NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/supermod/2107

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!news.columbia.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Eldredge)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Calendars and Brains
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:44:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 64
Nntp-Posting-Host: beefheart.cc.columbia.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:
> >In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
> >(Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
> >> Most Americans have probably never even heard of Cindy Crawford,
> >> and mainstream USA is really not represented by the cultural and
> >> intellectual snobs who study at Columbia or other institutions of
>
> >I make no pretense about my personal knowledge of Canadian life, but I
can
> >safely say that residing in the city of New York (where I happen to
work
> >for the "elitist" institution called Columbia University) puts me a
little
> >closer to American culture than whatever it is that you're doing up
> >yonder.
> >
> >Your argument falls to pieces here.  You're out of touch.
>
> Oh by the way, did I mention that for graduate school,
>
> my oldest sister attended Duke (applied math)
> my other sister attended Case (operations research)
> my sister-in-law attended Cornell (molecular biology)
>

Excellent rundown on your family history, but aren't we getting off the
track just a tiny bit here?

Oh, I give up.  You obviously know far more than I do about American
culture, despite the fact that I grew up in the suburbs and attended
public school, went to college and lived in a rural area for seven years,
and now have resided in a large city for 6 years.

>Anyone want to quote a survey on this? They may recognize the
>face, but I *doubt* that they'd remember the name. Then again,
>since she's been on talk shows and such lately, I suppose it's
>not good to use her as an example. But there are a lot of models
>who do not have her celebrity status, whose faces are familiar.

>Advertisers use them because of their *page-stopping* power.

Right, you admit it yourself.  You used a bad example.  After all the
deliriously wandering testimony of how well-versed in everything you are,
you failed to even show the slightest awareness of a Cindy Crawford's mass
popularity.  The woman has her own show on MTV, for God's sake!!!  Even I
know this, and I don't even have cable TV.

And to boot, your explanation of "page-stopping power" supports my claim
that these images are widely-consumed.  (I think the circulation levels of
magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Glamour speak for themselves.)  The
argument I presented (that of potentially damaging stereotypes) has
virtually no relationship whatsoever to whether or not the public knows
Cindy Crawford's (or insert your favorite supermodel's) name per se', but
to whether or not the images she creates as a model are extremely familiar
to the public at large.

[To the net in general]:  Yes, indeed, I am truly astounded by this
individual who apparently enjoys nothing more than to wallow in the gross
excess of verbosities with which he drowns this newsgroup (but hopefully
not others).