The cover is not for me at all. I agree with the ones saying Julianne Moore is always photoshopped to the hilt for almost all her covers. Besides that, the actual cover looks too much like Bazaar. The digital backdrop, the composition. But I'm more puzzled at the random choice to shoot archival Tom Ford. Nothing wrong with that inherently, but why go for such a generic look? If I didn't read the coverline I wouldn't have known she's wearing Gucci. Surely there are more statement looks, maybe as the 97' cutout dress?
As for the arbitrary 'Most Iconic' list, I'm assuming it was done by and for a Millenial/Gen Z because you can't have this conversation without including at least one of Cher's many iconic looks, JLo's Versace which imo was the formal start of Donatella's personal signature, Renee Zellweger's ivory Herrera which signaled the return of more conservative and ladylike 00s dressing, Halle Berry's Elie Saab and how it paved the way for his embroidered sheer aesthetic which would eventually become the bread and butter of many other brands, Natalie Portman's Lanvin which is the one dress to fully encapsulate Alber's tenure, and personally, Cate Blanchett in Dior under Galliano which for me is far more interesting than Cate x Armani. These are dresses which shaped not only the style of the women who wore them but also the industry and pop culture at large. As much as I like Nicolas, I never get the following behind that Balenciaga dress. It's a very simple look and came at after years of Herrera, Klein, Lauren and Kors dominating the red carpet with their conservative codes. So what's the statement here? Was it because it's everything that his designs weren't at the time?
This would have been such a great opportunity for InStyle to educate their readers instead of overloading them with dresses which already feature on their feeds.