14.4.07

Sad, This

I love magazines, especially those of the glossy kind. It isn't as if my daily dose of the papers isn't important, because it is, but there's nothing quite like not worrying about the fate of the world for ten minutes (global warming, stupid American President, stupid wars concocted out of sexed-up intelligence dossiers, bring on the crap) and just looking at stuff instead. Like photographs. And the occasional debate over volume v. body-con - which is the cooler trend? (thinner people and boys might disagree with me, but I say volume deserves to win)- and that stuff isn't very important anyway, because all that really mattered to me about Vogue UK was the photographs inside- specifically, the editorials, of which I am bound to like at least one per issue (even though I can sometimes see a bit of a trend where the models get put in shoes, trousers/skirts, shirts and other accessories all by the same designer). I also appreciate the fact that flipping through a copy in the shop won't put me at risk of dislocating my wrist and elbow joints (major drawback to American Vogue, aside from being over-Photoshopped and too glossy).And even if I don't pay all that much attention to the articles, they're still ok and it's nice to be able to read them. Besides, it isn't as if Vogue wasn't capable of putting what looks to me like amazing stuff (and I don't mean the clothes) on its covers- just look at a few:
July 1928
April 1937
April 1919
And it isn't as if their ability to get out an amazing-looking cover image ended at 1950- the picture immediately below this text was taken in 2005 and served as the July cover. It looked so good, I bought the magazine- not something I usually do.
And right below is their 90th anniversary issue. Which is, frankly speaking, gorgeous.

Which is why I'm left wondering...what's happening to them? Practically all the covers that have been out so far in 2007 are a bit blah-looking, and really not that big a deal at all- Kate Winslet looked all right on the January cover though not great, but the rest were really, there's no other way to put it, lacklustre- this despite all of them featuring famous models who've done some really great work for other magazines and previously in Vogue itself. Jessica Stam looked fairly dead on the February cover, Daria looks singularly bored on the March one (pictured right at the bottom- it doesn't help that her dress doesn't even show up properly against that pastel background), Kate Moss- whatever anyone might say about her- just about managed to save the April cover from being as dull as the rest (shiny short black dress and cool pose might've had something to do with it), and now comes the latest- the May cover, featuring Natalia Vodianova and the chap from Razorlight. Three words: it looks awful. There is nothing about that cover which would induce a first-time reader to pick it off the stand, and the sad part is it isn't as if they can't do it. Put out a good cover image, I mean. And maybe this is just me being disgruntled, but if Vogue is supposed to be a fashion magazine, who forgot to put the shirt on Johnny Borrell?**

**Most galling of all is the thought that one of the following three people is probably behind the styling of that cover- Lucinda Chambers, Kate Phelan or Miranda Almond (Robson?). And not to be shallow or anything, but Johnny Borrell? I didn't quite believe the Queens about his being coverboy at first, but couldn't Vogue find anyone better? Even if the Gallaghers are too cranky and the Arctic Monkeys don't do fashion shoots?

14 comments:

Perakath said...

Well he seems to have quite a good body, for one.

Which shop is this that lets you thumb through an entire Vogue and not buy it? How much is it anyway?

I've never seen/read a Vogue, Elle, or any such. Cosmopolitan though, I used to like. These days I find it boring - one can take only so many articles on sex without being reminded that...

Blue Floppy Hat said...

He's still rather visually unappealing..
Most shops here don't seem to mind browsers, Crossword and Landmark are pretty friendly- and a new issue of Vogue costs about 600 bucks. So not buying it is forgivable.
Cosmo seemed funny when I was twelve- now it's just ___ Ways To Have Sex (fill in the blank with a number). And the Indian edition is awful.

Yohan said...

Johnny Borrel may be the proverbial twat, but his songs are not bad at all.

I can't imagine Oasis or those cheeky Monkeys on the cover of Vogue. That would just be wrong, even if it were the anorak issue or something.

(Did you know Kirsten Dunst was dating him for a short stint?)

Blue Floppy Hat said...

Yeah, well, I still think it makes a sucky cover image. Even if his songs aren't bad. And I admit Oasis and the Arctic Monkeys aren't quite right for Vogue as it stands right now, but even so, they could've shot him better- it's sad to look at the archive of covers on the Vogue UK site and then see this. I mean, making Natalia Vodianova look ugly must take some serious screwing up.
I did hear that. About Kirsten Dunst, I mean.

Perakath said...

twat, eh? :)

Kirsten Dunst... the lucky bozo.

600 bucks???? For a picture book?

*faints*

*realises he regularly spends such amounts at bars*

Well it's not thaaat much really... I'm just used to paying 15 bucks for an Outlook. 75 bucks for Time seems too high for me. But now that I think about it, Guitar World also costs around 550 or so... imported, eh what? Customs etc?

Btw, Floppy-O, you never paid Tawakley for that meal at Blues, did you :)

ambika said...

No idea who J.B. is and kind of glad I don't. He's got the hipster body born of too much coke and coffee; the rest if probably photoshop.

Agreed about the blahness of the covers. If you like the old Vogues, you should check out Vanity Fair's from the same era.

Yohan said...

Haha! I'm sure Tawakley can afford a treat or two! He is working after all. And living at home!

Blue Floppy Hat said...

@Perakath: I must say, it's my bad- I didn't get to meet him again before I left Delhi. And now I'm stuck in Bangalore- in awful weather, might I add...
@ambika: I'm presuming the coke you speak of isn't the kind that comes in black, for liquid ingestion :)
I only know what the vintage Vogue covers look like because they put the lot up on their site- the only other place you ever saw them was as thumbnails in recent editions of the magazine. Does VF have a similar cover-putting up thing on its own site?

Mrs Fashion said...

Hey, Thanks for linking my blog - I came across yours from Kingdom of Style and it's fab!
RE: putting an outfit together head to toe from one label? It's all about the advertisers.
Mrs F x

Blue Floppy Hat said...

It probably is...one of those unwritten things that says you have to use at least two outfits per advertiser per issue, and if they're feeling edgy they'll go with Preen or Giles Deacon. And now, Christopher Kane. And anyway, Vogue hasn't ever been all about pushing new talent, it's always about who's at the top of the tree..

To anyone who comes here after today: I'm signing off the blogosphere for a couple of weeks, so bear with me till then. Exams are painful things...but do feel free to speak up- I'm a sucker for comments!

Meg said...

I think Johnny Borrell's having his day in the sun and just using his new lady Kirsten Dunst for a quick power squeeze while he can. Few months and it'll be back to obscurity where he belongs. If only he'd take Razorlight with him.

Perakath said...

You ladies are unbelievable - he looks like that and you don't approve? I wonder what you think of us paunchy, fashion-clueless types :)

Yohan said...

Hehe. I recently entered the "paunchy" club. I thought skinny was bad...

editor said...

it's almost painful to see a comparison of vogue covers like that. painful, but interesting. it's true, covers used to directly motivate me to buy a magazine, and now they manage to make money just relying on my boredom.

About Me

My photo
Fondest of upbeat music and brightly coloured sweets.