US Vogue February 2021 : Kamala Harris by Tyler Mitchell

[THD96]

Funny how this time is only Anna, Anna, Anna but the last is all about Annie, Annie, Annie. It's like Anna photograph the cover herself. Tyler maybe getaway this time, because Anna is clearly a bigger target this time. But if he continue his mediocre gimmicks without put any effort for improvement he will be the target by the same mob that protect him.

Maybe with all this buzz, Vogue will have another bestseller after Harry cover. The only difference is there will be no 12 years old rushing to get this. Personally I already made up my mind, I will not not get this issue.

PS: Nina must be fumming right now cause her cover did not even get 1/3 of the media attention . Oh to be "the most irrelevant Vogue" right now. LOL.

 

[MON]

And now she joins a podcast with NY Times? Truly I tell you, this was all planned. Save us the charades people.

Though I agree, why is Tyler Mitchell immune from woke Twitter criticism? Annie Leibovitz and her entire archive was dragged to filth when Simone Biles' cover was released.

An image is just as good as the photographer. We can clamor for a better cover image, but you can't have one if there's none to begin with.

 

[lucy92]

Maybe it was a similar situation to Testino in The September Issue, where she didn't like the covers but had to make do with what was on hand there's no chance to reshoot.
I bet Tyler hands over the entire film too which must tell you that if these were the best cover tries then what did the rest look like?

I don't think Tyler Mitchell would hand over entire rolls of film or digital work.

Many big name photographers that work on commission only submit a small number of images - it can be a take it or leave it situation contractually.

For example photographer Anton Corbijn (who shoots for Vogue US) destroys additional/alternative images. He has a very high level of control over unpublished work.

My guess is that this is the same for Tyler Mitchell.

 

[tigerrouge]

And now she joins a podcast with NY Times? Truly I tell you, this was all planned. Save us the charades people.

Or we could just accept the bad judgement and poor timing of this moment - a magazine choosing to make one of the most prominent political figures in the land look like they also walk into government buildings and put their feet up on the desk. A moment when American politics needs a renewal of dignity and composure, and Vogue can't deliver with its contribution because it no longer knows what it's about.

 

[Benn98]

I don't think Tyler Mitchell would hand over entire rolls of film or digital work.

Many big name photographers that work on commission only submit a small number of images - it can be a take it or leave it situation contractually.

For example photographer Anton Corbijn (who shoots for Vogue US) destroys additional/alternative images. He has a very high level of control over unpublished work.

My guess is that this is the same for Tyler Mitchell.

I think with the photographers who shoot their covers, there has to be some degree of flexibility. If she could pressure Testino who was one of the most in-demand photographers when he worked for Vogue, who is Tyler Mitchell?
A few years ago Sante D'Orazio said the reason why he only ever shot for Vogue once was that they demanded he hand over the entire film and he refused. And after that episode, they never booked him again.

 

[Xone]

Like MON says it could be all planned and gone wrong but if it was the case it’s weird that Anna denies an previous agreement because it’s calling Kamala and her team liers. So in this “plan” i don’t think anyone would want to be portrayed as a lier.

On the other hand, if MVP chose her clothes, how she cannot expect to be on the cover with one of their looks? Agreement or not agreement...personally i don’t think there was an agreement just she let the Vogue team know her preferences and maybe she thought they would listen to her.

On the other hand VP or not VP, she could have a little more style on her casual way of dressing, that is the duty of the photographer and the stylist....

Anna would never criticize Tyler because it was her choice,even if on her inside she knows that he f*ck it up. They can only apologize and stand by their cover, and that’s what happened.

 

[dodencebt]

Gotta love the "there wasn't a 'formal' agreement" part. What is a formal agreement? Signing a contract?

 

[Serend1pity]

Tyler needs to learn a bit mire before he gets another cover this is so amateur

 

[Kiyoko]

I’m laughing so much because isn’t this cover exactly what the genpop has been pushing for … the unvoguing of Vogue
The celebration of mediocrity continues.

 

[Lola701]

It still boils down to this ultimate question: beyond Beyonce, how on earth did Tyler Mitchell even get to shoot for Vogue more so the covers? If his standard is a representation of that of his generation, I guess we're all doomed.

Nevertheless, a classic Inez & Vinoodh portrait would have been spectacular.

He used to shoot for Teen Vogue if I remember well. I genuinely don’t think the people at Vogue were thinking about him as a potential « main Vogue cover » photographer. Generally, you make a name for yourself and then Vogue come for the stamp of validation.

I think Beyonce wanted a black person photographing her and they just picked him because he is part of the Vogue universe...Considering that there aren’t a lot of household mainstream black Fashion photographers.

 

[Urban Stylin]

Someone is getting thrown under the bus


Yahoo entertainment

Wintour went on to say for her, her favorite part of Harris’s look for the shoot “is that she’s wearing sneakers” with her black Donald Deal pantsuit. She said the outfit belonged to Harris, and that photographer Tyler Mitchell, who also shot Beyoncé and, more recently, Harry Styles for the mag, suggested she wear it. Wintour added that Vogue was “very open” to putting her in something else.

 

[Lola701]

The celebration of mediocrity continues.

What I’m going to say might sounds pessimistic but the mediocrity is general in our societies. There’s a lot of mediocrity in music, in politics, in films AND in fashion.

I wonder why all of you are expecting fireworks from Vogue in a industry where everybody can barely provide firecrackers. It’s been a minute now...

