US Vogue February 2021 : Kamala Harris by Tyler Mitchell

[Sweet rus]

It is like the entire global (fashion) population is suffering from a schizophrenic breakdown.

Mediocrity is the price we have to pay for including any and everyone into everything, regardless of innate talent and ability. As long as diversity, not merit (in any field, not just fashion), will be the end goal, and not just a means to an end, this dangerous delusion will continue to grow stronger.


When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no-one...

Thank you so much for this! I would not have said it better. I strongly believe that censorship kills art.
Every single page of magazines these days is about movements, they are filled with inclusion of minorities (only!) to the point where vast majority is completely missing, and they don't even create any cool content with the people they choose. I know I will be shot in the head for this, but how is this diversity? It is so bluntly curated that I have a feeling I am watching (bad) news or political debates. Vogue is not deep, Vogue is a beautiful image, it's inspiration and escape from reality, stop pretending to be something you are not and will never be in order to please people.

 

[WAVES]

It is like the entire global (fashion) population is suffering from a schizophrenic breakdown.

Mediocrity is the price we have to pay for including any and everyone into everything, regardless of innate talent and ability. As long as diversity, not merit (in any field, not just fashion), will be the end goal, and not just a means to an end, this dangerous delusion will continue to grow stronger.

No matter how Wintour tries to spin this recent debacle, Vogue by its very nature is politically incorrect. It is interesting that the one positive quality most people ascribe to her persona, her business acumen, has become her downfall. Wintour is so blinded by profit margins, that she cannot see what irreparable damage she has done to Vogue as an institution.

When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no-one...

PREACH

 

[Bertrando3]

Thank you so much for this! I would not have said it better. I strongly believe that censorship kills art.
Every single page of magazines these days is about movements, they are filled with inclusion of minorities (only!) to the point where vast majority is completely missing, and they don't even create any cool content with the people they choose. I know I will be shot in the head for this, but how is this diversity? It is so bluntly curated that I have a feeling I am watching (bad) news or political debates. Vogue is not deep, Vogue is a beautiful image, it's inspiration and escape from reality, stop pretending to be something you are not and will never be in order to please people.

Can't it be both though?

Look I completely agree with both of you and yes: normally a Fashion magazine should only only be (as far as our society is concerned and how we used to treat fashion magazines til the 2010) about:
- beauty
- clothes
- entertaining topics
- trivial things that have nothing to do with politics, military stuff or global warming etc (again I am not saying it's good that fashion mags don't talk about these things but it's just that it wasn't fashion magazines' territorial til nowadays)

So in our mind (globally speaking worldwide) we ALL thought, when we used to read Vogue, that we wanted to see glamour, rich women, lots of excess, beautiful imagery, great photography with luxury brands and that unattainable fantasy world that exists in our dreams and in the pages of Vogue and Harper's ; therefore very very very few of us (and I included myself back then) wanted to see a Fashion magazine talk about politicians (somehow this type of coverage was more suited in our minds to Time, The New York Times, Elle, more ''serious'' newspapers) or super strong topics such as diversity, sexual awakenings, and all these serious things that we never associated Vogue with.

However and to me it's the big ''however'', Vogue Italia for me was that voice of super creative high fashion magazine PAIRED WITH strong statements, serious topics and always done in a smart and original way so we as readers can still enjoy Fashion for what it seems (trivial, beautiful, entertaining, a creative world) AND YET to also keep an eye and think about serious topics such as politics or global warming. Do you understand my point? Vogue China also had that ''soul'' that Angelica talked about in several video interviews.

I feel that nowadays Fashion magazines are in a terrible situation:
- many people don't buy them as they used to
- people who should be buying them just repost photos on social media and therefore actually contribute to the decline of such magazines
- Fashion magazines want (or are just forced to) to adapt to the times and get a grip on important matters that shooks our world besides dresses and bags but they are being judged for me very harshly
- when magazines during Pandemic in March 2020 started to continue to talk about fashion as if Covid-19 didn't exist were also treated badly for doing so

Therefore in conclusion it's a catch 22: ''d***** if you do and d***** if you don't''. Vogue tries to care about models diversity in sex, age, race, body type and ALLLLLL what the world at large is throwing at Vogue (and at us too 24/7...) wether it feels genuine or not is not really the point now, but it's up to US as readers and consumers and humans or society pieces to say what we want Fashion magazines to be.

(Matrix movie: ''Pill decision moment'' )

A/ Do we want Vogue to be more ''serious'' and to tackle difficult topics and to be grounded and to include more people and to be diverse and to be still on the creative side like in the golden good-old days of Vogue Italia under Franca.

OR

B/ Do we just want Vogue for what it used to stand for during 120 years and to just be a trivial, made-for-rich magazine where the main focus is to appear gorgeous and look beautiful in an alternate reality where the world problem don't exist because Vogue for us should be unapologetic FASHION and nothing else like Vogue Paris now.

Type A or B and you might win a free car and

 

[tigerrouge]

For me, a lot of this can be explained in part by the decision by fashion magazines to chase youth - that print magazines are now designed to appeal to girls, not women, when this goes against the reality of who still buys and reads print magazines.

We're all told about the marketing wisdom of trying to sell to young people - but if you're chasing the money, who has more? A 14-year-old or a 44 year-old? Yet magazines continue to pitch to the younger end of the market, and because they regard this audience as empty-headed idiots, they produce content to match.

To be fair, I wouldn't look to Vogue for an authoritative take on any serious subject - but if you're producing a magazine where you imagine your reader to be in their 30s or 40s, you know you can't get away with presenting them with complete idiocy.

And let's take glamour - when a girl wears it, she's trying it on for size and it often doesn't 'fit' - but when a woman incorporates glamour into her life, it's an expression of her self-identity. It doesn't wear her, she wears it. Glamour means something when we feel it's worn by someone with character, with a story - but when it's worn by a girl, it's the definition of superficial, because it's just a painted layer and no more. So no wonder we don't see it anymore.

Maybe the answer is to move towards a more two-tiered system - where they retain print magazines as their legacy product, and aim them towards the people who will continue to respond to print, while expanding their online content into its own separate 'magazine' and using the power of that to appeal to the younger market, where they'll be able to respond swiftly to the ever-changing moods of the online audience.

 

[Ivancica]

Any info on the content of this issue?

 

[reesewu]

We're all told about the marketing wisdom of trying to sell to young people - but if you're chasing the money, who has more? A 14-year-old or a 44 year-old? Yet magazines continue to pitch to the younger end of the market, and because they regard this audience as empty-headed idiots, they produce content to match.

To be fair, I wouldn't look to Vogue for an authoritative take on any serious subject - but if you're producing a magazine where you imagine your reader to be in their 30s or 40s, you know you can't get away with presenting them with complete idiocy.

That became a wisdom because some 44 year olds aspire to look and feel younger. The zeitgeist of activism that fashion magazines champion in this day and age is not merely because they want to appeal to younger demographic, it’s also catering to the more mature ones who want to be seen as if they are catching up with what the youngsters are doing. Take TikTok for instance. I happen to have their APAC media kit and the people who installed and used them aren’t merely the zoomers as the preconceived consensus claimed to be.

Even if we’re not talking about this era specifically, the more mature ones back in fashion’s “golden era” still aspired to appear younger as evidenced by the usage of extremely young models in magazines and on runways. Why? Well because the 44 year old wants to believe that they could emulate the 14 year old they saw donning the latest Galliano’s Dior or Tom Ford. Or at least that was what editors wanted them to believe.

 

[tigerrouge]

Even if we’re not talking about this era specifically, the more mature ones back on fashion’s “golden era” still aspired to appear younger as evidenced by extremely young most models used to start their career back then. Why? Well because the 44 year old wants to believe that she could emulate the 14 year old they saw in the magazine. Or at least that was what editors wanted them to believe.

If you look back, even young models were dressed in fashions for people older than they were. Their faces might have been free of lines, but the lifestyles they were play-acting in the editorials were those of adults, not teenagers. Vogue was not full of content for adolescents. These days, it is.

 

[reesewu]

If you look back, even young models were dressed in fashions for people older than they were. Their faces might have been free of lines, but the lifestyles they were play-acting in the editorials were those of adults, not teenagers. Vogue was not full of content for adolescents. These days, it is.

I agree, but the fascination with youth is a tale as old as time. We’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that growing older is not something to be proud of. Hence the flattery that comes from phrases like “you look young for your age” or the bombardment of skincare products that promises us to have rejuvenated (read: younger-looking) skin. This time, with the aforementioned zeitgeist of activism, the fascination leans toward the ideas that are being championed by the youth and how someone in their 40s needs to catch up with them out of fear of being mocked with phrases like “ok, boomer” even though they’re not part of the generation (gotta admit, I’ve been guilty of this as well).

I still believe that the reason why it’s so disheartening to see today’s state of fashion is not because fashion is a lot more socially conscious or inclusive. It’s because, when fashion opens the door, they forgot to retain the quality that makes it exciting in the first place and settles for mediocrity. Now, budget can be an issue as well especially when it comes to the business of magazine. The quality that permeates today’s fashion doesn’t entice the feeling of aspiration anymore, hence our collective frustration. It seems as if editors are afraid to evoke aspiration because it appears trivial in today’s era of loving yourself when on the contrary, if done right, it’s a form of empowerment.

 

[tigerrouge]

The zeitgeist of activism - if you’re old, you’re old enough to remember when being consumed with idealistic activism was seen as a natural, almost embarrassing, phase of being adolescent, which everyone was supposed to go through, and then grow out of in favour of a more considered view of the world. You’re not looking back at that phase as being anything remarkable, and you’re not looking at what's on the internet right now, thinking you’re missing out.

What's unnatural is that we've moved to allowing this adolescent way of thinking to rule the roost. People might be saying, what's wrong with idealism and activism? But those things work best when they're blended with some depth. Idealism and activism which doesn't take other people into account is just a different type of self-indulgence. You can tell when 'activism' is about someone loving the sound of their own voice - when they don't allow someone else to have their own.

I've said before, that I think the internet in general encourages people to adopt and indulge a teenage mindset - people basing their identity on their outward appearance because they haven't formed a solid sense of self, randomly ganging up on people online to taunt them, and being obsessed with going further with sex. And so on.

But the human race has spent most of its timeline without the internet, and while it's turned out to be a useful tool, it's not essential to anyone's humanity, and if causes an endemic case of arrested development, then we should individually be putting it in its place in our life, rather than allowing the mentality it fosters to seep into every aspect of it.

Although that is a hugely roundabout way of saying that I'm sick of seeing childish rubbish in print magazines. Fair enough, in ye olden days, keeping a youthful face was emphasised in women's magazines - now the indoctrination attempts to tell you that being an adult in any way is the most undesirable thing in the world. And every man, woman and child now wants to have fewer lines on their forehead.

 

[helmutnotdead]

this whole thread is stressing me out.

 

[Deleted member 141309]

I have been appearing less and less on the forum for a while, because the past couple of months seriously hindered my interest and love for fashion, and this cover (and a couple of others) and the whole direction of fashion are the reason why.

1. I do believe sincerely that Anna is not the problem here, it is the society as a whole, especially in America, her key audience. Checking Twitter, Insta, and Reddit (also, another reason why I decided to stay away from social media), it is clear that the pressure on her is huge. Vogue has always been very forward in term of catching up to the social trends, but right now I believe it is too much to handle even for Anna, (her in particular, because Vogue US is the most important one and everyone is interested in it, if they have any interest in fashion at all, even by saying just "Vogue" we all know someone means Vogue US, not any other Vogue), any other editor would do much worse to handle all of this, or cause a way bigger damage. People expect Anna to be feminist, promote diversity, support LGBTQ+, be sensitive, also show age diversity, and, to do all of that, remain commercial. To remain so, she must be very safe. I am not trying to be the smartest person in the room, but in 2020 being safe and commercial means obligation to have zero conceptual thinking involved for a consumer, or God forbid they will find something to ache over.

2. Before it was the dream, then it was the glamour, and now it is the subject. As long as subject will be central over the glamour + dream, fashion will rot. It applies to the whole industry. Gucci is the subject of Gucci with all the G pattern everywhere, Balenciaga is the subject of Balenciaga with whole sweaters being covered with huge Balenciaga logos, before that the subject of Gucci was a sexy, sensual woman, and yes, some accessories featured prints and logo, especially LV, but it was less about it. We did not need to have it written all over, we knew that red + green stripes are Gucci, we knew that bamboo = Gucci, sensual and sexy femme fatale = Gucci, now... Well, there is vintage grandma thrift store look (which I personally have nothing against), but there are so little pieces without Gs all over them, it is crazy. You know what? about 7-8 years ago when I were buying clothes I am looking for an interesting twist - colour, construction, whatever. Today? I am deliberately looking for pieces that do not scream "LOOK AT THIS BRAND", and I must say it is becoming hard to find.

Same comes for Vogue. Now it is not "Look at this Gucci dress J Lo in Italy is wearing", it is "Look at J Lo in Italy, wearing some pretty Gucci dress". As long as this continues, fashion magazines will fail as fashion magazines, but they would (probably) succeed as political magazines or social/news magazines.

3. Unfortunately for fashion, luxury is a dirty word now. You can have fun and wear expensive clothing, but in moderation. Gone are the days of opulence. There is no more proper luxury in Vogue US (Vogue Paris still tries sometimes). There are no more shots of Crystal Renn stuffing pasta with her bare hands into her mouth or Lara Stone cleaning some boy toy's face from the black caviar that its covered in.

4. This lack of concept is exactly what disrupts the dream. Any concept is there to dream, to tell a story, and now there is no story.

I actually did a two-year long research for my thesis with a complex statistical model that is soon to be published, and let me tell you – the statistics show that the dream of luxury is actually the primary reason people desire it, with aesthetics being second, and then the quality, conspicuousness and etc. come afterwards.

Being blatantly honest, and this is my personal opinion, nowadays there is not much to dream of, especially with social agenda coming above all else. Do I want to be some pregnant overweight woman? As for me - no. Do I want to wear dresses to be "woke" and show how "supportive and open-minded" I am? No. I want to be Edita Vilkeviciute in a black dress and Cartier jewels, standing on a f**king expensive yacht that my daddy owns. I want to be Naomi Campbell in a luxury hotel room with loads of expensive food on my bedside table and petals on the bed sheets. I want to be Tao Okamoto hanging out with my girlfriends and smoking cigarettes. Yes, I am a man, and I want to be a rich, skinny b*tch that has no time to care about problems or what others think and enjoys herself. I do not want to be a celeb that is just hanging out in front of some grey backdrop or, even worse, ugly mix of fabrics.

Frankly, I would rather prefer fashion to make me think, or even to make me sad or angry, rather than what is now - it does not make me feel anything. Yeah, okay, Frances McDormand in some ugly *ss hoodie God knows where or Paloma Elsesser being all about "body-ody-ody" in some random lake. No, thanks, I don't want that. I remember Amber by Klein, where she was shown in various ages, and even being "110" year old she looked sexy, rich, opulent, and all that, and at least that editorial told a story.

Perhaps there is a story in a German shepherd biting a torn stocking of a random model in Vogue Italia or a piece of mozzarella being artistically melted on someone's boobs in some Harley Weir editorial, but no, maybe I am too stupid, but keep that conceptual sh*t away from me, please. Making a dress look like a p*ssy or hanging random fabrics and then saying "Oh, those colours actually represent some ambiguous cr*p nobody really knows about, so I have to explain". No, that doesn't work, and never will.

 

[Benn98]

Frankly, I would rather prefer fashion to make me think, or even to make me sad or angry, rather than what is now - it does not make me feel anything. Yeah, okay, Frances McDormand in some ugly *ss hoodie God knows where or Paloma Elsesser being all about "body-ody-ody" in some random lake. No, thanks, I don't want that. I remember Amber by Klein, where she was shown in various ages, and even be

But if Frances and Paloma's cover didn't make you think about, I dunno, socio-political issues in a fashion sense then isn't that on you? LOL. Because those covers had narratives about how fashion approach to age and shape. They didn't plonk Frances on a beach rock with her ladylike skirt modestly covering her knees (Meryl) or reinforce the cougar/GILF stereotype by showing a younger man in the background like VI did with Lauren Hutton.

Also, the 'random lake' (lol) on Paloma's cover is actually Stan Herman's property and it was both cute and heartwarming to read how chuffed he was that Vogue decided to shoot at his venue.

And I suppose in a way this cover is making people angry, oddly enough for the strangest reasons. Not because it's too much fashion, but because it's too little. LOL. You really can't win. Put her in Chanel HC and they'll scream 'so she's dressed in haute couture, where's our $2000 checks!?!'

 

[LMV]

Being blatantly honest, and this is my personal opinion, nowadays there is not much to dream of, especially with social agenda coming above all else. Do I want to be some pregnant overweight woman? As for me - no. Do I want to wear dresses to be "woke" and show how "supportive and open-minded" I am? No. I want to be Edita Vilkeviciute in a black dress and Cartier jewels, standing on a f**king expensive yacht that my daddy owns. I want to be Naomi Campbell in a luxury hotel room with loads of expensive food on my bedside table and petals on the bed sheets. I want to be Tao Okamoto hanging out with my girlfriends and smoking cigarettes. Yes, I am a man, and I want to be a rich, skinny b*tch that has no time to care about problems or what others think and enjoys herself. I do not want to be a celeb that is just hanging out in front of some grey backdrop or, even worse, ugly mix of fabrics.

i don't mean to be rude but that kind of stuff feels extremely dated to me right now. like i'm not a fan of tyler's photography in any way but i don't want to see someone copying newton for the 1000th time either. fashion's job is in my opinion is to portray the zeitgeist, not to showcase opulence just for the sake of it

 

[aracic]

not to showcase opulence just for the sake of it

I have to disagree. Fashion actually is all about opulence just for the sake of it. Nobody needs a richly decorated and expensive velvet Gucci jacket or an expensive hand-made lace Dior dress. It's not a neccessity, it's a luxury. We buy it and we wear it because we can. Everyone can go and buy cheap clothes that serve the purpose of clothes, but that isn't fashion. If we were going to suddenly pretend that fashion is anything other than an extravagant and unneccessary supplement to life (something that Vogue has been desperately trying to do just to appeal to common masses who won't spend $7 to buy it on the newsstand anyway), then the entire fashion industry needs to be uprooted and rebuilt. I believe that Dior and Gucci's price tags are still far out of majority's reach, so unless I'm very mistaken, all this pretentious 'down-to-earth' accessible fashion shtick is nothing but bull.

 

[GERGIN]

I have to disagree. Fashion actually is all about opulence just for the sake of it. Nobody needs a richly decorated and expensive velvet Gucci jacket or an expensive hand-made lace Dior dress. It's not a neccessity, it's a luxury. We buy it and we wear it because we can. Everyone can go and buy cheap clothes that serve the purpose of clothes, but that isn't fashion. If we were going to suddenly pretend that fashion is anything other than an extravagant and unneccessary supplement to life (something that Vogue has been desperately trying to do just to appeal to common masses who won't spend $7 to buy it on the newsstand anyway), then the entire fashion industry needs to be uprooted and rebuilt. I believe that Dior and Gucci's price tags are still far out of majority's reach, so unless I'm very mistaken, all this pretentious 'down-to-earth' accessible fashion shtick is nothing but bull.

