KoV
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,236
- Reaction score
- 6,937
When I was an adolescent, the content in Vogue wasn't aimed at me, it was aimed at women with careers, money and choices. The overall picture painted by those pages was that I had this world to look forward to, the world of the adult woman, people in their twenties, thirties and beyond.
The disparity between then and now, in terms of the maturity levels, is there to see, although the erosion has been gradual, and potentially hard to discern, especially depending on why a person bought fashion/womens magazines.
A magazine is an entire world of messages for a woman, on all sorts of levels, but if someone is buying it for a reason, say, for the fashion alone, there may be dimensions of this 'world' they never took note of in magazines, and therefore would never now notice that these dimensions are gone.
Maybe it was aimed at you. Maybe it was selling you a fantasy of adult life, one that felt believable and authoritative because you were a young consumer. I don't think they were photographing a teenaged Britney Spears for the cover of Vogue in order to cater exclusively to a mature reader. The same holds true for a barely 20 Kirsten Dunst promoting a superhero film, the Spice Girls, starlets like Kate Hudson, or even very young Supermodels (18 year old Naomi scoring a September cover, for example). These women (and most others on the cover and inside) did not accurately reflect the world of serious career-minded women. And how did a 50-something woman with a career and/or family feel, seeing that Britney cover? Or models cavorting on a beach? or whatever? It's always been part fantasy, selling that aspirational version of adulthood to their young readers and selling youth to their older readers. The supermodels of the past few decades were largely booking these covers in their 20s, they were partying and jet-setting, not serious. But to young readers, it probably all felt very adult (certainly it did to me).
I imagine now, if I were 15, I might see a fairly established 26 year old international pop star like Dua Lipa as plenty mature, same for Lorde. Rihanna, in her mid-30s, about to be a mother, with decades of work and thriving businesses under her belt would be aspirational. Dr. Jill Biden, Kamala Harris, Olivia Wilde, Kim K. Adele, SJP. Yeah, we get the occasional Kaia or Bella but they're not *that* young and half the time they're discussing social issues, climate change, mental health or whatever the serious topic du jour is. If I open the magazine now I might find articles on motherhood, divorce, career moves, notable artists, writers, politicians, etc. It's all packaged in a commercial, easily-digestible way and they run alongside features on "Euphoria makeup" and Addison Rae, but they're there and there's always been that mix. Things do change, the details, but it feels fundamentally the same to me. As we get older, perspectives shift. The commercialized version of life they sell feels immature because it's marketing, but it's always been that way. Now you just have the perspective gained through life experience to see it for what it is. But you may also have the rose-colored glasses that I think most of us have for nostalgic things, and it's hard to not see the magazines we loved growing up through that lens. That's my take, anyway.
Last edited: