October 3, 2006

I had a delightful lunch today with a friend who works for O, The Oprah Magazine, which has its headquarters in the Hearst building. On our way out, we saw a group of male models sitting in the reception area, apparently waiting to audition for something or be photographed in something or advertise something.

And I realized I didn’t know the collective noun for a group of models, regardless of sex.

I have been searching for the proper term since I got home, and I’ve found nothing, which seems ridiculous. I mean, come on. You’ve got a neverthriving of jugglers and a sequitur of logicians (okay, Bertrand Russell made that one up, but still) and nothing for models?

So I propose that we adopt the collective noun a vapidity of models.

All right. Now that I’ve done my intellectual heavy lifting for the day, please excuse me while I go watch last week’s Biggest Loser.

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to I had a delightful lunch today with a friend who works for O

  1. Beau says:

    I’m not disagreeing with you, but what about (and here goes the thread of everyone and their brother’s ideas to come up with the official collective noun):

    a catwalk of models or a pose of models?

  2. Dan says:

    I like the choice, but I’m thinking that perhaps a sniglet might do just as well, if not better. Unfortunately one doesn’t come to mind, but I’ll store the task in my little grey cells for a while.

    BTW, did you submit to Happy Endings yet? Think of the joy it will bring to millions of hipsters, and what your public risk might be!

  3. David says:

    Not all models are vapid. I mean most probably are, but why stigmatize the few who actually have respectable four-year degrees and decided to coast on their good looks for a few years before dealing with the ugliness of the standard workforce? God knows I would’ve if the option were available to me.

    I do like a pose of models, though.

  4. Todd says:

    Actually James Lipton, the guy from “Inside the Actor’s Studio” has written a book on what the proper collective terms for things are. It is called “An Exaltation of Larks” I am not sure if he had groups of models, but he is seen as the world guru in this type of thing. Given his other profession, I believe that he should have one for actors, which may be transferrable.

    Re-reading this post makes me realize that I am the undisputed master of worthless information. If anyone thinks that’s hot, please, please call me.

  5. Beau: Hmm. I suppose it boils down to whether the collective noun should express the Ding an sich or the Erscheinung. I lean towards the former; hence “vapidity,” but if you prefer the latter then your suggestions make total sense.

    Dan: I await your example.

    David: But, as we all know from the Times article on Top Model a few months ago, anybody who has gotten a four-year degree is way too old to be a real model.

    Todd: Unfortunately, there are already two collective nouns for a group of actors (cast and company) and neither one really has the felicity of “an exaltation of larks” or “an abomination of monks.”

    Confidential to Brian: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

  6. John says:

    Following the logic of “a murder of ravens,” shouldn’t it be “a starvation of models”?

  7. Chris says:

    No, no, no. You are all overcomplicating it.

    Keep it simple: A slut of models.

    Simple like the models, and accurate. Now I demand you immediately go change your post now Faustus. Right now.

  8. scooterzz says:

    submitted for your approval: a ‘collection’ of models……

  9. scooter says:

    now i’m obsessing….perhaps a ‘conceit’ of models….

  10. birdfarm says:

    Todd, if you have a problem with worthless information, what are you doing reading the blog that brought you “the 184th anniversary of the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs” and the definition of “ucalegon”? I think it’s safe to assume that no one here will fault you for failing to provide insider stock tips, love potion recipes, or other information that could conceivably be sold.

    John, I don’t get murder:ravens::starvation:models (to borrow the language of the erstwhile, thoroughly-biased-toward-me-personally SAT). But I’ve become noticeably and increasingly stupider ever since the world started to shift, even slightly and superficially, away from being thoroughly-biased-toward-me-personally. So it’s not surprising that I don’t get it.

    I do however get exaltation:larks::starvation:models.

    Joel, I agree that it is simply empirical fact that all models are vapid. Anyone who is able to scramble over the line to merely being “slow” or “spacy” should have no problem becoming an actor.

    I do however think it’s possible that there are some models who aren’t sluts. So while “a slut of models” is certainly mellifluous, I don’t think it’s fair.

    So, while it is a bit literal, I think I will lend my support to Joel’s original suggestion.

  11. campbell says:

    It is perfectly obvious; the collective noun for a group of male models is ‘an attitude’.

  12. anapestic says:

    Unfortunately, I believe that “vapidity” is already taken. Isn’t that what they call a quorum at a meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans?

  13. DavisMcDavis says:

    Ha! I work in that buidling and I totally noticed that exact same pile of models in the lobby! I would tend to say “gaggle,” but if you’re looking to coin a new word, I would like to suggest a “stand of models” or a “sulk.”

    In forestry terms AND in model terms, a “stand” would be appropriate because it means: “a group of [models/trees] of sufficiently uniform species composition, age, and condition to be considered a homogeneous unit for management purposes.”

  14. John says:

    My vote — wait are we voting here? — goes to Chris for “a slut” of models. I work in advertising and am pretty sure it has to be that, or maybe a “hypodermic of models,” or better still a “nosegay” since they loathe even the smallest of marks and well, you can figure out the rest.

    I’d also like to submit a “kegger” of lesbians (unless they are lipstick lesbians in which case it would be a “shrill”).

  15. Logan says:

    And I just realized that I don’t know of a language that dispenses of having collectives to some extent or another. As far as my (well-informed) mind can recall, all of them use some type of group naming.

    It’ll now be my goal in life to devise one that avoids this completely.

  16. lil mizfit says:

    i read ur blogs n it confirms my belief that gay men write well. since i read most of ur past posts, it shud confirm the fact that Indian lesbians have nothing better to do than to hunt for gay blogs and pretend it’s theirs.

    i shall visit my blog again and soon…


  17. Chris says:

    Thanks john for the vote for my suggestion!

    I vote for me a second time too! πŸ˜€

    A slut of models!

  18. Todd says:

    if we are voting, I put my ballot in for DavisMcDavis’ “stand of models” which I think has substantiation with the definition. It also has kind of a double entendre, well sort of, as I recognize that all models don’t always stand, sometimes they sit, or even recline. But I still stick with my vote for “STAND”

  19. Jeffrey says:

    A wind tunnel of models.

  20. j says:

    I think the word you are looking for is

    GAGGLE- which altough not unique to models is, i feel, a fitting word to describe a group of them. then regardless of whether they are genius as well as beautiful or can’t tie his own shoe laces stupid, it still fits.

  21. GaryS says:

    May I respectfully submit:

    a “Veneer of Models’

    ‘a thin attractive surface covering an inferior interior’

  22. dan says:

    Brood. A brood of models. It’s a real group name, and also representative of what they do best. Or an ostentation–that’s a group of peacocks, and it seems fitting.

  23. kyriell says:

    if we’re voting (and i don’t know if faustus said we were), my vote is for an “attitude of models,” followed closely by a “brood of models,” and distantly by a “stand of models.”

    and by the way, lipton’s book is brilliant. i’ve given it away as a xmas gift more than once, to the recipients’ honest (i think) pleasure.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *