For those of you who read things other than fashion mags, Front Row is a good read, gives you lots of insight on the type of woman she is and the era in which she grew up. And how she was influenced by the many men in her life. also, lots of details about her love life...
The voluminous fashion pages are arty, original, and sophisticated
This might have been true when this article was published but I can't be the only one who has been disappointed by many of the photoshoots in US Vogue recently.
The spread (in November or December?) of lacey evening gowns shot in a laundrymat was particularly dreadful. More befitting of TeenVogue I would think.
I would like to see the magazine get it's edge back instead of constantly playing it safe. Still, US Vogue remains a monthly purchase of mine. I find the written content substantial. There are always several articles worth my time. (Minus the awful SJP piece...)
According to the Front Row biography, Wintour has very little to do with the written content - it's questionable if she even reads it.
I agree about that laundromat story, didn't Vogue do another "couture gowns in American casual situations" before, with Natalia Vodianova a couple months back? Why the exact same lame shoots over and over again? Ick.
I was watching the live streaming of the Vera Wang show and they showed Anna at the start messing about with her phone (motorola razr!) and then as soon as the show started she put these masssive sunglasses on. I suppose it's because the lights are so bright? or maybe it's so she can hide behind them so people won't know what her reaction to the clothes is.
Photograph of Anna Wintour by Myrna Suarez/Getty Images.
Thank you, avantgarde, for an interesting article. Of course, it is mostly bs, but it was interesting to read it all the same.
1) Yes, Mirabella's Vogue became dreadful in around 1983. But the years 1971-1982 were glorious. They were nowhere near beige, as anyone who's spent some time with those issues will know. They were filled with fantastic work by Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Chris von Wangenheim and Helmut Newton. Yes, Mirabella painted her room beige - but she did not let that seep over onto Vogue until 1983 when it all went down hill. Anyone can see - if you look at the 1970 issues of American Vogue, that they needed change. Something wasn't right - it was too crazy - too hippie nuts - and the early 70s brought a change to that.
2) I recently read a Vogue photographic covers book and was amazed at the notion, shared by Miss Fortini, of close ups as per definition "uncreative" - as if there was something particularly creative with full figure shots and natural light. And if nature is held in high regard, how does that mesh with perfectionism which entails retouching images of aging Hollywood stars, until nothing of the texture of their skin can be seen? Miss Fortini has clearly not seen these last few years worth of red carpet staged shots?
3) Anyone can see that Diana Vreeland and Anna Wintour are diametrically opposed types of people. Anna Wintour seems quite preoccupied with being a sort of fashion Machiavelli, which is interesting in its own right, but it means leaving artistry aside for the sake of pragmatism. Diana Vreeland strew strange remarks around her - it was like she was dreaming when she was awake. She was so creative and imaginative - truly remarkable - an artist using the magazine as her form of expression. Anna is the consummate carreerist. A perfect choice for the late 80s. Perhaps it is true that Anna delivers a fantasy - it just seems terribly predictable for a fantasy. They are both perfectionists, but while Anna seems to be an elitist conformist, Diana Vreeland was an elitist individualist, and all her ideas flowed from herself with no thought whatsoever about what the billionnaires will think.