Finally lol, that 'you can complain all you want but it's not changing any time soon!' sounds like something so capitalistic can be above criticism. It shouldn't be, right?, unanimous worshipping smells like indoctrination or worse, apathy. Questioning intent or dismissing based on intent (regardless of the visuals) shouldn't be seen as an attempt to 'destroy'. The markets are more volatile than ever, I wouldn't be so quick in assuming something's not changing any time soon, remember when fashion circa 2010 could not see a day without the same-looking simpletons that all seemed plucked out of the same village somewhere in the Netherlands or Poland? (the Jagodzinskas, the Cato, the Marloes, repeat), and fashion seemed resistant to the criticism it did generate but one day, it did move on and went after the exact content that criticism was about?. Fashion is starved for approval, it's really not the other way around..
Oh it's entirely possible that things will change eventually, I just don't think anytime soon.
Because what makes this moment we're in so unique is the nuances. It firstly intersects with politics and current affairs and actually expanding on a global scale to the point that other industries are co-opting the movement. So even if fashion moves on from the diversity focus, I doubt other more conservative industries such as finance who don't change with the wind will as well.
So you know there was a similar movement in the 80s under Grace Mirabella where she prioritsed racial diversity and women entering the workforce. It mirrored society at the time but within the fashion context, it was almost exclusively centered around American Vogue. In fact, her tenure was famously considered out of touch with fashion, especially from the HF set.
This time around it's way more global, especially with Conde Nast globalisation model being rolled out. It will mean that editions who never bothered to have that conversation, will have it as well.
I remember fashion in 2010. The appalling diversity stats were highly criticised by mainstream media and outsiders mostly. Oh yes, and also a small cluster within tFS. But for the most part magazines and brands just went about their business because there was no financial incentive for them to change their ways. You remember the excitement about Vogue Italia's Black Issue on here which was in fact a 'themed' issue? Imagine using black models as a theme. These standout comments who were actually ahead of their time were buried under endless posts of 'OMG Sessilee!
, 'where's Tyra?
, and '20 pages and still no scans???
, all mostly praising a token issue.
The point I'm making is that until there's some sort of public outcry against diversity, I doubt it will change soon. There is actually a lot more push FOR it than AGAINST it, and it's coming from areas where you'd least expect it. China, for instance, who are running their own checklists to see how many models of Chinese origin are featured in shows etc and at the same time using that as a deciding factor for supporting a brand.
I hate the idea behind this issue, they are simply stunning women they shouldn't be pigeon holed inside a "black issue" .
And it baffles me why they had to choose Naomi, doesn't she have enough exposure?
Why not chose another girl less well known to give her an opportunity to shine? And on top of that she looks terrible, is she using fillers on the lips?
Yes, it's quite a lot of reaction, and justly so. Some of those editorials are exquisite... but at the same time, this issue disturbs me. Its great that it exists to address an outrageous shortfall in seeing these women in mainstream magazines...
...but the dark side is, this issue - to me - also feels a bit like a fetish collection of black women, with their breasts out, or dressed up like Grace Jones, who might not be the best representation to hark back to, seeing as her image is about being a scary, almost inhuman thing.
Of course, there's more content in this issue than that, but those are the parts that have burnt into my mind. Dedicating an entire magazine to black models is better than not using them at all, but likewise, I can't help feeling a touch unhappy by seeing them all herded together in a 'speciality issue', and by a magazine that has featured black models on its cover about as often as US Vogue has done during the past decade, without having to operate under the same audience restrictions as US Vogue.
It's better than nothing, thank god it exists, but I'm cynical, and I'll believe this is an iconic issue rather than a speciality issue if-and-when I see its effects filtering down during the next year or so to other magazines. Those are the magazines I want to buy, black models in ordinary magazines, at ordinary prices, doing ordinary modelling things, and with no concept that any of it could be 'a collectors' issue'. Let's hope this issue helps that happen, but would you bet your back collection of Paris Vogue on it? For August, for September, will we move straight on to the next VI cover theme, and soon forget this issue ever existed with this much attention?
And just re your first paragraph, when you explain how diversity in fashion isn't purely for profit but can desentise people, yes that's certainly possible. Especially paired with the conscious/sustainable/anti-animal abuse living movement that also includes anti-animal abuse etc. This is what brands and magazines would LIKE us to believe.
But to be clear, it's still only a fringe benefit. Almost like patting yourself on the back for buying that overpriced Ashtrakhan coat because 1% is donated to charity. It's not the main aim for magazines/brands to feature diverse subjects because these magazines are not PETA. Their main aim is to sell a lifestyle and anesthetic. That Versace runway shot of Precious Lee in the lime-green micro mini dress was the most widely shared image on social media from the collection. And while everyone is screaming 'yay, body positivity' rightly so, Versace is still the one coining it because they've once again evolved their 'sexy' signature from female rappers to heroin chic to Gisele and now Precious. Throughout it all, they've remained profitable and that's the bottom line.
It's just hard relating to that "but I haven't seen a Sri Lankan on the cover, or an Mayan model! you're such a hypocrite!".. without feeling like you resent something for becoming a phony charity project but simultaneously.. you do want them to operate like a charity project..?
*cough* Phuel *cough*
