UK Vogue June 2016 : The Duchess of Cambridge by Josh Olins

[Deleted member 45369]

We waited 100 years for this?

 

[madzedre]

We waited 100 years for this?

Just died with this ROLF

 

[AD011620]

I find this issue to be a massive letdown. I like Walker's editorial but again it feels like I've seen it. The bottom line is they wanted it all British and the result is here: BORING!!! I think it illustrates how overhyped British fashion industry in general is. Testino's editorial is just... what's the word? Oh yes, BORING! Apart from Karen's shot all models look just lifeless.

And Georgia May Jagger, they make her pose with the Ab Fab girls and she is so lifeless. I bet they were going for fierce but she's just boring.

Is there Yasmin Le Bon in this issue at all?

I might sound angry but I am not. I just can't be bothered with this magazine anymore.

Anyway, a massive thank you to our memebers who went through the trouble of scanning these pages for us!!!

 

[tigerrouge]

It's so dull that I wasn't motivated to buy a newsstand copy while I waited for my subscription copy to arrive, and when it did arrive, I couldn't be bothered to open the package, and left it behind in someone else's house.

 

[LastNight]

I actually really enjoyed this issue. The cover is so beautiful in real life, the gold foil really gives it a lovely touch. There might not be lots of fashion 'stories' but there are some lovely shots in the cover shoot, as well as in Tim's and I actually really enjoy the Testino editorial.

There's also lots of great anecdotes about famous photo shoots and from people who began as interns at Vogue, as well as a nice article about Conde Nast himself. Nothing revolutionary in terms of the type of content for an anniversary issue, but all still enjoyable. I really liked the illustration feature too, it was a nice nod to early Vogue covers.

The one thing that disappointed me was the paper quality used for the cover, I had hoped for something special for the centenary issue but it actually feels a little flimsier than normal. I also hope for some kind of change at British Vogue in the next few months now that this issue is out (despite my enjoyment of this month's edition.) I think it's time for an injection of something new and daring and exciting.

 

[Benn98]

I'm confused by the as time goes by photo representing the 60s. are those supposed to be Mods dressed up as a mix of bikers, teddy boys and punks? they got their subcultures confused

This was the edit I looked forward to most, but ultimately ended up a bit dissapointing. Most of it being Lucinda's fault, because it's the styling. These are really vague, student-level takes on the periods and it's tragic because this magazine is armed with such vast resources. I cannot get over how similar the 30's and 40's shots look (when there are in fact a distinct differences between the two in terms of fashion). And how it all seemed to have gone through some chaff grinder in order to appeal to the young reader. Here I blame Mario Testino. He's not the right guy to capture historical periods!

As always, I'm much more impressed with the written content of this issue, which I will tackle in due course.

 

[HeatherAnne]

We waited 100 years for this?

Brilliant.

Harper's UK is more exciting than Vogue UK these days, even this month.

 

[AD011620]

I refused to buy a copy today even though the cover looks really beautiful... And guess what? Here comes my friend and says, oh I got this for you I thought you would like it! :-D Okay, it is unreal how underwhelming and boring this issue is.

 

[honeycombchild]

Sadly this is genuinely one of the most underwhelming issues of British Vogue I've ever laid my hands on. We have, essentially, two mediocre editorials - neither of which are the respective photographer's finest work by a long shot - some articles that seem vaguely interesting and I'll more than likely return to explore fully at some point, and well, that's it. As much as I like Ab Fab I'm not going to class that shoot as an editorial.

To be fair, to me, the issue does sum up Alexandra's time at Vogue, absolutely uneventful. I'm not quite sure why I expected anymore. I suppose that was my own mistake for having expectations. Where this magazine once used to produce directional, relevant imagery it now coasts by putting in the bare minimum, lack lustre photographic content with barely any fashion context. Alexandra is interested in the written side of the magazine, I think that's always been clear, she has zero interest in actually producing anything too interesting photographically for the magazine. I know it's often said that Wintour has had her day at the US edition but to me this is more of a problem than that. At least Anna understands fashions and produces a magazine that engages with it, even if it is always landing on celebrities rather than models.

I hope now we've reached the 100th anniversary we see Schulman decide to leave and focus on her novels. I fail to see what else she'll do with the magazine should she stay there further. More phoned in Kate Moss covers? More dreary editorials that don't even make use of the usually rather good offering of models within them? The magazine needs new blood and new life, and most importantly, someone at the helm who actually gives some kind of sh*t about fashion itself.

But dear God not Katie Grand. Anyone but Katie Grand and her gang of Love twits.

 

[Benn98]

Sadly this is genuinely one of the most underwhelming issues of British Vogue I've ever laid my hands on. We have, essentially, two mediocre editorials - neither of which are the respective photographer's finest work by a long shot - some articles that seem vaguely interesting and I'll more than likely return to explore fully at some point, and well, that's it. As much as I like Ab Fab I'm not going to class that shoot as an editorial.

To be fair, to me, the issue does sum up Alexandra's time at Vogue, absolutely uneventful. I'm not quite sure why I expected anymore. I suppose that was my own mistake for having expectations. Where this magazine once used to produce directional, relevant imagery it now coasts by putting in the bare minimum, lack lustre photographic content with barely any fashion context. Alexandra is interested in the written side of the magazine, I think that's always been clear, she has zero interest in actually producing anything too interesting photographically for the magazine. I know it's often said that Wintour has had her day at the US edition but to me this is more of a problem than that. At least Anna understands fashions and produces a magazine that engages with it, even if it is always landing on celebrities rather than models.

I hope now we've reached the 100th anniversary we see Schulman decide to leave and focus on her novels. I fail to see what else she'll do with the magazine should she stay there further. More phoned in Kate Moss covers? More dreary editorials that don't even make use of the usually rather good offering of models within them? The magazine needs new blood and new life, and most importantly, someone at the helm who actually gives some kind of sh*t about fashion itself.

But dear God not Katie Grand. Anyone but Katie Grand and her gang of Love twits.

Fully endorse this, all of it!! You can sense her excitement in the feature with the Duchess. It seemed that the idea of Kate for Vogue occupied so much of her time that everything else ended up secondary. Alexandra's Archilles heel is the fact that she doesn't seem passionate about fashion at all. Probably in her mind she's editing a woman's magazine, you can sense that in her interviews.

It's not rare for writers to run fashion magazines, and I think the reason she lasted this long is because she chanced upon a recipe to guarantee sales, and stuck with it. And then there's the fact that she's a writer. When you look at the EICs at the top fashion glossies in the UK, very often intellect overshadows actual fashion background. Justine and Lucy at Harper's, Penny Martin at The Gentlewoman, even Lorraine at Elle. So there's this need for the intellectual component to always remain intact, even in fashion. That I don't have a problem with because it makes the magazine less vacuous. It does become a problem however when there's no balance or distinct direction, no risks or rejuvenation at all. She may have been crafty enough to surround herself with a solid team of stylists and photographers in order to conceal her fashion deficiency, but it's almost pointless if they're not moderated. Next month we'll be back to the usual dreary autumn Alasdair McLellan story set against a red bricked wall, I'm sure.

Britain is one of the countries with the greatest influence on fashion, second only to France, imo. Last year Vogue China celebrated their anniversary cover with customised looks from designers of Chinese origin. I think the dress Gaga wore on US Vogue's 100th issue was custom as well. That was such a nice personal touch, and a powerful message at the same time. She couldn't do something similar or delve into the archives of fashion houses for something unique?

So yes, it's time for her to leave off! And she can take Testino and his Kate/Gisele/Lara covers with her. But please, keep Katie Grand away from this magazine! She'll just use it as a monopolising tool for her chums. The ideal replacement imo should be Lucy Yeomans. I often wonder how well she's really functioning under Porter's new management.

 

[tigerrouge]

In an ideal world, I'd want Lucy Yeomans to take over at UK Vogue. Her long stint at Harpers & Queen shows she can handle the 'social' side of the position, and when it blossomed into Harpers Bazaar, she was so adept at creating a vision of women as a force to be reckoned with - seductive, powerful, intellectual.

It was fantastic to have a magazine whose voice was a clear contrast to the teenage slant of some publications, without making it seem that being an adult woman is a dreary bore.

In contrast, the current incarnation of UK Bazaar is reading material for a woman for whom sex has long since become a purely mental pursuit, and they're putting all their passion into posh gardening instead.

 

[AD011620]

I agree it's time for Alex to find a new hobby. Katie Grand would just be the final nail in the coffin. I think people who think that they get away with offering edgy by having Kate Moss constantly on their covers should stay away. I'd love Lucy at Vogue too.

 

[honeycombchild]

Lucy would be great, however I was also a fan of Jennifer. She did good work covering maternity and Elle and I feel like given the chance, she could be a strong editor. I like her work on The Edit.

 

[Creative]

I suppose that was my own mistake for having expectations.

It's not your mistake... It should've been a special issue yet the content is beyond subpar. There are very few eds and none of them is particularly cool. It doesn't feel celebratory at all. They just have the coup of the cover subject and that's it...

Really sad. But, as you said, this sums up Shulman's reign: completely forgettable.

It's indeed time for someone new.

 

[Velasco]

Lucy Yeomans at Vogue UK would make my day but I'm happy with her at Porter.

 

[sixtdaily]

From Testino's ed:

 

[GreyVetiver]

I am conflicted because I love Lucy at Porter and I wanna to see the magazine continues to thrive but obviously she is the ultimate choice for British Vogue.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Glad to know that i'm not the only one that thinks this issue is dull beyond belief, i was starting to think I'm just incredibly jaded.

 

[florider2000]

'Fabulously Fashion' part II TV program last night on BBC (UK) was very interesting and explained a lot of how hush hush it was to Have Kate Middleton on the cover. I totally fell for it.

 

[liberty33r1b]

^I missed that part, would have loved to see it. does anyone know if there's a video somewhere?