Late last week, some new images of Crystal Renn — in which she looks thinner than usual — hit the web. Cue the disappointment, concern and tongue-wagging.
As Jenna stated when the images first went up, "it appears the two shots in question were taken with a wide-angled lens, which tends to distort and stretch subjects." (Jenna also noted that to talk about a friend's weight was "awkward.")
But for the commenter "Intrigue" on the Ford Models Blog, a thinner Renn is a "bummer."
Still, Fashionista spoke with Renn's agent, Gary Dakin, who says she was measured for a French Vogue fitting a few days ago, and is "a solid size 10." (He has also always said that she "fluctuates.") Renn looked pretty freaking thin on the June cover of Glamour; and only ever-so-slightly larger in the February issue of Glamour, when she was supposedly a size 12.
Maybe some people feel that if Renn has lost weight (she says she recently got into hiking after a trip to Patagonia) she betrays, disappoints and leaves behind the plus-size model battle. But that's not really fair. If Renn is a size 10, she still offers an alternative to "traditional" size models, who tend to be the same height, but size 0. (Or 00.)
And even more important: If we want to see more physical diversity in the fashion industry, less fetishization of uber-thin body types, and a loosening of strict standards of beauty, then we need to give her — and all other women — a break. We've got to stop the intense scrutinization of any and all sizes. When we try to force a model (or ourselves) to fit into precise molds or live up to random expectations, no one wins.
Ford Models Blog" />