She probably has an account here, and doing it for the fun
OMG and the more I look at it the worse it is.
"HAPPY HASHTAGS"
"THE ULTIMATE LUXURY FOOD"
BAD Vogue Covers
- Thread starter Twiggy
- Start date
OMG and the more I look at it the worse it is.
"HAPPY HASHTAGS"
"THE ULTIMATE LUXURY FOOD"
E
Eccaia
Guest
She looks like a 7 year old playing dress up who got into her mom's makeup...Vogue has reached rock bottom.
At least this thread got me googling retro Vogue covers:
There's some really interesting layouts in past issues; so much more intriguing than just sticking a reality star on the cover and hoping idiots buy the thing. Even a couple of decades ago it was better:
I used to buy fashion magazines because they always had great photography in them, even the adverts, and any editing was retouching, rather than full on photoshop. I stopped looking at Vogue a while ago because there was rarely anything exceptional in it.
I just feel like right now, Vogue is trying to survive.
They definitely took a hit in sales in recent years (I'm assuming).
The american public (or even most of the world public) is so clueless in my opinion about any personalities beyond mainstream pop culture and social celebrities, that I feel it just stopped being viable for Vogue to keep producing these 'better' covers without it affecting their bottom line. They were essentially alienating their target demographic had they continued to produce better quality covers.
Most people just consume their media with whatever's readily available - so it makes sense that Vogue would 'low brow' their covers to attract more customers, especially at a time when people are no longer even buying magazines or hardcovers anymore - everything is either on the internet or social media. It's a sad state of affairs really.
I'd be astonished if they hadn't taken a massive hit in sales. Most magazines seem to have suffered, judging from how much freelance fees have been reduced over the last few years. Not only are people buying less, but because websites have to be updated daily to maintain people's interests, it's likely the staffing has been affected. I do wonder if their designers are spread very thinly across both the print publication and the website and so have very little time to come up with interesting and visually engaging ideas.
There's also a fair chance that with people like the Kardashians splattered across their pages all their design interns are busy airbrushing half the cover stars bodies away instead of working on interesting layouts and so the cover is whatever photo they managed to make look presentable in time shoved together with some tag lines.
E
Eccaia
Guest
I couldn't agree more. The irony of it is that the tackier their covers become (kardashian-ized), the less inclined I am to buy them. Partly because the cover isn't as beautiful as the older ones posted above, but also because I feel kinda tacky and 'low-brow' buying a magazine with Kim K on.
It's Agnes Nabuurs, however it looks like she's been photoshopped beyond recognition here.Second girl from the left looks like a skinny emma watson. Who is she?
As I see it, the problem isn't the choice of celebrities on the cover. Artful, visually engaging photographs can be taken of almost anything, certainly of any one. This massive failure to produce a proper fashion magazine cover that we would expect of VOGUE is a conscious decision and focused effort to make the magazine simple, ready for mass consumption by the average woman in the grocery store lineup. Awkward, kitschy pictures of beautiful celebrities are chosen to make the magazine less intimidating thus more likely purchased.
I watched recently the movie "The Eye Has To Travel" it's so sad to see what Vouge has become.
Diana put so much effort into Vouge, all the photos looked perfect, the celebrities were classy and it felt like the editions had a concept.
Now it looks like shit, bad covers and awful celebirites. It seems like Vouge has lost all it's magic in the last 3 years or so. Anna doesn't have the magic anymore.
Diana put so much effort into Vouge, all the photos looked perfect, the celebrities were classy and it felt like the editions had a concept.
Now it looks like shit, bad covers and awful celebirites. It seems like Vouge has lost all it's magic in the last 3 years or so. Anna doesn't have the magic anymore.
Ha, I saw this and legitimately thought it was a heavily airbrushed Kris Jenner.
Quoting the post here, since we're trying to take a break from their threads, but this is so fucking rude to actual nonbinary people. They make it sound like it's some casual decision made by instawhores to make their brand stand out in the crowd, or some sort of dress-up game where they pretend they're special snowflakes.
While I'm ranting, fuck the word "clapback." Has anyone ever heard this used outside of Twitter feuds and fat girls pretending that having their belly spill out of their rockabilly costumes is a political statement?
Gigi raiding her boyfriend's closet does not make her genderfluid. It makes her just like every other girl with a boyfriend who owns a sweatshirt and smells good. And with the casual reference to tumblr as "the preferred platform" for people who "breezily cross the XX-XY divide"? I swear the author of the article must have a secret conservative agenda.
I'm also not cool with the way they completely ignore the social sanctions nonbinary people receive. Like "oh yeah this whole generation's totally cool with a man wearing a skirt. What hate crimes?"
I'm pretty sure for most people coming out as trans or genderfluid, that is not what it's about.
