anyone you can [a photographer or client] and have a great time. You can submit to casting calls online. They are often posted on Craigslist. But realize that often these jobs may only be to trade for photos or occasionally clothing. Often the jobs that pay or the clients with jobs that pay go through agents. I have worked for some smaller startup companies that initially paid me very little, but as they grew, they used me again and paid me more. So you never know.
As Marilyn explained, work generated without the use of an agency is usually not paid work. Instead, a client offers the model prints from the shoot or clothes from the show in exchange for her services. Amateur photographers will often do this in hopes of capturing good-quality images that serve to bolster their own portfolios. Designers and boutiques use models in showrooms aimed at fashion buyers for large department stores. Runway shows are unpaid but provide exposure for models. From working for free or in exchange for goods to being required to sell tickets to fashion shows, beginning models comply in order to gain experience and add prints to their portfolios.
Unsigned models learn to navigate the local and regional levels of the modeling market without the aid of an agency. This can become tedious, as they need to scour multiple Internet sources to find modeling opportunities. As Marilyn stated, these models resort to websites like Craigslist and Facebook, online forums dedicated to plus-size modeling, and listservs to find information about castings. This can be risky, as the fashion field is rife with those who prey on naïve, uninformed models. Without an agency to legitimize a casting, a model may fall victim to a scam. Most scams typically involve high-pressure sales pitches for modeling classes and photo shoots that can range in price from several hundred to several thousand dollars. A tell-tale sign of a scam is an “agent” who charges a model an up-front fee to serve as her agent. The unregulated nature of this “underground modeling market” means that anyone can post a notice for a casting, leaving unsuspecting models vulnerable to those with nefarious purposes.
These worst-case scenarios aside, a model can still find legitimate and profitable work without an agency. After Janice lost her fit clients because of her dramatic weight loss, she surreptitiously managed to get the contact information for several intimate apparel companies from a former client. She brazenly contacted the clients directly in search of work opportunities, successfully booking a few jobs. Unsigned models rely upon informal social networks to gain access to work opportunities. Consequently, they tend to band together, creating their own community of support and information sharing.
For those without agency representation, former models and runway coaches serve as mentors. Several of the models shared a mentor named Carol—a veteran plus-size model who worked as an image consultant. As someone with more than twenty years in fashion, she was their “fashion godmother,” arranging meetings with agents and using them in her various projects from runway events to on-air fashion demonstrations for morning news television programs without charging a commission for her services.
While these kinds of social resources can aid a model’s quest, working with an agency is a model’s best route for advancing a career in fashion because agencies provide models with a larger and more prestigious client pool. For example, Lane Bryant primarily hires models who are represented by either the Ford or Wilhelmina modeling agencies. Agents are at the heart of a field of cultural production that consists of a network of models and clients. Potential models, like Caroline from chapter 4, seek out agent representation to increase their network connections. Part of an agent’s job is to develop relationships with designers, photographers, advertising agencies, and related fashion professionals. Agents connect models to potential clients. For example, if a fashion designer needs a model for an upcoming advertising campaign, agents will present their models for consideration and make a case for them to the designer.
Agents develop and commodify embodied actors, similarly seen in Deborah Dean’s study of stage and screen actors in her book, Performing Ourselves: Actors, Social Stratification and Work.6 Dean found that perception guides the casting process. Typically, casting directors send agents a brief and usually vague description of a character. Then, the agents select which actors, in their opinions, suit the character and direct them to the audition. Agents influence the casting process by offering their choice in performers and negotiating with casting behind the scenes. In modeling, agents similarly seek and proceed to “talk up” their models to clients. They paint an attractive and profitable image of their girls by selling their corporal strengths. Ultimately, agents receive a commission based on this verbal transaction. Agents not only develop the embodied attributes of their models, they package them to clients in an appealing narrative.
