I used to be quite dubious about whether modelling even counted as a job. It’s just wearing clothes while being beautiful and thin: how hard can that be? Then I had a job that meant I sometimes had to go on fashion shoots. Nothing terribly glamorous: I was working on a knitting magazine, so my duties involved trudging around drizzly parks toting carrier bags full of “technically interesting” garments (the kind of things people would want to make, rather than necessarily wear) for our model of the month to pose in.
And wow, they could turn it on, selling that cabled jerkin with a dazzling smile and an elegant pose in the deeply undazzling, inelegant environs of a Bishops Stortford business park. I wondered whether they knew this was their reward for surviving the scrutiny of me and my colleagues in the office (“not sure about her nose”, “bit tacky looking”, “too booby”). I wondered whether I’d be able to lend quite the same chic to a sweater if I thought people were saying those things about me. That was when I had to accept that modelling is proper work.
But it isn’t going to be work for much longer, thanks to the rise of CGI models, who are nearly indistinguishable from the real thing and undeniably superior in many ways. It’s taken a few years, but finally the fashion industry has found a way to get women out the picture altogether. Not, of course, that the fashion industry doesn’t rely on women — it needs us to buy stuff — but women do have the unfortunate habit of messing up photographs of beautiful things with their icky fleshy bodies.
Real women have dimpled thighs that need smoothing in post-production, unruly hair that needs tidying, blemishes that need editing. On shoots, they get tired and cold and they need the toilet and sometimes the clothes just won’t fit their inconvenient frames. How much more efficient to call up an agency like Brud, which specialises in producing virtual supermodels, and have your product displayed on one of their eerily plausible creations instead.
Brands including Fenty, Balmain and Swarovski have gone the CGI route, working with CGI creations such as Miquela Sousa and Shudu Gram. And Brud doesn’t stop at producing pretty faces: copywriters devise personas to match the looks, and the virtual models’ Instagram accounts have followers in the millions, commanding sponsorship fees to match. Their fakeness isn’t concealed, it’s celebrated — although the ubiquitousness of image processing means that the line between reality and unreality is surprisingly easy to drift over. The uncanny valley has been filled in.
Beauty has always involved artifice. Behind every perfect editorial look, there’s a hairdresser, a nutritionist, a personal trainer, an aesthetician, a make-up artist, an eyelash technician — all working to turn that woman into something worth looking at. Then there’s the stylist and the photographer, and after that the tweaks. But tweaking isn’t the preserve of glossy magazines any more: it’s built into your Zoom settings and your selfie defaults. Even those #nofilter pictures you see on the ’gram are the products of thousands of tiny digital decisions, none of which is going to have been programmed to make you look worse.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“…the rise of CGI models…the fashion industry has found a way to get women out the picture altogether. Not, of course, that the fashion industry doesn’t rely on women ” it needs us to buy stuff ” but women do have the unfortunate habit of messing up photographs of beautiful things with their icky fleshy bodies.”
Oh good grief – more invented grievance. Does anyone actually believe this stuff?
It is not actually very complicated. Very simply, CGI models are cheaper, and more reliable, than real ones. Just like mechanical diggers are cheaper than actual men.
The answer to the question…..what should we be offended about today?
I’m just waiting for someone to say that CGI models have rights too.
At least we can say that CGI models can be equally healthy at any size!
And what happens when the “woke” crowd demand ordinary looking CGI models, fat CGI, trans CGI?
I know – it just never ends
It’s as if the writer thinks women are incapable of running and starting up fashion businesses.
Missed the point entirely. But that’s to be expected from a guy. The loss of an entire career option – whether it’s unpleasant or not – is a legitimate reason for concern. Think manufacturing jobs which were unpleasant but still provided an income. But, yeah, To hell with these women for wanting to have a job at a company that treated them with respect. Your comment reveals your misogyny and confirms this entire culture despises women – whether they’re workers OR buyers.
