Last year New York state did a little regulating of the modeling industry. Good.
The New York State Legislature approved a measure Wednesday night that would recognize fashion models under the age of 18 as child performers for print and runway work, a step that has the potential, if signed into law, to alter not only hiring practices in the fashion industry, but also the overall look of models appearing at Fashion Week.
As it stands, the majority of models start their careers well under 18, with some young women appearing in runway shows when they are 13 or 14. Reacting to concerns about the health and well-being of such young models, the Council of Fashion Designers of America has repeatedly urged its members to set a minimum age of 16 for runway models. Though most designers have complied, there are still examples of extremely young models on New York runways, and no significant workplace protections for those under 18.
Never mind health and well-being; they get glamour!
“There is tremendous pressure on girls who are still in high school,” said Sara Ziff, a former model who started an advocacy group called the Model Alliance, which worked with legislators on the proposed changes to child labor laws. “I know firsthand how models can be pressured to forgo their education and sometimes are put on the spot to take photos that may be age inappropriate.”
But it’s such a dream job. If they can be models, who cares about their education?
“This is the day that modeling moved from being a girls’ profession to a women’s profession,” said Susan Scafidi, the academic director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University. “There is no doubt models who have started at 14 have gone on to great careers, but it’s just too young to be subjected to this industry.”
Wait; stop right there. That thing she said is one reason so many girls see this as a career plan. It implies that it’s common for models to have great careers, but that’s like implying it’s common for aspiring actors to have great careers. Most don’t. The glamour industries get way more aspirants than there are great careers for them. People should be cluing these girls in.
Ms. Ziff also said she suspected that designers will be less inclined to hire young models. “I don’t think that would be such a bad thing,” she said. “Designers are marketing their clothes to adults, so I think that would be appropriate.”
Modeling agencies, which have for decades resisted attempts to regulate ages, are likely to disagree to some extent. But complaints about the standards of beauty being set by their industries in regard to weight, race and age have prompted many prominent agents and designers to advocate some form of protection for models.
How about a union?
I am confused. Does anyone know why the existing child labor laws don’t already apply here? There are a bunch of protections in place for people between the ages of 12 and 16, and a few for people between 16 and 18 (I read through them once because I got a job as a teacher’s assistant when I was 16).
No, I have no idea. I wondered that.
Good. Exploiting child workers, especially in a field that is basically marketing sexuality, is not okay. I’m also curious as to how they managed to get around New York’s relatively strict labor laws to do so- several articles mention regulation under the Department of Ed. but I’m not seeing specifics.
But I did find this:
Source
A lot of aspiring models are paying money for what they think is an introduction to modeling. They not be working, but volunteering, or even paying to appear in some situations.
“There is no doubt models who have started at 14 have gone on to great careers”
Yeah, about SIX of them. The rest are chewed up, spat out, and forgotten. And then, O NOES! There she is, hasn’t finished high school, too old now to go back and pick up where she left off…nice.
“New York Labor Law defines a child performer as anyone under the age of 18 who renders artistic or creative services. Up until now, models had been excluded from this definition”
SilentBob from “Careers fashion day at school thread”: “To continue my mini-rant from last thread…
Your writer’s propensity to look down your nose at visual artists (which is what professional models are, BTW)”
Well, well, well. Apparently, the few of us here who have made similar comments to the content of the New York Labor Law are by no means the ONLY ones who feel that models are NOT actually “artists” of any sort, visually or otherwise.
Perhaps you can inform SilentBob, captainahags. SilentBob might benefit from the information you so helpfully presented (thank you).
That law has a lousy definition of ‘performer’ (unless it’s a poor summary of a more comprehensvely defined status).
A performer is somebody who participates in shows/works intended to be staged in front of or broadcast/published to an audience, full stop. The quality/artistry/creativity of the the show/work they are part of (or of their contribution to it) is irrelevant – if there is an audience then the people appearing in the show/work are perfoming for that audience.
Not all performances are meant to be art. They can just be meant to put bums on seats, eyes on screens/pages, ears on radios etc. It’s showBUSINESS, and those whose labour is essential to the business side of the shows deserve to have their contributions be compensated and regulated fairly to protect them from exploitation.
Blanche, since the NY Labor Dept FAQ on Models as Child Performers points out the models working in film or TV were already considered Child Performers, and the new legislation only extends that status to runway and print work as well, perhaps it isn’t actually so much that people weren’t regarding the models as performers so much as they weren’t previously regarding runways and photographic studios as performance spaces, and therefore work done in those spaces was slipping through the regulatory cracks.
I find it interesting that in film and TV, which are working spaces that are heavily unionised, the status of models as performers has apparently been quite naturally part of the system.
Aside on the topic of models’ artistry. I remember reading decades ago about someone who was curious whether the skill of the photographer or the model contributed the most to fashion shoots. So he paired amateur photographers (this was in the days of film) with professional models, and professional photographers with untrained women given the same makeup artists and wearing the same clothes.
Result: most of the “look” of fashion photography is down to the models.
@Blanche Quizno
I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here. Can you please clarify? It seems that the people expanding the protections of the labor laws are people with his view- that models are in fact visual artists.
Blanche Quizno writes:
Apparently, the few of us here who have made similar comments to the content of the New York Labor Law are by no means the ONLY ones who feel that models are NOT actually “artists” of any sort, visually or otherwise.
Can you come up with a definition of “artist” that successfully excludes all models? I’d be very interested in seeing you do that.
I’ll be nice and not even ask about the set of artists that are models (for example Camille Claudel, Auguste Rodin, and Caravaggio) Uuuuh you did know Caravaggio worked as a model, right?
The New York State Legislature approved a measure Wednesday night that would recognize fashion models under the age of 18 as child performers for print and runway work
Hey, Ophelia, they think modelling is a profession, too! Are you still saying it’s not?
Models are professionals, just not professional artists, performing or otherwise. Unless you’re saying that everyone who ever sat for a portrait is an artist?
The model is the object; the painter/photographer/designer is the artist.
Unless the model is making design/styling/technical decisions, they’re the object the artists are using. The same as a bowl of fruit or a starry sky.