This is it! *claps hysterically in approval*

 

[LMV]

I have to disagree. Fashion actually is all about opulence just for the sake of it. Nobody needs a richly decorated and expensive velvet Gucci jacket or an expensive hand-made lace Dior dress. It's not a neccessity, it's a luxury. We buy it and we wear it because we can. Everyone can go and buy cheap clothes that serve the purpose of clothes, but that isn't fashion. If we were going to suddenly pretend that fashion is anything other than an extravagant and unneccessary supplement to life (something that Vogue has been desperately trying to do just to appeal to common masses who won't spend $7 to buy it on the newsstand anyway), then the entire fashion industry needs to be uprooted and rebuilt. I believe that Dior and Gucci's price tags are still far out of majority's reach, so unless I'm very mistaken, all this pretentious 'down-to-earth' accessible fashion shtick is nothing but bull.

well none of this is really a hill to die on for me, but i do agree that opulence is and has always been part of the fashion industry. and its true that the average person would could never be affordable to the average consumer, but especially the latter's offering in recent years has had a huge impact on how especially gen z dresses like, albeit their clothes being from thrift stores.

what i'm trying to say is that what happens in the outside world will, and in my opinion, should affect the fashion industry too and vice versa. best example of this i can think of is the grunge movement in the 90s. who could ever forget that iconic american vogue editorial w/ kristen and naomi shot by meisel? i guess i just need to have some substance in fashion to really enjoy it and find it remarkable.

 

[RaisinBoy]

not a good shoot. nuff said. no other things to be read into it. sh*t happens, lets move on.
vogue usa however — who even cares!?!?!

 

[Tigerlounge3000]

But if Frances and Paloma's cover didn't make you think about, I dunno, socio-political issues in a fashion sense then isn't that on you? LOL. Because those covers had narratives about how fashion approach to age and shape.

Exactly this. Vogue has always reflected difficult times and women's changing role in society. The "all glam / all the time" expectations of the last few decades isn't actually in keeping with what the magazine was during other turbulent times, like WW2. I've been buying UK Vogue since the '80s and US Vogue almost as long. This newest iteration speaks to me - I'm thrilled to see powerful, demanding women on the cover. I LOVED the Francis cover. Fancy that - an "older" woman looking powerful, strong, and giving zero sh*ts about whether you fancy her or not. As a woman facing down 50 (which I'm sure puts me many decades older than most on this forum) it is a relief to see other ideas about what makes up a woman than simply f*ck-me-chic. And like it or not, Vogue is still one of the biggest forums for what it means to be female.

 

[GERGIN]

Exactly this. Vogue has always reflected difficult times and women's changing role in society. The "all glam / all the time" expectations of the last few decades isn't actually in keeping with what the magazine was during other turbulent times, like WW2. I've been buying UK Vogue since the '80s and US Vogue almost as long. This newest iteration speaks to me - I'm thrilled to see powerful, demanding women on the cover. I LOVED the Francis cover. Fancy that - an "older" woman looking powerful, strong, and giving zero sh*ts about whether you fancy her or not. As a woman facing down 50 (which I'm sure puts me many decades older than most on this forum) it is a relief to see other ideas about what makes up a woman than simply f*ck-me-chic. And like it or not, Vogue is still one of the biggest forums for what it means to be female.

I love and respect this perspective you have. I’m at least happy that some people can appreciate this Vogue even though others (including myself) do not. Maybe over time I will but it does not sit well for me but thankfully there are other publications I can look to that represent the fantasy I want (Vogue Paris).

It will be very interesting to see what transformation Vogue will go through by the end of the decade, along with other commercial print publications...

 

[Tigerlounge3000]

I love and respect this perspective you have. I’m at least happy that some people can appreciate this Vogue even though others (including myself) do not. Maybe over time I will but it does not sit well for me but thankfully there are other publications I can look to that represent the fantasy I want (Vogue Paris).

It will be very interesting to see what transformation Vogue will go through by the end of the decade, along with other commercial print publications...

Yes - it will be interesting! Growing up, pre-internet and pre-constant connection, magazines were a lifeline. I don't fully understand what their future is now, but it will be interesting to see it unfold.