In Defense of H&M’s Fembots
Fashion retailer H&M recently got called out for using computer-generated bodies in their online catalogue.
The company has admitted that the bodies are “completely virtual,” with faces of real models pasted in. “This is a technique that is not new, it is available within the industry today,” said an H&M spokesperson. “The virtual mannequins are used in the same way as we use mannequins in our stores for ladies wear and menswear.”
Bloggers have responded with appropriate criticism. Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation spokesman Helle Vaagland said, “this illustrates very well the sky-high aesthetic demands placed on the female body.” Blogger T.M. Gaouette writes, “I’m confused! If the intention is to just show the items of clothing, then why put real heads on fake bodies? Why not just put a fake head on the fake body? Is the real head needed so that we can relate to the models as human beings? But how is that possible when we are faced with a perfect body to which no one can relate?”
On Facebook, a couple of friends expressed concern that this trend will decrease the number of jobs available to working models. Another issue is the creepiness factor: “Man,” writes Jenna Sauer at Jezebel, “isn’t looking at the four identical bodies with different heads so uncanny?”
With that in mind, there are a few beautiful and amazing things going on here. First of all, there’s the unintentional modern art: this catalogue has brought us the haunting, Ringu-esque Model Without a Face. Also, this foray into the uncanny valley brings us one step closer to the age of the idoru. With teenage pop idol Aimi Eguchi, whose face is a composite of six different singers, and vocaloids (singing synthesizers) such as pigtailed holographic superstar Hatsune Miku, we’re almost there. And even though H&M’s online catalogue conforms to the same beauty standard as any other big fashion retailer, this technology actually has the potential to subvert the paradigm altogether.
Imagine an online shop where your preferred weight/height/measurements are used to generate 3D models of the bodies that you want to see. Imagine if there was an API for this that could be used across all online clothing stores you visit, so that no matter what site you were looking at, the models appeared the way that you wanted them to. Standardized beauty ideals would become less relevant, because people would have greater control over their exposure to them.
In the short term, it may seem like computer-generated models reinforce a homogenous beauty standard. In the long term, this technology may pave the way towards greater body diversity and inclusiveness.
EDIT: After some wonderful discussion in the comments, I’m appending my responses to the post:
Some of you have pointed out that advertisers aren’t known for championing body diversity. It’s true. Perfume companies hire leggy, angular supermodels to to sell you a lifestyle. Some female-targeted TV commercials begrudgingly include the token African-American women (especially, for some reason, when selling yogurt, cleaning products and tampons), but it’s rare to see them go beyond that. If you read Sociological Images, you know how often advertisers and companies create ads that are super-racist, sexist or classicist even in this day and age.
The reason why I think this has a chance of succeeding is that the advertising and retail branches (or outsourced teams) of a company have totally different goals. The goal of advertising is to make you aware of the brand, and to associate that brand with glamour, mystique, etc. That’s why fashion and editorial models are very tall and have exotic, alien features – Andrej Pejic, Alek Wek, etc. On the other hand, catalog models tend to look “wholesome” and just slightly more attractive than average. Your mileage may vary – the Victoria’s Secret catalog models will look more glamorous than the ones from Gap, and these H&M girls are on the more glamorous side – but generally, catalog models are supposed to be a very standard type of “pretty” that’s not supposed to make people insecure, because they want you to feel happy when you make the purchasing decision. Here are a few models from the Macy’s catalog… I think they’re pretty, but I don’t think that they’re “impossibly” pretty. They look like women I see every day:
Advertising makes people feel insecure, like they’re lacking something, with the implicit message that buying this brand will make them somehow more attractive or fulfilled. But that’s not the goal of a product shot. The goal of the product shot is to make the average consumer feel like the item is right for them. Consider the difference between the Levi Jeans ad campaign and the completely neutral, non-threatening, disembodied product photo on their website:
Calvin Klein Ad:
Calvin Klein Product shot:
It’s true that almost all models presented in catalogs are still uniformly size small. That’s because they are often modeling samples, before the full line of clothing is produced. Samples are manufactured in size small because that’s always been the industry standard. Most of that is for practical reasons: size small clothing is faster and cheaper to produce, because it requires less fabric and time. But with advanced 3D modeling, that convention may go out the window as far as online catalog photos go. (I’m sure it’ll remain as a standard in the fashion world for a long time). There’s already a company called http://fits.me/ that’s working on this. It’s not as advanced as H&M’s one-size-fits-all fitting room interface, but hopefully it’ll evolve in that direction.
