Anna Wintour lost the plot(97 Posts)
On putting Kim kardashian and Kanye West on the cover of Vogue.
"'Part of the pleasure of editing Vogue, one that lies in a long tradition of this magazine, is being able to feature those who define the culture at any given moment, who stir things up, whose presence in the world shapes the way it looks and influences the way we see it.
I think we can all agree on the fact that that role is currently being played by Kim and Kanye to a T. (Or perhaps that should be to a K?)
'As for the cover, my opinion is that it is both charming and touching, and it was, I should add, entirely our idea to do it; you may have read that Kanye begged me to put his fiancée on Vogue’s cover.
He did nothing of the sort. The gossip might make better reading, but the simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t true.
'There’s barely a strand of the modern media that the Kardashian Wests haven’t been able to master, and for good reason: Kanye is an amazing performer and cultural provocateur, while Kim, through her strength of character, has created a place for herself in the glare of the world’s spotlight, and it takes real guts to do that."
I bought every copy of Vogue from 1980 until 1995 and then two or three a year and now the occasional copy, maybe one a year. I always buy one for my friend at Christmas. I loved it, absolutely loved it back in the 1980s/90s.
Hilarious that it has now come to Kim kardashian being on the cover, quite possibly the worst dressed woman ever, who came to fame through a sex tape and her father's name.
Now I know I will never buy it again as it's sunk so low!
The cover photo taken by Annie Leibovitz is awful, Kim's hands look huge and mannish.
Also: I got a free issue of Harpers on my tablet and my god, did it make me yearn for an article about Muffy and Binky going to St Barts, because at least I could hate-read it. SO. DULL.
Also, god would I love to see Miss Piggy as a real Vogue cover.
I don't really care about either of them, but KK has had her own fashion range, has she not?
Celebrities by far outsell models when it comes to the cover of US Vogue.
I think anyone who suggests that Anna Wintour has lost the plot doesn't understand the media/magazine covers or even fashion. Most pertinently, they also don't seem to grasp that US Vogue isn't a magazine just about fashion, it's always prided itself as being a magazine that encapsulates what is 'en vogue' - something that is popular at a particular moment and time.
So, no, I don't think Anna Wintour has lost the plot at all, she's incredibly canny and knows exactly what she's doing. For whatever reasons, everybody is talking about the cover of US Vogue, so the advertisers are happy. And it's the same advertisers/fashion brands who were falling over themselves to send North one-off presents/pieces of clothing when she was born.
Sure, Wintour's editorial prose is a little sugar-coated, but to my mind, it's bang on the money. People are talking about Kim and Kanye and their lifestyle/who they, they're are very much part of the current zeitgeist. When cultural anthropologists look back at the the early 2010s (gosh, that looks weird!), and examines celebrities and their influences/use of technology/social media, K & K will feature very heavily. Like or loathe it, they very much define the way we live now. Or rather a certain kind of celebrity lives now.
As for Kim, I think she looks really quite stylish these days. Under Kanye's direction, she's found a style - beautiful coats, pencil skirts and crop tops that flatter her figure. A figure that womanly is really quite difficult to dress fashionably, and she doesn't try to follow fashion any more but has found a look that really works for her. I think fair play to her, she's come a long way.
I think it's better than the latest one - having Nigella on the cover. Lower still IMHO.
Something that has just occurred to me, is that AW may be lining up her next career move, so buttering up those who may be in a position to employ her - nothing to back this up, just wondering why this leap into the world of reality celebrities
I agree with that, TollgateDebs. Vogue are totally in thrall to their advertisers and every issue is a little bit duller than the last.
Has she lost the plot, or generated much needed publicity for the title? Fashion magazines are struggling and are really just advertising carriers now, with blogs carrying so much more editorial content and, sometimes, the ability to be more honest with their articles. Magazines just can't afford to be honest and upset their advertisers, with the result that they all end up carrying very similar bland content, so watch out for KK appearing elsewhere!
