Kendall doesn't really pose. She isn't a model in the sense of a true supermodel. But she doesn't need to be. She has the name behind her to be successful and she is an attractive young woman.

Many companies want models that bring viewers. She does that and has a pretty face. She has a massive fan base. That is a good for a product and for sales.

Anonymous wrote:Well compare her to, say, Giselle...

They aren’t any where near the same booking teir to be fair.

It probably costs a brand 5x to hire Gb.

She’s a shitty model because she has nothing memorable about her.

I can’t believe she gets editorial jobs.

Yawn.

The pp who said she would be stuck doing sears catalogs in the 80s is so true

Well compare her to, say, Giselle...

They look fine to me, but photos of models never look particularly good. They’re so stiff and posed and unrealistic.

I think her stiffness works on the runway.

These are horrible pics.

Beautiful, maybe. But you can’t use natural and Kardashian in the same sentence.

She’s very pretty but kind of stiff. Of that family, Kim is the most incredible natural beauty.

Those look great.

Seriously?

Can you give examples to back up your sweeping statements, PPs?

Agreed. She would have been stuck doing Sears catalogues if it were the 80s and her family was unknown.

How so?

I was looking through her portfolio and was sorely disappointed.