H&M doesn’t deserve TOO much praise because they didn’t really step outside the status quo with their use of digital models, but I don’t think they should be criticized, either. Their fake-bodied models were no skinnier than any real models that they would’ve used otherwise. I worry that if the blogosphere crucifies them, and so far that’s what has happened, then other fashion retailers will get discouraged from trying this type of technology in the future because they’ll think that people are just uncomfortable with it, and that it doesn’t test well. Ms. Magazine wrote in an op-ed about this, “Sign here to urge H&M to use real women to model its clothes.” If H&M does that, then it definitely won’t make any lasting change, because they’d just go back to using real Size 2 models. However with digital imaging, we can end up with a catalog that lets you change the size and shape of the clothing, looking something like this, only with more variations:
December 7th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Sorry, but I don’t see any silver lining here. All H&M is doing is reinforcing the idea that there is only one acceptable body type to which all women should conform and that a real woman’s body is never perfect enough. Don’t give them credit that they don’t deserve.
December 7th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Hmm. I see your point, and I had a similar “WTF H&M” reaction when I saw the fembots. But I’m not sure Nadya’s actually giving H&M all that much credit, per se, so much as pointing out a whole lot of potentially positive aspects of the advent of the type of technology they’re using.
December 7th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
i have to say that, much as i really am not into american apparel clothing, their mannequins are sexy – offensively so. they have ribs, nipples, belly buttons, clavicles…and it makes it wonder if they’ve got junk in the trunk too.
December 8th, 2011 at 12:42 am
I share your optimism concerning the technology and it’s nice to see someone standing up for the potential of it. But why would ‘they’ let us have control of the technology? I don’t think advertising people would ever let go of the power to make us miserable and then sell us something to make us better. Than again, technology is out there and someday one small smart company might start it and it can all come crumbling down.
December 8th, 2011 at 4:16 am
I appreciate Nadya pointing out to a potential use of this technology for good. However, I am very skeptical that it’s in the interest of fashion companies to propose different beauty models and I am not sure that the technology could prove educational in a proper retail environment. It could make online shopping easier, more accurate than what size tables and comparisons do. It might help people choose more realistically, or look at themselves more seriously. Nonetheless, until some indipendent seller doesn’t do that first and unless it catches, H&M’s admission that it’s standard industry practice to use this technology to create fake, identical and impossibly beautfiul models is, in my opinion, both pointing at the emperor’s nakedeness and worrying, very worrying.
December 8th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“In the long term, this technology may pave the way towards greater body diversity and inclusiveness.”
Yes, that will happen. Advertisers love diversity and inclusiveness! Now they can diversify all the way down to the Barbie[TM] figures that are physically impossible in real humans.
Uncanny Valley ahoy!
December 8th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
“Imagine an online shop where your preferred weight/height/measurements are used to generate 3D models of the bodies that you want to see…”
But what about the fantasy of looking like the many models who grace campaigns and magazines? That’s a large pull the industry banks on and cultivates endlessly. I don’t see them giving that up since it’s what gets so many to buy their products to begin with.
December 9th, 2011 at 12:33 am
Ok, I can appreciate this POV, and if the use of this technology continues, hopefully Nadya, you are proven correct, and it DOES lead to such a positive outcome!
December 9th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Hi guys, thanks for all your responses to this. Couple of things I want to follow up on!
Some of you have pointed out that advertisers aren’t known for championing body diversity. It’s true. Perfume companies hire leggy, angular supermodels to to sell you a lifestyle. Some female-targeted TV commercials begrudgingly include the token African-American women (especially, for some reason, when selling yogurt, cleaning products and tampons), but it’s rare to see them go beyond that. If you read Sociological Images, you know how often advertisers and companies create ads that are super-racist, sexist or classicist even in this day and age.
The reason why I think this has a chance of succeeding is that the advertising and retail branches (or outsourced teams) of a company have totally different goals. The goal of advertising is to make you aware of the brand, and to associate that brand with glamour, mystique, etc. That’s why fashion and editorial models are very tall and have exotic, alien features – Andrej Pejic, Alek Wek, etc. On the other hand, catalog models tend to look “wholesome” and just slightly more attractive than average. Your mileage may vary – the Victoria’s Secret catalog models will look more glamorous than the ones from Gap, and these H&M girls are on the more glamorous side – but generally, catalog models are supposed to be a very standard type of “pretty” that’s not supposed to make people insecure, because they want you to feel happy when you make the purchasing decision. Here are a few models from the Macy’s catalog… I think they’re pretty, but I don’t think that they’re “impossibly” pretty. They look like women I see every day:
Advertising makes people feel insecure, like they’re lacking something, with the implicit message that buying this brand will make them somehow more attractive or fulfilled. But that’s not the goal of a product shot. The goal of the product shot is to make the average consumer feel like the item is right for them. Consider the difference between the Levi Jeans ad campaign and the completely neutral, non-threatening, disembodied product photo on their website:
Calvin Klein Ad:
Calvin Klein Product shot:
It’s true that almost all models presented in catalogs are still uniformly size small. That’s because they are often modeling samples, before the full line of clothing is produced. Samples are manufactured in size small because that’s always been the industry standard. Most of that is for practical reasons: size small clothing is faster and cheaper to produce, because it requires less fabric and time. But with advanced 3D modeling, that convention may go out the window as far as online catalog photos go. (I’m sure it’ll remain as a standard in the fashion world for a long time). There’s already a company called http://fits.me/ that’s working on this. It’s not as advanced as H&M’s one-size-fits-all fitting room interface, but hopefully it’ll evolve in that direction.
H&M doesn’t deserve TOO much praise because they didn’t really step outside the status quo with their use of digital models, but I don’t think they should be criticized, either. Their fake-bodied models were no skinnier than any real models that they would’ve used otherwise. I worry that if the blogosphere crucifies them, and so far that’s what has happened, then other fashion retailers will get discouraged from trying this type of technology in the future because they’ll think that people are just uncomfortable with it, and that it doesn’t test well. Ms. Magazine wrote in an op-ed about this, “Sign here to urge H&M to use real women to model its clothes.” If H&M does that, then it definitely won’t make any lasting change, because they’d just go back to using real Size 2 models. However with digital imaging, we can end up with a catalog that lets you change the size and shape of the clothing, looking something like this, only with more variations:
December 10th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
[…] From Coilhouse: […]
December 11th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
This is awesome news. Now hordes of pretty people will have to retrain and hopefully become interesting.
December 14th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I agree with what Nadya’s driving at. It seems like what H&M has done with technology is an effective satire of what modeling agencies have been doing with real people’s bodies all along. I’d seen fits.me or some other website before, years ago, and I concur that there’s some point at which advertising has to stop fomenting insecurity and actually reaching out to the people that will buy its products, and this could work for that.
December 20th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
A friend of mine linked me to this for a completely different reason, but I noticed something interesting: http://www.hm.com/us/product/97308?article=97308-A#article=97308-A
It looks like they’ve stopped with the real models’ heads.
For extra hilarity, click the colour change to the grey.
December 21st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
As a consumer, I’d rather look at aesthetically pleasing, synthetic models with photoshopped attire than a fat girl in a bikini.
“Big is beautiful!”
“Down with societal expectations of women!”
“The media is holding us to unrealistic expectations!”
Maybe if you spent more time working on your self-esteem and less time bitching about what others do you’d find yourself living in a less horrible world.
December 21st, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Blake, I think we’d all find ourselves living in a less horrible world if each and every one of us were to muster just a wee bit more compassion and empathy for one other. :-)
December 21st, 2011 at 12:58 pm
I have plenty of compassion and empathy–for H&M, who is being torpedoed for cutting costs and using faux models. Besides, it’s a company, their goal is to make money–sex sells, why mess with a winning formula?
December 21st, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I dunno. Sometimes wonderful things happen when you mess with winning formulas.
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:51 am
[…] Or should we be really excited about the potentials for a more customized shopping experience? In Defense of H&M’s Fembots. While I definitely feel there are some tricky ethical implications for a society already so obsessed […]