While it is possible to find work as an unsigned model, these models usually freelance with an agency or two; such was the case of Marilyn. She explained the benefits of a non-exclusive working relationship:
I am signed with an agency. They are wonderful to work with, and having an agent certainly helps expose you to clients that have the jobs that pay well. I am non-exclusive, so I am able to freelance, but I have found that since I am represented by an agency I can ask for higher freelance rates than I got beforehand.
Models may also be signed with different agencies in the different modeling markets. For example, one model used one agency for work in New York City, a second in Los Angeles, and a third in Miami.
Being represented by an agency is generally the best course of action, especially if the model is serious about pursuing a career in modeling, because of the hierarchical organization of the profession. Unsigned models working in this “underground market” at the local and regional levels in catalog and boutique showrooms constitute the lowest levels of the hierarchy, followed by models signed to specialized, boutique agencies. Those few models signed to large, international modeling agencies and, thus, more likely to appear in editorials for fashion magazines and on runways in New York City to Milan are at the top of the career ladder. While it is possible for a model to move up the ranks, her career prospects depend on a combination of chance and genetics, in addition to hard work and persistence despite continual rejection.
Overall, the agent’s role is to discover and market the strengths of his or her models. The structure of modeling, like many body-centric fields, is essentially a network of differential relations between social actors that involves both a highly developed canon of body techniques and those social actors who can synthesize these techniques.7 Focusing on the relationship between plus-size model and agent reveals a discourse of power and control. This is epitomized by the booking board, which is at the heart of the modeling agency.
Comprised of sleek shelving that holds rows of composite cards, this booking board is a tangible nexus of power for the agency, cataloguing the collective body capital of the agency, i.e., its roster of signed plus-size models. This instrument is centrally located within an agency and is continually referred to by the agents as they pick and choose which models to send out to castings.
Agents exude pride when speaking of their board. After an interview with an agent, he or she enthusiastically asked, “You want to see my board?” This pride also translates into how these agents perceive and work on their boards. As one agent described, she continually tweaks the board, focusing on the color palate and the angles used in the photographs, because “it all speaks to my division. It is about the energy of the board, which clients read.” The agent personally picks the photographers used to shoot the models, designs the layout of the composite cards for her plus-size models, and chooses the layout, angles, and colors for printed booklet advertisements that the agency sends out quarterly to clients and photographers.
The board represents the agency itself and the kind of models it produces. In a paternalistic manner, agents take ownership of their models and their images. “Their girls” are their creation and their moneymakers. With strict standards of business, agencies demand much from their models because, as every agent insisted, they give one hundred percent to their girls.
Agents do more than manage the logistics. As an agent described, “We look into women’s souls. We show them [the models] how beautiful they are. We walk them through a process of awakening. We offer spiritual and emotional self-help.” This help can range from the type of critique Bobby offered regarding my test shoots or one that is focused on motivating the model during periods of self-doubt and rejection. Agents encourage their models when they do good work and offer constructive criticism when needed. For example, Bobby offered this motivational piece of advice to beginning models:
When you go to castings where most of the girls will have full portfolios, you don’t have that much in the book. The ones on your comp card will be the only pictures you have. At times, it could get a little frustrating. [But] it only takes one person to believe in you.
Beyond these types of motivational talks, agents demonstrate their confidence in their models by developing a close professional relationship with them.
Agents take their work personally and are protective over their business, expecting loyalty from their models. The agent-model relationship is a partnership built and nurtured over time, which explained one agent’s disdain for models who switch agencies. He viewed it as an act of disloyalty to the original agency.
When I first met Bobby, he stressed that he required my full cooperation. He stressed, “Let me know what is up—your schedule and limitations, whether no nudity or not working on high holy days.” If we were to work together, I needed to be up-front about my level of comfort with different kinds of jobs, i.e., fit jobs, lingerie and swimwear, etc., because when he sent me to a casting, I needed to be prepared to accept the job. This was a condition that I understood. As a taller than average twelve-year-old, my acting manager would arrange auditions for me, often for the role of high school teenager. Many of the parts that I auditioned for contained profanity and sexual situations. One audition, in particular, involved the reenactment of a sexual assault. As a child, I was not comfortable with the scene and refused to audition. Afterward, my manager refused to send me out on auditions since she deemed me “unprofessional” and “immature.” Therefore, when Bobby said this, I understood the severity of the situation.
In this partnership, agents work closely with their models to build their careers, getting to know them personally and involving themselves in more private aspects of their models’ lives, from searching for an apartment after a model’s boyfriend dumps her, to helping with mortgage payments, or walking a model down the aisle at her wedding. As one agent argued, this personal connection is necessary for the professional process to work. Without this complete immersion into every aspect of a model’s life, he argued, she would not become a star. This agent needed to be aware of everything that could have a possible effect on his model’s capacity to work. Given this ideological stance, some agents blur the lines between public and private, as well as between mentorship and control.
In this close mentoring relationship, agents advise their models on how to present themselves to prospective clients. This, at times, involves learning the fine art of deception. Before my first casting for a fit client, my agent advised me to exaggerate the truth of my experience in fit modeling. If asked by the client about my previous fit work, the agent told me to mention that my grandmother was a seamstress and to overemphasize my past in theater by saying that I had worked as a fit model for costumes. While my grandmother occasionally made me dresses, blouses, and skirts which required multiple fittings, and I had been fitted for costumes throughout high school and college for various musical productions, this “experience” had not prepared me for fit modeling work. In recommending me to present myself as a fit model with experience, the agent taught me how to market my particular set of skills and experiences. These kinds of lies run rampant throughout the fashion industry. Models regularly lie about their age, ethnicity, measurements, and level of experience—often at the behest of their agents. In her ethnography, Mears writes about how her agents instructed her to subtract five years from her age and either stress or ignore her Korean ethnicity to potential clients.8 The truth of the body used in fashion imagery is inconsequential as long as she can pass as the desired body. In the end, the façade (and not the substance) is all that matters.
Models and agents engage in an intimate working relationship, where private matters of the body are subject to public scrutiny. Individual body projects, such as a simple haircut, become subject to public debate. A model needs to present any desired body modification to her agent, who, in turn, evaluates the proposed change based on fashion trends and employment potential. Any physical changes that affect a model’s appearance need to be approved by her agency. She surrenders herself to a collective of aesthetic professionals who makes decisions about her body.
Models are not only subject to an agent’s gaze on matters of the look of her body but also on what she does with her body. At my first meeting with Bobby, he warned me to refrain from drugs, alcohol, and salt, lest I become bloated for a photo shoot or casting. One of his former models failed to heed this advice. This lucky young woman booked an advertising campaign with a popular American retailing company. On the day of the photo shoot, she did not appear for her call time, which is the meeting time arranged by the client. After several frantic calls from the client to the agency and Bobby to the model, Bobby discovered that the model was too embarrassed to go to work because she had a hickey. Bobby urged her to go anyway, be friendly to the makeup artist, and pray that the shoot was a fall or winter scene involving scarves. Afterward, he dropped her from the agency due to her lack of professionalism:
She must have been drunk, high, or willing to get a hickey the size of Rhode Island. I won’t work with someone who doesn’t treat this [modeling] as a job . . . She made me look bad. I take it personally if it doesn’t work or she’s not professional.
This incident illustrated that a model’s behavior reflects back onto the agency that represents her. At each casting and booking, both the model’s and the agency’s reputations are in jeopardy. By signing a model, the agent is, in effect, betting on the model’s potential to book jobs. The agent, in turn, depends on the model to behave professionally at castings and bookings, namely by showing up promptly and ready to work at the scheduled call time. If a model fails to comply with these expectations, she will be asked to seek representation elsewhere. Modeling is a job, not a right, as Bobby explained during our first meeting:
From my past experience, I like working with actors. They know how to do the business. Pure models think they are better than everyone else and privileged. Remember, this is a business.