No, you missed the point entirely. No one is happy that people lose their jobs to new technology. But the writer here is specifically lamenting this particular, potential career option loss because it’s mainly women who will lose work, rather than discussing the phenomenon generally. The article alludes to the problem as if it’s men or patriarchy that are vindictively selecting this profession for misogynistic motives because it will affect women, which is utter rubbish. Your comment that it’s ‘to be expected from a guy’ is very sexist.
Ah yes, I disagree with article (written by a woman) ergo I must hate women. Do you expect to be taken seriously?
Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but the entire economy has been in the process of transformation for years, as digitization removes jobs – telephone engineering jobs, switch operators, travel agents, junior lawyers. This has not been a process that discriminates on the basis of sex. Only someone foolish or bigoted would see this as being about hating women.
The loss of an entire career option – whether it’s unpleasant or not – is a legitimate reason for concern.
Did you just admit that sometimes the “male gaze” can be a good thing?
Or did you just admit that the sneering at and judging of models is perpetrated largely by other, uglier women?
Indeed! The fact is many jobs are going to be replaced by machines – most are boring, backbreaking drudgery and good riddance – does anyone really want to go down coalmines?
Models can be a right pain – I saw a documentary years ago about models and there was Naomie Campbell being an absolute b***h to some poor minion just because she felt like it! Cow.
Good riddance to them.
The more jobs can be outsourced to machines the better – I’m all for fully automated luxury communism – bring it on!
So modelling is bad. But getting rid of modelling is also bad. And non-perfect models would also be bad. Everything is bad forever and we should all feel bad about it.
I’m curious, can you actually conceive of a situation, in any area of life, that would be, you know, good? Not just have a few maybe-kinda-possibly positive aspects in among all the angst, but actually be good and worth being uncritically happy about? Or is it explicitly against the creed and purpose of feminism to ever stop whining for two seconds?
“is it explicitly against the creed and purpose of feminism to ever stop whining for two seconds?”
Bingo.
And in that, you have summarised the entire grievance culture. It started a generation ago (largely with the feminists, but moved into academia and now it’s an industry) and guess what? Finding fault is not a fulfilling way to live.
I’d go for Christian (or equivalent) values. You know, charity, selflessness, humility, personal responsibility. They make me happier, at least.
Yes, I was thinking much the same thing. Like a stick-thin model, she wants to have her cake and not eat it. Or something like that. Whatever, I didn’t notice the models when they were here* and I won’t miss them when they’re gone, although I did enjoy a fashion show I attended some years ago.
*To be fair, they didn’t notice me, either.
“I’m curious, can you actually conceive of a situation, in any area of life, that would be, you know, good?”
Absolutely – journalistic onanism.
Missed the point entirely, but that’s not surprising from a guy. Right now, white men are calling themselves ‘Proud Boys’ because of their marginalization in this omnicidal culture. Any group having legitimate claims due to loss of income and livelihood has the right to voice their concerns. No matter how damaging a job is – coal miners come to mind – it’s still a means to survive.Thus labour unions had to be created in order to ensure a minimal balance of power.
Models, like any other worker, need to survive. Being replaced with CGI (or AI, or robots) dehumanizes ALL of us. THAT’s the point of this article. But what the hell – f*ck women who need a modelling job to survive. They can suck it up like any other worker now headed over to the unemployment lines, and perhaps joining the ranks of the homeless. As long as YOU aren’t affected, then everything is A-OK.
Using the term “white men” as though it has any explanatory power is a strong marker for idiocy. So, I have helped you by re-writing the silliest phrase for you:
You wrote: “Right now, white men are calling themselves ‘Proud Boys’ because…”
Presumably you meant: “Right now, a few men (who happen to be mostly white) in one country are calling themselves ‘Proud Boys’ because of…”
You’re welcome…
So it’s modeling or homelessness in your view? That seems highly unlikely.
Give Ditum credit – as jobs disappear she has found steady work by finding everything and its opposite offensive, such that there can never be anything pertaining to women that she can’t write an indigant column about.
So… Are we supposed to be upset about the poor models having to get real jobs or that women decide to ruin their day by comparing themselves to a CGI model instead of a digitally enhanced 18-year old model that gets molested by her photographer?
I’m honestly confused, but rest assured I have my microscopic violin at the ready for either option.