All-around facepalm interview. I hope someone calls her out on her bullshit.
Oh for God's sake. Why on Earth interview a heterosexual couple fully committed to and commodified as archetypes of their traditional gender on this topic? Could there be a more blatant and comprehensive way of ignoring genderfluid people than aligning yourself with a very conservative (and lucrative) celebrity brand (Gigi and Zayn) while attempting to promote yourself through association with the edgy appeal of an androgynous appearance, all the while totally omitting to research, contact, refer to, speak with or in any way investigate actual regular non-binary individuals?
I feel conflicted on this, as I do believe clothes are crucial in presenting our persona and that personal style is an interesting aspect of social identity, and the information in the article about this trend for androgyny is useful from that perspective - I also like a lot of the clothes referenced and find this aesthetic attractive and worth discussing. My beef is really with the choice of contributors who are not in any way contected to the issue of non-binary identities.
What irks me the most is that their discourse on androgyny is essentially an advertisement for traditional gender roles; at the same time as saying 'Hey, it's now cool for a boy to wear girl clothes', they're reinforcing the notion that some clothes are immutably boy clothes and others immutably girl clothes - their whole idea of gender fluidity depends on the fact that you acknowledge and accept the traditional genders and concede that certain items/colours/preferences unalterably belong to one or the other, which is tantamount to saying that traditional genders really are the only possible genders and that gender fluidity is equivalent to a spot of mildly titillating cross-dressing. This trope has been around since literature and theatrical performance began (it's definitively not a 'radical break'), and it hasn't done anything to secure the place of non-binary people in public life. Wearing your bf's T-shirt is not a radical subversion of gender roles!
I also loathe and despise the heinous capitalist perspective of this article. The concept of gender identity is something incredibly important to how we understand ourselves and integral to the life prospects of each person - we should respect and protect that as a basic element of our humanity, not sieze on the peripheral accoutrements of the right to define your own gender as a way of publicising a brand. I know and welcome the fact that fashion and media promotion of social developments can catalyse their wider acceptance, and that once money gets directed to a certain previously ostracised part of society it can quickly become popular and approved, albeit among a very restricted, liberal and often quite privileged group of people, but that process needs to be accompanied by consideration of the struggles and rejection that burden anyone who repudiates conventional gender norms. My brother for instance got the shit kicked out of him, his eardrum burst, his jaw broken and his elbow fractured in multiple places plus two black eyes and a missing front tooth for wearing makeup while peacefully cycling home one night. If this kind of hate is whitewashed for profit it's just transparent exploitation.
I'm also pissed that this author casually compares Virginia Woolf, the quintessential genius of modernist literature, to a Tumblr post. That really is offensive.
I feel conflicted on this, as I do believe clothes are crucial in presenting our persona and that personal style is an interesting aspect of social identity, and the information in the article about this trend for androgyny is useful from that perspective - I also like a lot of the clothes referenced and find this aesthetic attractive and worth discussing. My beef is really with the choice of contributors who are not in any way contected to the issue of non-binary identities.
What irks me the most is that their discourse on androgyny is essentially an advertisement for traditional gender roles; at the same time as saying 'Hey, it's now cool for a boy to wear girl clothes', they're reinforcing the notion that some clothes are immutably boy clothes and others immutably girl clothes - their whole idea of gender fluidity depends on the fact that you acknowledge and accept the traditional genders and concede that certain items/colours/preferences unalterably belong to one or the other, which is tantamount to saying that traditional genders really are the only possible genders and that gender fluidity is equivalent to a spot of mildly titillating cross-dressing. This trope has been around since literature and theatrical performance began (it's definitively not a 'radical break'), and it hasn't done anything to secure the place of non-binary people in public life. Wearing your bf's T-shirt is not a radical subversion of gender roles!
I also loathe and despise the heinous capitalist perspective of this article. The concept of gender identity is something incredibly important to how we understand ourselves and integral to the life prospects of each person - we should respect and protect that as a basic element of our humanity, not sieze on the peripheral accoutrements of the right to define your own gender as a way of publicising a brand. I know and welcome the fact that fashion and media promotion of social developments can catalyse their wider acceptance, and that once money gets directed to a certain previously ostracised part of society it can quickly become popular and approved, albeit among a very restricted, liberal and often quite privileged group of people, but that process needs to be accompanied by consideration of the struggles and rejection that burden anyone who repudiates conventional gender norms. My brother for instance got the shit kicked out of him, his eardrum burst, his jaw broken and his elbow fractured in multiple places plus two black eyes and a missing front tooth for wearing makeup while peacefully cycling home one night. If this kind of hate is whitewashed for profit it's just transparent exploitation.
I'm also pissed that this author casually compares Virginia Woolf, the quintessential genius of modernist literature, to a Tumblr post. That really is offensive.
Last edited: