tigerrouge
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,701
- Reaction score
- 9,184
I flicked through it on the newsstand, and I was pleasantly surprised - there's a bit more glamour in this issue, there's a sense of FUN about it. The magazine feels like it's eased up on essays about the diversity agenda, and decided to just get on with the job of showing a range of different people in different ways, without making a big deal about it.
After all, that's what diversity should be - we should be aiming to reach the point where it feels natural to see it, rather than it be contrived. Representation of people should go without saying, rather than being a means of getting attention. Edward can't use it as his selling point forever.
The article about supermodels is about the mood of the 90's, with lots of little shots of Stella Tennant, Rosemary Ferguson, Kirsty Hume, a bit of Kate Moss etc.
It was on sale for £2, so I was very tempted to buy one, but I'll wait and see how damaged my subscription copy is this month.
After all, that's what diversity should be - we should be aiming to reach the point where it feels natural to see it, rather than it be contrived. Representation of people should go without saying, rather than being a means of getting attention. Edward can't use it as his selling point forever.
The article about supermodels is about the mood of the 90's, with lots of little shots of Stella Tennant, Rosemary Ferguson, Kirsty Hume, a bit of Kate Moss etc.
It was on sale for £2, so I was very tempted to buy one, but I'll wait and see how damaged my subscription copy is this month.
