Models Jun 28, 2007 @ 9:15am

Gemma Ward, Evolutionary Link?

When Masha Tyelna made her runway debut this spring we thought that she looked like E.T. in heels - and maybe with good reason.

Masha is just the most extreme example of a trend that’s been very present in castings for a while now:

Models with big wide eyes, small jaws, and large foreheads are always booking.

See: Gemma, Lily Donaldson, Vlada, Sasha, and Tanya D.

Their look has been called “alien babydoll,” and they do look a little like a Mattel best-seller.

So why do we think they’re so gorgeous?

Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that humans evolved from chimpanzees who retained juvenile characteristics (like less hair, prominent foreheads, small jaws, and flat faces) into adulthood. This phenomenon is called neoteny, but maybe it should just be called “the fall runway.”

Other scientists, like Desmond Morris, have discussed how neotenic characteristics are considered extremely attractive in women; particularly hairlessness (hello Brazilians!) and large eyes (babies have larger eyes in relation to their faces than adults do, so we grown-ups have to use Diorshow mascara).

In that light, the current crop of models seems to represent a really extreme example of broader trends in human evolution. They so typify what humans look like that they start to look exceptional.

Do the alien babydolls look like the most beautiful humans to you? Or do you prefer a look that’s a little less “highly evolved”?

—ANNA FIELDING GRIGGS

« Drew Barrymore Gets Naked for Gucci

Fashionista Main

posted by k122n

Jun 28, 2007 10:16AM

i do find it slightly unsettling that the overall "trend" in biological beauty leans toward the juvenile - why do we idolize child-like features?

I agree these girls are eerily beautiful, but to me it's weird that most models have the bodies - and now, faces - of children.

posted by guest

Jun 28, 2007 10:16AM

wouldn't it be less evolved if the features are closer to chimps? in any case, i love the look but i am getting a little tired of it. but, sasha and gemma are my two favs out there still.

posted by Phoebe

Jun 28, 2007 10:24AM

I actually used to hate this extra terrestrial look, however, I do like Gemma quite a bit. Her look is more versatile than someone with notably more alien features.

posted by a lady

Jun 28, 2007 10:36AM

not being a pederast, it doesn't really do it for me. I mean, it does, until I think about it, and then it creeps me out. regardless, I prefer the more glam, womanly beauty of the 80s/early 90s supermodels.

posted by Miss Jeffrey

Jun 28, 2007 10:41AM

I'm over this whole alien babydoll "trend."

It's time for women to look like women, men to look like men if they wanna model.

High-end fashion is serving a more tailored, quality look....I don't see how 12-18y.o. girls can be evolved if they look, talk and act like babydolls, alien or not!!

I'm totally understanding why designers (advertisers) & magazines are using celebrities more....

posted by guest

Jun 28, 2007 10:43AM

I love it nd think that they are the heights of beauty but that may be because I look similar...though less extreme I definitely have a baby doll look about my face.

posted by CD

Jun 28, 2007 10:55AM

Naturally enough, a call has gone out for models to suit the new interplanetary look, that is, for women who resemble aliens. The latest types to find favor with designers have tiny heads, upturned noses, enormous eyes and undeveloped chins. They are said to ''look 50's,'' as do many of the season's clothes. If so, it is not the 1950's of ripe cinema goddesses but the decade of the adorable Z-movie geeks who appeared in films like ''Plan 9 from Outer Space.''

To a baby boomer, the Australian Gemma Ward, the Canadian teenager Heather Marks or the current Italian Vogue cover girl Lisa Cant also bear some resemblance to the waifs painted by the kitsch master Margaret Keane, as well as to subjects favored by the painter John Currin, whom some might call the Margaret Keane of the Whitney Biennial set. A younger eye might see references to Japanese manga characters like Major Motoko Kusanagi or to the creatures turned out by Pixar Animation Studios. Other models have a more direct way of describing fashion's new favorites, girls who seem to be garnering all the jobs. They call them ''the bugs.''
- Guy Trebay, NYT March 4 2004

posted by lala

Jun 28, 2007 11:28AM

Masha looks like she has Graves disease, a type a hyperthyroidism whose characteristic symptom is bulging eyes.

posted by annie

Jun 28, 2007 11:46AM

lol lala. one thing i think is though its almost played out now-a-days its definitely a different look. when you see the girls on the street, or even non-models with similiar features, its far from gorgeous but - especially in editorial shots - it is very interesting to look it. they do look alien but it makes you pause and look at the ad. i am excited for a return to most typically beautiful models though. though i'm not the biggest catherine mcneil fan i think she represents the tides turning back in that direction, yay!

posted by dora

Jun 28, 2007 11:53AM

I think they are gorgeous, they look great on the catwalk an in editorials too . But they are not sexy.

posted by anais

Jun 28, 2007 12:23PM

i prefer more womanly women, with interesting, strong, almost exotic faces - old-school glamazons. these alien girls make for interesting editorial, but i would never ever EVER want to look like them. they do not make me want to buy clothes, they only make interesting photographs.

posted by Magda

Jun 28, 2007 12:31PM

It's evolutionary. For a species to survive, it has to reproduce. Blonde hair, estrogen- saturated features (narrower chins, wider eyes), and hip-to-waist ratios all signal fertility, as does youth in general. Though it is interesting how extreme the recent incarnation of this is...but it does fit with society's current youth worship.

posted by michope

Jun 28, 2007 1:23PM

i totally agree with Magda; this is about evolution - it's very much programmed instinctively for us to be attracted to larger eyes, high cheek bones, etc. These are the same instincts that make us want to care for babies and therefore assist us in continuing the species. (same is true of all baby animals). When you see a teenager or young adult with those same features, it associates automatically with innocence, and while someone in a fashion audience might be intimidated by a strong-jawed more fierce looking model, these girls' faces are far more inviting. They make the clothes look pretty; but a woman watching knows she can make them look sexy.

posted by guest

Jun 28, 2007 1:34PM

I agree totally, they are invinting and fresh and they are pretty much blanks, it's like the clothes they are wearing are waiting for us to give them a sense of reality. Those old supermodels "used" the clothes, sucked the personality out of them, there was nothing for us the audience to discover.

posted by Laura

Jun 28, 2007 2:43PM

All of this might make sense if most people actually thought these features were attractive, and not just those interested in fashion and the industry.

Ask your standard man (or woman) on the street what they think of these girls outside of the runaway/editorial environment. I don't think you are going to find many who find them sexy, or attractive.

Or who want to reproduce with them. And isn't that the point of evolution anyway?

posted by AFG

Jun 28, 2007 3:15PM

Laura,
I think part of what's so interesting about the trend is that their features are so typical of what humans evolved to look like, what defines facial features as human, and what society generally considers attractive...

that they start to look freakish to many people, even totally nonhuman, e.g. "alien".

I think that anyone on the street would think that similar feature were attractive if they were less exaggerated.

I think the fashion world's interest in them is an example of how fashion people like everything everyone else likes in a more extreme way: higher heels, thinner bodies, etc.

posted by Laura

Jun 28, 2007 3:19PM

You're right, AFG. I guess my point is that they are so far "evolved" as to actually be devolved.

Your average person would pick your everyday "pretty girl" to reproduce with first making these scary alien babies die off.

But anyway, I find the look creepy and bizarre and have always preferred the supermodels of the 90's.

posted by Courtney

Jun 28, 2007 8:05PM

It just reminds me of when Persian cat breeders let there be a little to much inbreeding to get that flat faced look, and the then cats can't breathe through their noses. It's just a little too mich.

posted by Lucas

Jun 28, 2007 8:44PM

Her eyes are spaced so far apart that it looks strange and even unreal. No offence it looks like she has a disease or birth defect or something. Something just doesn't look normal, it's creepy. Me personally, I prefer the more natural looking women on the runway. Pls send the aliens back to mars!

posted by KA

Jun 28, 2007 9:17PM

Big bright eyes and all the other youthful characteristics these models have are what many would want in themselves.

"i wish i had brighter eyes, better skin, a smaller chin, youthful glow ect.." is not uncommon for people to want these things.

all these characteristics on one face SHOULD be the face of perfection,

yet, sometimes perfection is imperfect looking.

posted by sll

Jun 29, 2007 12:26AM

she's not that dissimilar looking from an olsen - and in my book that's synonymous with runty, freakish and emaciated - perhaps miss masha at least has the height gene working in her favor

posted by Steven.

Jun 29, 2007 12:22PM

Who is the 'we' that think they're gorgeous?

posted by model

Jun 29, 2007 1:21PM

i think the babydoll look is really pretty!

posted by luisa

Jun 30, 2007 11:21AM

first, lily donaldson looks pretty normal, she is not an alien or a bug!!!!!
Gemma looks like she has trisomy x, a genetic abnormality where girls (who are normally XX, boys are XY) have an extra X chromosome (XXX). Gemma is cute and all, but it is very distrubing when fashion models look like they have genetic or hormonal abnormalities. I'm all for the "interesting/unusual/different" look, but it becomes problematic when it's taken away from a fashion phenomenon and taken as a standard of beauty.