I buy Vogue. I enjoy looking at beautiful clothes, even if I can’t afford them. But I am bemused at the idea that it is (or was) some kind of cultural heavyweight. I think I might actually find a feature on Kim Kardashian more interesting than yet another day-in-the-life piece on some heiress who has just launched her own fashion line – which is what passes for content half of the time. And at least Kardashian probably didn’t go to boarding school with the person interviewing her.
That KK always looks a bit gormless to me.
How is it different to having any other celeb on the cover? Mags want to sell issues. These are two famous people so will help it sell. Vogue is gross anyway don't read it, it will rot your brain.
Vogue considers itself to be beautiful and classy. That pair of fools are neither.
Fashion mags are wank anyway. Who wants to leaf through thirty pages pf perfume ads to get to a half page of advertorial masquerading as journalism?
Cannot believe Vogue has survived.
Gofugyourself have an interesting post on this cover.
Diana Vreeland must be spinning in her grave.
I've been a longtime fan on Vogue but my interest is waning and frankly I think they are not super interested in me either as I'm too old and spend too little...
I read both the US and Br Vogue the other day and the celebs don't bother me - what is really embarrassing about those mags these days is
1) the extremely poor writing (Hamish Bowles and Calgary Avansino, looking at you)
2) the vapid advertorials (plugs for brands that are made to look like magazine content - it's just as embarrasing as a blind date organized by your mother)
3) anyone who can pay can advertise there - hence, there was a huge spread on Tesco clothing. Sadly, it was a better than some of their main editorial content <eyeroll>
4) their uncritical attitude towards plastic surgery
5) the 'style steals' type column in US Vogue that features a $500+ outfit as affordable - how out of touch can they be?
Squoosh D-listed had an in-depth analysis on Voguecovergate - 'with the personality of popped bubble wrap' sums it up
I'm sure it will sell loads of magazines.
I mean, that's why Heat puts celebs on their covers - it sells loads of magazines. So now, American Vogue is not really any different from Heat. Certainly not a cut above, which is how it's traditionally pitched itself.
It's a bit of a sell-out move. Either you're in the business of high-end fashion, or you're in the business of shifting magazines via the medium of common-denominator celebs. You can't really be both.
I always thought followers of the Kardashians were teens and twenty-somethings, and the reason they never captured my imagination (40 yrs old) is just because i'm no longer part of the demographic that is in thrall to reality celebs. I'm surprised to learn I'm obviously quite wrong about that.
I'm not sure how they and Kim's husband have managed to pretty much pass me by without somehow reeling me with their 'fascinating-ness'. They are not a guilty secret of mine, but each to their own.
GuitarGirl, Vogue used to have more credibility, it's gone completely downhill and the latest cover with Kim shows it is now on a par with OK magazine.
I also think it's a bad photo. Annie is a renowned photographer but this pose is bad. No extension to Kim's neck, her hands look awkward and Kanye peering over her shoulder looking stiff.
Thanks again squoosh. Sounds marvellously boring. And there she is, on the front cover of Vogue. Hilarious, when you think about it.
People, he invented leather jogging trousers - of course he should be on the cover!
Oh for crying out loud, it is a magazine - probably the lowest common denominator in terms of reading material. I think it's hilarious that so many posters seem to think that Vogue is some kind of high-brow publication!
But for a fashion magazine, I think they could have put the woman in a dress which fitted properly.
Is it just me- or does north look photoshopped in on the first photo on the daily mail website??
Not to mention how distressed she looks to be placed with two virtual strangers while flashing lights are going off in her face.
It co-starred her then boyfriend, don't think he was particularly famous. It would seem it was all very tastefully and flatteringly shot, good lighting, delicate little moans and no actual shots of her naked.
Disclaimer: I haven't watched the film but have read disparaging descriptions on highbrow websites such as ummmm, Dlisted.com.
I genuinely don't see much of a difference to Diana on the cover, except class.
Join the discussion
Please login first.