While I told Bobby that I was a sociologist, my educational credentials did not appear to affect his evaluation of me, except that he approved of the flexibility my academic schedule provided. He was more interested in my past as an actor and its similar emphasis on body work and aesthetics. Bobby highlighted the professionalism needed to work in fashion. It is not about being trendy, “cool,” or popular. Models do not just stand in a position and look pretty. Modeling, in his view, is work that requires trust in one’s agent, dedication to improving one’s bodily capital, and fearlessness to do what clients ask.
Building a successful modeling career requires active involvement on the part of a model. Once a model signs with an agency, she needs to maintain a visible presence. As an agent from an exclusively plus-size agency recommended:
You don’t want to fall through the cracks. You need to call or email to check-in with your agent at least once a week, just to see if anything is happening. Most of the time, there won’t be anything happening at the moment, but it is good to keep you fresh in your agent’s mind. It shows your interest in your career.
Frequent contact with an agent boosts a model’s chances of getting sent out to castings. As one model recommended, “Be charming. Remember names. Send thank you cards and gifts. Most importantly, kiss ass!” In order to succeed, these women become entrepreneurs, commodifying their bodies and engaging in emotional labor to sell their product.
As much as they promote the use of larger bodies in fashion, agents are not goodwill ambassadors for size acceptance. They are business professionals who rely on specialized management tools and practices, e.g., firm contracts, elusive accounting practices, and scheduling controlled by model bookers, to protect their investment. These institutional texts and discourses that coordinate the work processes within modeling agencies serve to connect the macro-level of the modeling industry with the everyday life of the plus-size model. They also serve to control their models’ careers. Ultimately, the model is subordinate to the agent.
Agencies control the financial end of modeling work. They negotiate modeling rates with clients, process work vouchers, and schedule a model’s bookings and castings. Relying on a commission-based system of service, if the agent does not find the model paid work, the agent likewise does not get paid. In terms of the employer-employee arrangement, models are independent contractors. They are not employees of a modeling agency. Since models are self-employed, they do not receive health insurance or other employment benefits that usually accompany a salaried position. If contractually signed with an agency, the modeling agent becomes the authorized representative of the model and receives a negotiable 15–20 percent commission from the model’s earnings for services rendered. Their services include arranging “go-sees” and castings and negotiating terms of compensation with potential clients for the model. In this commission-based scheme, the agent receives a 20 percent cut of the model’s fee (the New York modeling market standard) and charges the client—the designer, advertiser, retailer, or other individuals or company that requires the services of a model—an additional 20 percent on top of the negotiated modeling fee. In total, the agent receives 40 percent for being a middleman. One model offered this frank illustration of the role of the agent as a middleman:
Agents are pimps, the clients are the johns, and models are prostitutes. The clients don’t know what they want. They are just a bunch of out of touch higher-ups. Once they have a model, get used to her, they don’t want to change her. The models are used by the pimps, I mean the agents, who try to get more money out of her. She’s just a commodity. The agent collects 40 percent, for what? It’s me [as the model] that makes the connection with the client. [For agents] It’s all about the money.
Her categorization of the model-agent relationship, while extreme, does reflect the nature of agency operations. Models are at the mercy of their agents, who are in control of their schedules and their earnings. Agents tell them which casting to go to and then negotiate modeling fees for any booked jobs. The model does not have any say in the matter and must follow her agent’s direction. The organizational structure of the agency system is such that models need agents and agents need models; yet, it is the model who is an easily replaceable body.
Agencies may include a number of conditions in their contracts. For example, a contract may require exclusivity from a model, i.e., a model may not work with another agency, whether for all types of modeling jobs or a specific type, e.g., fit or runway. A contract may stipulate that if a model is late to a casting or booking, she is then responsible for covering all the financial damages, such as fees for the photographer, stylist, makeup artist, location, and any financial loss for the agency. Other contracts specify that if a model decides to leave her agency, she must continue to pay the agency their commission rate on future work for clients originally booked though the agency for a specified term after the termination of the contract.
Agencies may also offer contracts to freelance models, provided they share revenue from preexisting clients. This happened to one model who had successfully worked freelance for a number of fit and commercial clients. When she approached a reputable agency, she faced a harsh reality:
The agent said I was too commercial, meaning not pretty enough. I told him the names of a few of my clients, and he sent me to the fit department. There they measured me, a perfect size eighteen, gave me a contract on the spot, and pushed me out the door . . . When I told them that I would sign with them but would not include my preexisting fit clients in the deal, they stopped returning my calls. They only wanted my clients.
This model spent three years developing a working relationship with these clients, who hired her regularly. Once this agency saw her client list they wanted to reap a financial reward without much effort on their part. Ultimately, the accumulation of modeling revenue can drive an agent to sign a model simply to gain access to additional clients.
When an agent goes beyond his or her professional capacities and ventures into a model’s personal matters, problems may emerge. Too much involvement can backfire. While agents assume that a more personal relationship with a model is necessary to advance both of their careers, this arrangement presents a model with dilemmas. Where is the line drawn? Once crossed, how does each party maintain an appropriate level of professionalism? What to do if things go awry?
In this subtle intertwining of personal and professional, lines may blur between acceptable, constructive criticism and that which is unwarranted and destructive. For example, Janice’s agent called her at all hours, even in the middle of the night, with new ideas on how to boost Janice’s marketability. The agent suggested that Janice pursue a variety of body modifications, from changing her hair color to getting a chin implant. Then, when Janice asked her agent what a client thought of her after a casting, the agent simply replied that the client thought Janice was not “pretty enough.” Janice did not appreciate her agent’s bluntness.
This kind of model-agent relationship was not what Janice envisioned when she signed the contract. Instead of receiving reasonable, constructive criticism, such as “you need to work on your walk” or “that hair color washes you out,” she was encouraged to drastically alter her appearance by way of highly invasive procedures. “If there was so much that needed to be ‘fixed,’ why would she sign me?” Janice wondered. The agent also failed to respect personal boundaries by calling at all hours of the day to berate Janice. After two years, Janice hired a lawyer to rescind the exclusive modeling contract with the agency. Given her experience, Janice is understandably leery of agents.
A model is an independent contractor and therefore not covered under most federal employment statutes. This leaves a model without much recourse in the face of employment discrimination, wage disputes, or worker’s compensation and disability. If a relationship between a model and an agent sours, a model may spend hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars to hire a lawyer to break the contract. There is no professional labor union for fashion models that can collectively bargain to negotiate compensation rates and working conditions, prevent exploitation, offer health benefits, or provide other workers’ protections.9
If there were a modeling union, one model asserted, “Maybe 20-year-old models would not be jumping out of buildings!” This was in reference to the death of Russian Vogue cover girl Ruslana Korshunova, who leapt from her ninth-floor apartment in New York in 2008.10 In the past several years, a significant number of straight-size models (women and men) have committed suicide such that blogger and former straight-size model Jenna Sauers wrote the headline, “Suicidal Models Are Fashion’s Worst Trend.”11 The insular environment of this industry that promotes bodily insecurity and disembodiment contributes to this alarming trend. For example, in 2009, Korean runway model Dual Kim hung herself in her Paris apartment. A few weeks prior to her suicide, she wrote in her blog that she was “mad depressed and overworked,” and in another entry posted that “the more i [sic] gain the more lonely it is . . . i [sic] know i’m [sic] like a ghost.”12
While there have not been similar media reports of suicide among plus-size models in the past decade, studies find a positive correlation between increased body weight and suicidal ideation and attempts among adolescent girls; extreme perceptions of body weight appear to be significant risk factors for suicidal behavior.13 While many of the plus-size models that I met received a boost in their self-confidence from working as a model, some still struggled with the corporal demands placed on them by the industry and the overall cultural stigma of fat. Size fourteen/sixteen runway and showroom model Alice acknowledged the heavy emotional toll she faced while dealing with routine rejection:
I don’t even know why I don’t get jobs. They [the clients] don’t tell me. Am I too big? Too small? Too edgy? Not commercial enough? I’m lost. This is my passion but I really don’t know what to do to stop the rejection. Am I not good enough? I work hard, but sometimes I think I should give up.