Not at all. Shudu is black and Miquela is presumably Hispanic. They are entirely of their time. Presumably Shudu is a supporter of Black Lives Matter and Miquela deeply opposed to Trump’s plans to build a wall.
The very fakeness of it all is entirely of its time.
Miquela may not necessarily have been opposed to the Trump wall. Like an increasing number of Hispanics (or “latinx” in Wokespeak) she may have voted – digitally, of course – for the Donald.
You’d need an upper income somewhat spoiled appearing white CGI model to be a presumed supporter of BLM. Someone who looks like their parents are attorneys or architects and doctors.
“The Sixties looked for youth and informality, the Eighties sought statuesque glamour, the Nineties wanted women who looked fragile and waifish. And the Twenties want women who don’t exist. It’s of a piece with a world that would write women out of reproduction through surrogacy, out of politics by declaring them not really a group, and out of language altogether by reducing the word to representing, at best, an “identity” rather than a sex. The ultimate in femininity in 2021 is to be nothing at all.”
Could this be described as a grievance crescendo?
I’m not sure, I think the peak arrives in the middle with this gem:
Who doesn’t know that surrogates are, in fact, women or that only a tiny fraction of pregnancies are carried out this way?
I half suspect that in the first draft there was something about trans. But that was too controversial, so we got surrogacy instead.
I think we pretty much got that with:
I think you’re missing the point. It is bad enough to compare yourself, and have others compare you to a real life model, but when real people are compared to what amounts to a pixilated fantasy, there are no winner.
It is similar to pornography, a generation of young men have grown up with online porn, they (according to reports) confuse male fantasies for what actually happens relationships
Linda, that is another can of worms – and if the likes of Sarah Ditum felt that much affected by the advent of CGI models, one can only guess they’ll go ballistic with the advent of AI lovers matching male sexual interests…
If those young men grow up with their needs so satisfied by CGI pr0n that they don’t need actual women – especially given the economic and criminal accusation hazard to men that broody, greedy or misandrist women represent – that will be a total win for feminists, won’t it? You hate it when men get what they want at women’s expense. Very well, in the future, they’ll get it without troubling any real women.
Women can then make their own way in the world without any ghastly men and their pervy entitled needs. Result!
Of course women will then need to buy household robots to remove spiders from the bath. That will be men’s fault too, am I right?
Linda – men are notoriously insecure about the size of their p-nis, and if presented with real men of greater stature might feel a little put out.
But if said organ had been created using computer technology alone, I think we might just think – so what. What possible comparison could there be.
And this constant habit of comparing oneself with the most beautiful people on the planet, real or digital, and getting upset about it, is something that needs to be grown out of.
The problem isn’t the CGI model, it’s that you’re comparing yourself to either a live model or a CGI model. That’s a problem for people to work on themselves. We can’t eliminate everything in life that might make someone uncomfortable. Parents should be working with their daughters on these issues. Once women are adults, we can’t wrap them in bubble wrap.
“Women who are willing to celebrate their fat, their stretch marks or their acne”
Celebrate acne?
Whatever. A revolting industry that we’re all well rid of.
I don’t suppose it was any worse than most industries. They all have their good and bad points.
Sick to death of overpaid, pouty, stick thin models on every page – who are hardly models of the average woman anyway. Bring on the CGI models and be done.
I have heard some whining in my time, but this takes the biscuit.
At least the real models can eat the biscuit now that they have been replaced and don’t have to starve themselves.
🙂
Presumably there will soon be CGI p-rn too, freeing women forever from exploitation in the service of male gratification.
But wait – tech experts are also working on an AI feminist complain bot to whine about it.
You are on a top notch tear today David.
Being serious for a minute (not easy) the effect could be exactly the opposite. Women may make negative comparisons against real women (who have been touched up digitally) but if the model is entirely a digital creation they may simply stop making comparison at all.
And one could draw a digital figure any way – tall, short, fat, thin, black, one-eyed, whatever to match the fetish of the consumer or her fragile feelings of being ‘seen’. Win for all.
