True Thighs

This article was about Jamie Lee Curtis’s journey to discovering who she really wanted to be. It shows two photos of her; one where she’s all glammed up, wearing nice clothes, lots of make-up, all the right lighting, etc. And then there’s a photo of her not touched at all. She’s wearing unflattering boy shorts and a sports bra. She has no make-up, touch ups, good lighting or anything that could enhance her features. She recently accepted herself for how she is and said she didn’t want women thinking they’re not good enough because they see enhanced photos and think that’s what they should look like. I really liked this article because I think it points out an important fact that these celebrities that we all look up to don’t look like their photos normally. They are put through hours of prep work and then after the photos are taken there is computerized work done to them too to make them look absolutely perfect. This isn’t something we should all be aspiring to be. I really respected and admired Curtis for changing her views and beliefs and pushing this idea. There was a video we watched in class that showed the process of a model looking as she does on a billboard and she looks nothing like her original self after the process is over. It was the perfect example that the men and women we admire in ads or on billboards aren’t even who the billboards portray them as. The perfection that we admire cannot even achieve their own level of perfection.

Here is a photo of Kim Kardashian someone who is widely known for her looks and having a good body. This picture shows the difference of her real photo compared to her Photoshop photo.

Shown here is a Victoria’s Secret model. On the left is the original photo of her taken at the shoot and on the right is the photo after it was put through Photoshop. 

-Mare

As a model I can understand Jamie Lee Curtis’s struggle with the media and their pressure on perfection. I think people today are starting to further understand how magazines edit every image before posting them online or in magazines. But years ago this was something that people would not speak about. I applaud Jamie Lee Curtis for standing up and not being afraid to show the "real" her. As the article states, media has made woman and men struggle with feelings of inadequacy. I can really relate to this because in my industry I will never be "perfect". 

There is no one description of "perfect" but in the modeling world you must be 5'10, skinny, long legs and torso, and beautiful skin and hair. I am 5'9 and this may be tall to others but in reality I am short for my industry. I am also skinny but I have had my agent tell me I need to loose 2" off my hips. Although I found this ridiculous I did it because that was the only option I had if I wanted to be represented. I found myself learning different techniques in Photoshop to elongate my legs, blend the bags under my eyes, and even blur the ends of my thighs to make them look thinner. Its sad that I have come to this but who hasn't in this industry. We need more role models like Jamie Lee Curtis to help us remember we are all beautiful and we shouldn't have to change ourselves for anyone. 

-Val 

Jamie Lee Curtis had an amazing figure when she was younger, but the older she got, the harder it was to keep her thin figure. To fight this, she did have lipo and a few botox sessions. The reason she did this photoshoot was to reveal herself, that she isn’t the perfect person that people think she is. People are made out to think that celebrities are perfection, but with all the retouched photographs, how could someone not be perfect? The first photograph does not have any fixed lighting, bare face, little clothing, and no retouching. The second photograph shows her glammed up – taking THIRTEEN people and THREE hours to complete, and that’s not including the retouching of a photograph. She has learned to accept herself the way she is, and she hopes that others realize that Hollywood is not young and perfect- the retouching of it is. 

- Alex

Dress To Impress

In this article it discusses a study done in 2002 where different types of job interview outfits were questioned on appropriateness. It provides us with a lot of information that I feel I already knew about but completely disagree with. For example the idea women should always wear a high collard shirt under a suit, either a pantsuit or dress suit. This article was interesting to me but not for the reason that I learned something about what I should wear to job interviews, but for the fact that I saw how much fashion changed from the time this article was written in 2002 until now in 2013. If you look at the photos used in this article under ‘Most appropriate’ or even ‘Middle-range suits’ there is a sense of nostalgia that washes over you, most likely because it has been years since I’ve seen a suit like this. No one wears these suits anymore so this article was almost moot.

Here are two of the pantsuits that this article found to be ‘Most appropriate’. This is crazy to me to see and think that these would ever be considered in a job interview now. I think if you wore this to a job interview now you wouldn’t be taken seriously because your style is so far out of date.

I think an outfit like some of these seen here are more likely to impress someone in a job interview because you’re showing some of your own personality through dress while remaining tasteful and classy. They flatter the woman shape better and they each have small details that can add some interest to the piece. These women also accessorize the outfit, which is something the article stated was seen as a bad thing by the potential employers questioned.

In my opinion the suit shown above in the ‘Most appropriate’ photo make women seem like they’re more masculine and are just supporting the theory that men are better suited for working positions.


- Mare

 

In today’s society, the cultural norm is to dress to impress and sometimes that means a little more revealing than one may think is too much. But how can you blame any one when the media controls our lives. Today, media is what sets the standards for fashion. As the articles in the book states, Sarah was confused how to dress for her upcoming interview and wondered what dressing moderate meant. Does it mean fully covered up or can she go to the actresses of Sex and the City to help her dress in a good-looking way. Were the actresses dressed in Sex and the City too revealing for an interview. She posed all the right questions but in reality, what is right and what is considered too far out for an  interview.

Research showed their test groups all chose pant suits to be deemed appropriate for an interview. Even when dresses and skirts were in the mix, the overall appropriate look for any midlevel position should wear fitted hemmed pantsuits that fit the chosen interviewer in all the right ways. Nothing should be too tight or too short and there should definitely not be any cleavage. But I feel now days the “cultural norm” is different. Women are aloud to dress more revealing for job interviews and work. But the question lies “what is too revealing?”  The book states that “inappropriate” suits had too low-neck lines, Capri pants, body and busy textures, and slits showing too much leg. 

Overall, interviewers that wore symmetric and completely covered pant suits, full length sleeves, and jackets that were fitted but similar to a mans suit were more likely to get hired. Moral of this blog is to realize and analyze your surroundings and atmosphere. Ask yourself where you’re going and who you are trying to impress. If it’s a work atmosphere and you really need that job, then save your sexy attire for the weekend! Its better to be covered up and make money than be sexy and broke. 

- Val

Personally, I think that the proper way to dress for an interview depends highly on the position you are applying for, and the setting as well. An example that just happened to me recently was an interview that I had for an intern position. It was extremely informal and very short. I didn’t wear the typical knee length skirt with coordinating jacket that the article mentioned, because I felt that it wouldn’t be appropriate. The company itself is very easy going and fashion forward, so I incorporated that into my attire. I take every interview I have seriously, and just how I mentioned before, I considered the setting as well as the position. If I were applying for a paid, higher-level position, I’m sure the location and time would have been different, in which I would have taken into consideration and my attire would have changed.

"different industries, different rules" 

 

I can see why there would be a difference between in the way to dress for an interview for a more conservative company in the business industry, rather than a company in the fashion industry. The way you dress yourself for an interview says a lot to the interviewer. But there are things that all interviewers can agree on that are inappropriate, regardless of the industry. 

•         plunging necklines
•        skirts that are several inches above the knee
•        matching leather jacket and pants
•        slits in pant legs or skirts slit up to mid thigh

- Alex