And when I say Vogue, I’m talking about all of them...And particularly the Big 4. Emmanuelle’s Vogue is kinda mediocre but it serves us straight to the point Fashion in an unapologetic way. That’s the only thing that makes her Vogue the best of them all.

Collections are mediocre, campaigns are mediocre. Fashion has killed itself by being so fashionable.

There’s a general glorification of Mediocrity all around the world and the corporatism has made it worse.

Vogue, despite being a corporation, has always managed to pass that image because it was celebrating frivolity and hedonism. The pages of Vogue were about escapism...

We live in a schizophrenic world where people complain about a congresswoman being glamorous on the cover of a magazine while complaining for a woman who presented herself as simple, to actually appear simple on a magazine cover.

I don’t know if people really knows what they wants from Vogue...Or fashion. Do people really wants glamour? Can they handle it? Because the nature of glamour is about frivolity and being unapologetic about it. VP remains « glamorous » because it never tries to appeal to the 60 millions of people in France...

 

[THD96]

What I’m going to say might sounds pessimistic but the mediocrity is general in our societies. There’s a lot of mediocrity in music, in politics, in films AND in fashion.

I wonder why all of you are expecting fireworks from Vogue in a industry where everybody can barely provide firecrackers. It’s been a minute now...

And when I say Vogue, I’m talking about all of them...And particularly the Big 4. Emmanuelle’s Vogue is kinda mediocre but it serves us straight to the point Fashion in an unapologetic way. That’s the only thing that makes her Vogue the best of them all.

Collections are mediocre, campaigns are mediocre. Fashion has killed itself by being so fashionable.

There’s a general glorification of Mediocrity all around the world and the corporatism has made it worse.

Vogue, despite being a corporation, has always managed to pass that image because it was celebrating frivolity and hedonism. The pages of Vogue were about escapism...

We live in a schizophrenic world where people complain about a congresswoman being glamorous on the cover of a magazine while complaining for a woman who presented herself as simple, to actually appear simple on a magazine cover.

I don’t know if people really knows what they wants from Vogue...Or fashion. Do people really wants glamour? Can they handle it? Because the nature of glamour is about frivolity and being unapologetic about it. VP remains « glamorous » because it never tries to appeal to the 60 millions of people in France...

But do you feel "left out" or "never see myself in the pages of Vogue" as the kids say these days. I personally may trolling with Alt about her obsession 80s but I always applause her because she delivered and focus consistently on fashion and escapism in her magazine . Maybe VP is the only one that can get away with the fact that they didn't feature any Asian model on the cover for more than 15 years. VP and EA are the best right now because like "Groundhog Day" they still live in an era where fashion are the main focus in the pages of Vogue. Maybe at some point time will catch-up to them, right now let just enjoy it while we still can.

Us Vogue and AW can't afford that, they always get complaint being elitist so they try to be more "relatable" with all of this. But it's just not enough to some people. The people who complained about Vogue doesn't necessarily buy it so it's doesn't matter what the magazine has become. But fan of the magazine is the one that have to suffer, because now it's just ghost in the shell. But Anna is a survivor, she just like Karl always adapt with time. In the recent times people started asking for more than just fashion in her Vogue so she gave them that. And since the incident happened 7 women of color (5 by flesh, 2 by portraits) have been gracing the covers.

Sometimes I wonder how do the designers that work in the 80s - 90s that still working today feel about the the industry now. They cannot be too thrill because they have to watch every steps or they gonna end up "cancelled". I wish fashion can be more fearlessly provocative like they used to, because only then creativity can truly be in fashion again.

People who love fashion can handle glamour. The real question is does society in general ready to handle a glamorous woman in power? Do they take her serious or they gonna use her loves for fashion and tear it down? People may complained about female politicians on the covers of fashion magazines, but in the end they are "belle du jour" right now since more and more women take the office and in unapologetically show their interest in fashion. But not to interested in it or they gonna call you "Marie Antoinette".

 

[SophiaVB]

It's not a good cover but this image does not warrant the amount of social or press feedback LOL. The subsequent commentary from Anna screams crisis comms.

 

[Kiyoko]

I feel I’m watching an episode of Veep
Kamala allowed herself to be styled & photographed by “the cool kids” & now all the mean girls are pointing & sniggering
Unforgettable portraits / covers are always commissioned by the heavy weights of the industry - imho.

 

[Sweet rus]

Exactly. I've seen some user's comment on how it's good because it's relatable but relatable can be done better than converses and old fabric. To be relatable doesn't mean the magazine has to compromise what it stands for. Maybe that's the problem...Vogue doesn't know what they stand for anymore. Horrible cover.

and what does American Vogue stand for these days? I recently subscribed to 4 fashion/beauty magazines including Vogue (haven't done it for years, as content and quality of paper reminds me of toilet paper), received 3 copies today and each of them is the hymn to political correctness, there is no fashion, left. It is absolutely terrifying, because the fashion bible has turned into a complete garbage. I don't understand how you can take a political leader, a woman who has achieved great success and make it look like she just stopped for a second and has been snapped on her way to the bathroom. Lame, lazy, uninspiring, pathetic and shameful.

 

[ellastica]

Remember W magazine December 2017?

W Digital Edition via Zorka

 

[russianelf]

idk i love the colours on the first one, it looks nice

 

[SanderGreen]

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...

 

[GERGIN]

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...

This, this is it!