I have no time to waste on the loss of models. I am a self-described feminist btw.
And the 21st century is the most feminine yet – the special magical qualities of female leadership is highly vaunted and untold numbers of blokes want to wear dresses and f**k-me heels. Feminist theory is more responsible for the erasure of the biological identity of females than any other ideology – as we all know where Ms Ditum stands on the gender critical spectrum.
If real women are no longer getting touched up (whether digitally, or worse) then we should applaud a clear #metoo win.
What’s wrong with Bishop’s Stortford?
Getting all the grid girls fired etc. was a triumph for feminists, so I suppose getting models fired must be too.
I see images all over the place, ofr men like Anthony Joshua and Conor McGregor and George Clooney and David Beckham and Idris Elba and and and… Yet, I do not feel an ounce of discomfort or feel “judged” by their existence, or by the ubiquity of images of them. I strongly suspect that most men feel the same way. There are lots of smarter, more accomplished, fitter, stronger and more good looking men than me out there, and it will always be so. None of it matters to what I choose to do with my life.
Likewise, I see women like Naomi Campbell or Kate Moss or Monica Belluci or Halle Berry, and I think they are all astonishing to look at and I love my wife not a bit less and don’t compare her to them or wish her to look more like any of them.
Women agitate about the “oppression” they feel from (usually static) images of other women. Yet this is a choice. Women buy the clothes, women buy the make up. I suspect most men – like me – couldn’t care less about any of it. Most men barely notice when their wife “does” her hair.
This is a choice. I have this choice. I suggest we all do (perhaps other than a small minority with a significant mental illness).
If you feel oppressed by models, or their CGI renditions, go for a walk, talk to a friend, get therapy, get laid – just stop moaning about it. There will always be women prettier, smarter, sexier, or fitter than you. You cannot do much about that. Your sense of oppression is a personal choice, though.
The smarter readers will realize the larger implications of your article. Well done, and thank you!
Opinion on CGI – models and an industry that has always served up a desire for many individuals to look as the image depicts in its perfection. Well to see there is nothing wrong with wanting that; as a silent tool for each to make the best of what they have been born with. Though here comes the “But”, and that is we can cause in ourselves great depression when not reaching the goal of our desire. Plastic surgery, and to add many surgical and none surgical advertising that goes within that style of industry and with many other multi-million industry’s riding next to them and others that offer the ultimate guarantee of that desire. “Oh if it were so,” I would save for a year or more. But the beauty industry unless you are blessed can only offer and take your money. Where we can then in this age of sophistication suffer its side effects of anguish, lack of confidence, and to add the blame game towards our low esteem and negativity. So, we see many a beautiful face or body or both, but what darkness hides if having to achieve that look out of a fakery that can be lived with, but at what cost, and when it to fade and one had grown old. With a mind altered from the hype and the lies and it many years later the rational of what was real or not and with a body loosing its edge? Was it worth it, I suppose one hopes so.
No we won’t. Because the moment we start to miss them they’ll be back.
Presumably there will soon be CGI porn too, freeing women forever from exploitation in the service of male gratification.
But wait – tech experts are also working on an AI feminist complain bot to whine about it.
Great opinion piece! Very astute. This is why I read UnHerd.
This is a positive development surely?
Personally I’ve never been remotely interested in pr0n, despite being a bloke. While the performers in it might be good-looking, they aren’t attractive. And they’re not attractive because being in pr0n is on the prostitution spectrum, in that they’re having sex for money or for some other reason than it’s own sake. And prostitutes are a bit, well, yuck. Think of who’s been there. Think of the diseases.
But CGI pr0n would involve no actual women. There’d be no exploitation at all, except of the men paying to watch it. So maybe the future holds a whole new world of yuckless pr0n, in which I can watch videos of a 19-year-old Jenny Agutter having sex with Alexander the Great. Or indeed with Alexander the Great’s horse. It would be like Equus but with graphic scenes of sexual interhorse, without any actual horse being harmed in the making of this movie.
And in the same spirit, imagine a world in which there are no more models pressured into anorexia to keep their jobs.
What’s not to like?