While Alice responded to the stresses of the aesthetic labor process by contemplating her professional exit from the fashion industry, plus-size model Tess Munster blogged about the “dark side of modeling” and her suicidal thoughts:
Modeling, and especially living your life in the public eye, is by far the hardest thing I’ve ever done. You see a different side to people, a very dark side. People use you to get places, they lie to you, manipulate you, then turn around and “love” you all in a day sometimes. I’ve lost friends, respect, and countless jobs because of my looks, beliefs, or just plain bad luck. Everyone thinks that they know me, therefore judging every move I make constantly . . . For six months last year (and part of this year) I was suicidal, and thought every day that there was no way I could deal with another day. I didn’t really tell anyone because I was embarrassed . . . my life looks so glamorous sometimes, and here I am barely able to get out of bed. Still to this day, I’m told what I “should” look like, how I “should” dress, what I “should” or “shouldn’t” be eating . . . basically, how I need to be living my life.14
Munster faced an overwhelming pressure to conform to an image of beauty dictated by others. The objectification she experienced as a body in fashion became too much of a burden, and she contemplated suicide in order to avoid the abuse.
As independent contractors, models fend for themselves in an industry that preys on insecurity and naiveté. The field is structured such that a model cannot hope to further her career without an agent, leaving her alone and vulnerable. Ultimately, she is dependent upon her agent and a field built on desire and fantasy. However, there are a number of initiatives in the works to address these labor concerns. For the first time, in 2007, fashion models were allowed to join Equity, a trade union for professional performers and creative practitioners in the United Kingdom.15 The union, partnering with the Association of Model Agents, the British Fashion Council, and the Greater London Authority, works to improve working conditions and fight against exploitation in the modeling industry. In 2010, Equity established set minimum rates of pay for London Fashion Week shows that increases depending on the number of seasons that the designer has presented his or her collection. Equity models also developed a ten-point code of conduct, historically signed by British Vogue in 2013:
Models hired by companies signed up to the code of conduct . . . get assurances on hours of work, breaks, food, transport, nudity and semi-nudity, temperature, changing rooms and prompt payment. Plus, models under sixteen years of age will not be used in photo shoots representing adult models.16
As members of Equity, models also receive worker’s benefits such as legal advice and injury compensation.
These standards established by Equity set a precedent for the kinds of benefits and reforms necessary for models working in the United States and inspired efforts to unionize American models. In 2012, straight-size model Sara Ziff founded The Model Alliance, a not-for-profit labor group for all types of models working in the American fashion industry.17 According to Susan Scafidi, member of the Model Alliance’s Board of Directors and director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School:
The fashion industry needs to reject images of beauty that are created through truly ugly means. Shining a light on those unsavory backstage practices is really going to allow the fashion industry, and the modeling industry, and all of the related industries together to create something more beautiful.18
The Model Alliance’s goals include:
Provide a discreet grievance and advice service. Improve labor standards for child models in New York. Promote greater financial transparency and accountability. Provide access to affordable health care. Draft a code of conduct that sets industry-wide standards for castings, shoots and shows.19
Ziff and Scafidi hope to give American models a voice in the fashion industry and continually work to earn the support of the cultural tastemakers—designers, photographers, and agencies—to improve working conditions.
In the next chapter, I look into the creation of this fantasy through the images used in retail marketing campaigns. A reluctance and resistance to accept the plus-size niche plagues the retail clothing market. Designers with “skinny vision” fear an association with plus size and, accordingly, limit their size offerings; however, an increasing crop of retail clothing brands recognize the purchasing power of this underserved population. How do these designers contend with a growing segment of consumers who do not fit the standard mold, whose bodies come in a variety of shapes? Beyond matters of size, consumers demand proper fit and on-trend styles that flatter the curves of a larger body instead of hide them. The frustration over the paucity of clothing options is moving more fat women to enter the field as designers. This provides the unique case where the plus-size design niche is a market molded for and by its own. These designers aim to challenge hegemonic beauty standards and expose the fat body.