I had very little to say about the Kim & Kanye Vogue cover other than what I already mentioned on Twitter: this would have been a good time to cancel my Vogue subscription if I still had one. I guess the fact I no longer get the magazine is telling enough. Vogue used to be the ultimate fantasy, inspiring and influential. Putting that couple on the cover because they're "the most talked about couple in the world" is exactly what I don't want Vogue to be. I don't want the divine Grace Coddington to be the one arranging the train of Kim Kardashian's dress. Just no.
Deep breath.
I found a collection of Marie Claire covers from the early 1940s on hprints.com. While I don't harbor an ounce of fake nostalgia for that particular era, I do appreciate the aesthetics, the clothes and hats, and the fact that the focus is on the faces of beautifully dressed models. I hope you enjoy these, too.
All images via hprints.com.
...And the models are smiling and looking pretty, so unlike the sometimes ugly, horrible faces and hair styles on the runways (only made so by the designers). The models are usually beautiful without makeup. I only buy the September and March issues of Vogue. When I heard about the K/K cover, I thought, "Why, WHY?" Oh my goodness...
ReplyDeleteThank you for not posting that cover. I've seen/heard enough about it. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteThat picture was also so incredibly bad and amateurishly taken, cannot believe that a great photographer was responsible for it. An all round fail for all involved.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I have never seen KK in moving image, only on my daily internet news page on slow days, but does anyone else think she's looked like a demure, subdued and oppressed woman ever since she got with kanye? She used to be, whatever else she was, kind of proud and out there and self-assured, and she's lost that. I notice that so clearly in that Vogue cover too. It's a horrible image.
So glad I don't get Vogue anymore too G. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteI threw up a little when I saw that cover.
Publishing that layout and putting Kimye on the cover is called pandering and who thought it was OK to have Grace kneeling at the oh, so bored Kim's feet? That was so belittling! The cover has certainly garnered a lot of attention for Vogue, but of the negative kind. Perhaps Wintour thought it would make Vogue relevant and hip, but it only succeeded in transforming Vogue into a cheap tabloid. Since I read Vogue for fashion and not because I'm a voyeur, I thought the layout was cheap and self-indulgent. As for all the pictures of baby North, boring!
ReplyDeleteThe absolute height of AWFUL for me was Miley Cyrus on the cover, and oh so seriously interviewed and pictured in Harpers Bazaar. Miley Cyrus - that awful, ugly tongue, public masturbation, so obviously trying to be 'bad'. Tacky, tacky. Why are these once temples of taste publications pandering to marginal and trashy people? These publications are deliberately morphing themselves into 'something else', a much trashier, 'of the moment' and 'younger' publication. I'm sure the answer to 'Why?' is simply "It sells!', ie money.
ReplyDeleteVogue used to be my bible, but it changed and I stopped buying it years ago.
ReplyDeleteAhhh, my eyes are refreshed by these pictures of women dressed in sumptuous fabrics that are exquisitely tailored.
ReplyDeleteKathy
Classic beauty!
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean. I don't dislike Kim Kardashian, but it's not what I want Grace Coddington spending her time on.