UK Vogue May 2018 : The New Frontiers by Craig McDean

[AD011620]

Is it positive? I do not think “diversity” should be an excuse for mediocrity. And this magazine in particular is hiding their lack of creativity, behind taglines. Like Tigerrouge said “diversity” became in itself the selling point, like the latest pair of loafers, if integration appears seamless, there is no money to be made out of it. And it’s not like things are not being done right somewhere else, the only campaign that stop me on my tracks this season is fronted by a black woman, do I think Simon Jacquemus is a champion of integration? Hell no, “he” just chose the right model to elevate his clothes and create an arresting visual story. He is not getting a pat on the back for making what it’s best for his brand, he’s not doing the model a favour. People do not even notice how patronising they sound when they lower their standards in the name of diversity. There is no “at least”, if it’s bad, it’s bad.

I personally think we are all overanalysing here a bit. Out of 5 covers with Edward, 2 solo covers were graced by the women of colour and now we have a group shot with the models from different backgrounds... To me, this is great and believe me, the majority of Vogue readers are going to look at it this way... Not many Vogue readers care so much even about high fashion or how artistically arresting the images are...these times are long gone... Nowadays, if you want to make a point, you need to make it look/sound simple and throw lots of publicity on it... Do I like it? not so much but it is effective? oh yes, it is.
It is interesting to see if Edward puts models over 40/50 on the cover of his Vogue because they are definitely missing from this cover shot;-)

 

[tigerrouge]

^Thank you. Ordinary things get picked to pieces here sometimes, given lots of ulterior motives and meanings that probably don't exist.

To be contrary, I think people don't think ENOUGH about the big picture - about the purpose of a magazine and the very reasons they exist.

In the magazine threads, we hear endlessly about everyone's model preferences - but hardly any discussion about the commercial aspects of what ends up on the pages, other than... we have no respect for the commercial aspects because they get in the way of seeing our pet models on the front.

All the business stuff is confined to one thread where people post news and updates, with the occasional discussion.

But why should we concern ourselves with any of that, when we can just buy what we're being sold, believe in what we're told, and wistfully think things would be better if Sasha or [insert model here] were on the cover.

Except they can be on the cover and the magazine can still be awful and you end up with a very empty thread....

 

[cestmagique]

^Again, this is a lot of meaning attached to something I don't particularly care about. I'm not buying this issue. I don't think this "changes everything" or that promoting diversity isn't oftentimes hypocritical and tone deaf. These magazines reflect what is going on in broader culture and so I don't find it especially surprising or troubling. But the bare fact that a magazine that would ordinarily be all about skinny and white has put a variety of shapes and skin colors on its cover IS a change in the right direction. That surface level of understanding is as much thought as many, many people are going to ever put into it.

 

[Benn98]

.....the majority of Vogue readers are going to look at it this way... Not many Vogue readers care so much even about high fashion or how artistically arresting the images are...these times are long gone...

Fair point, but I don't think it should necessarily invalidate any of the discordant views in this thread. The charm about in-depth commenters on here is that one can easily spot a sense of duality with their views. These people appear to be actual readers who consume magazines precisely the same way a loyal or impulse buyer would, yet there's a degree of objectivity which can be quite refreshing. Of course when it comes to UK Harper's, I am unapologetically biased, much like Phuel is with VP, but for most part people are actually objective.

('TRIGGER' WARNING: RANT-MODE) I seem to read an awful lot of 'you're overreacting', 'overanalysing', 'settle down' type of comments on this site of late... and I don't quite get it. As a lurker since 05 and a formal member since, well, you can see for yourself, I thought the idea of this forum was actually not to cave in to populist thought/groupthink etc. To open a discussion or highlight nuances which the average consumer probably wouldn't even regard. We're supposed to delve deeper, question ulterior motives, rant over messy art design, or the same faces over and over? That's what people are like when they are extremely passionate about something. At least that's the memo I got, but oh well. Otherwise what's the point? May as well head over to Insta and fawn over everything regardless of how vile it looks.

 

[honeycombchild]

The very idea of diversity and inclusion is always an interesting topic to see play out on the forums. I sit in the camp that believes it should be a thing that occurs without having cover lines and fanfares heralding ‘Look, we’ve been diverse!’. This cover is probably a big step forward ultimately, however the pessimist in me knows the selection process that will have gone into picking who ended up on this cover. ‘We need a plus size model. And there must be a model of Asian descent.’ But at the same time I do feel for the best editors, damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

When Edward put Taylor on the cover there were comments in the thread about him having been nothing but a dissipointment and another white celebrity had landed the cover and then here we face criticism over forced diversity. It’s tough to navigate. Until we have, in a sense, blind casting, as in casting who is right or the best for the job in hand I imagine there isn’t ever really true diversity and equality. But hopefully these covers, however lacklustre the execution, do help things. For me, it is cover’s like last month’s that help things move forward. Taking a chance on a relatively unknown star, where her skin colour and ethnic origins are largely irrelevant to her being celebrating with a cover.

 

[tigerrouge]

My subscription copy arrived this morning, all nice and glossy. The cover looks like there's too much going on. The issue has 230 pages and is full of perfume samples.

Editorials:
Focal Point - 4 pgs
A short accessories edit with model Qiaoyu Li, styled by Venetia Scott/Naomi Scott and shot by Feng Li.

Generation Next - 14 pgs
The continuation of the cover story. In one shot, the line-up is having fun, then it's down to 1 pg portraits and a bit of text.

Heat Wave - 14 pgs
It's Lineisy Montero and Karly Loyee on location, shot by Venetia Scott. It's a modern update of a 1970's story, with lots of sunlight, retro interiors, and a California feel.

A Hand Made Tail - 14 pgs
A look at couture, shot by Vanderpierre in the studio, styled by Venetia Scott, with Xie Chaoyu, He Cong, Selena Forrest, Jonas Gloer, Paul Hameline, Maryna Horda, Lea Julian, Hiandra Martinez, Alyssa Traore, Signe Veiteberg, Anok Yai, Kiki Willems and Sara Grace Wallerstedt. Thanks, auto-correct, for making that twice as hard to type out as it should be.

"I Make Clothes For Strong Women" - 10 pgs
The Rei Kawakubo feature is half-interview, half-editorial, shot by Tim Walker, styled by.... Kate Phelan. Models are Primrose Archer, Xie Chaoyu, Lily Nova, Ayobami Okekunle, Amelleah Thomas and Duckie Thot. It's studio-shot.

There is a lot more, like Adwoa talking about alcohol and Salman Rushdie pondering whether men and women can be just friends, but I'm delaying people going out to lunch by sitting here doing this, so that's your lot.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Thanks a million for such detailed review.

 

[ax80]

^Can't wait for Willy's work on the couture editorial!

 

[tigerrouge]

I'm doing this in sections....

 

[tigerrouge]

Some of the perfume inserts are on 'hard card' which means you have to kneel on the magazine to make it lay flat when you turn the pages. So, yes, this magazine WAS abused during the making of these images...

 

[MON]

This looks like American Vogue.

 

[anlabe32]

The Vanderperre editorial looks very promising!

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Thanks a million for the snaps tigerrouge, wow at them not crediting the clothes in the cover looks section, I don't remember that ever happening before. Unless they did a full credit with shadow image at the back of the issue.

 

[tigerrouge]

They did credit the clothes, but in the contributors section, after the editor's letter, where they had the space to reprint the full image.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Makes sense, thanks.

 

[kasper!]

a

There is a lot more, like Adwoa talking about alcohol and Salman Rushdie pondering whether men and women can be just friends, but .....

Really?

Anyway thanks for your snap, it has a decade since I saw snaps in this forum, though I did it as well before.

 

[Benn98]

Wow, the McDean edit looks promising!! That's it for me.

Thanks for the review and previews, Tigerrouge.

 

[Phuel]

Thanks for all the snaps, tiger!

The art direction looks supreme-- giving me Liz's Bazaar meets Fabien's Interview... Did they hire a new art director? Or just decided to make an effort???

Looking forward to getting the full issue just for the art direction.

(And Jonathan Ives... please make an effort with your design for Apple like you had once in the 2000s.)

 

[vogue28]

My subscription copy isn't with me yet, but judging from the previews tigerrouge kindly provided us with, I'm suddenly not too bothered about mine arriving late.

 

[tigerrouge]

The more I flipped through it, the more I came to like it - and it's clear that he hasn't paid lip service to diversity with the cover, he's carried it all the way through the contents.

I haven't got my subscription copy of Tatler yet, and that usually arrives days before any other magazine gets to me, but I already see it on sale in the stores, so the Easter holidays seem to have messed with the way in which things are being sent out.