US Vogue Summer 2024 : Kendall Jenner by Mert Alas & Marcus Piggott

[Creative]

I never said you were wrong in your prediction of nepotism being here to stay or it being an old fact of life. I simply said, we are all entitled not to accept this and it is only the sign of a healthy mind to do so. Poverty is also normal and it's here to stay, yet I'm still not going to accept social injustice.

If people hadn't "cried" for racial inequality and segregation to end (people like you also said it was there to stay), then we wouldn't have the world we have today.

What I find both hysterical yet ironic is that someone who calls themselves 'Creative' loves to think inside the box. It's the very antithesis of the word. Imagine all the people...................................

Actually, going against nepotism is thinking inside the box, since it’s obvious nobody likes it. You just have to read TFS, people have been complaining about it since… forever, and I’ve been here since 2006/7.

Accepting nepotism as a part of fashion is just healthy, and even more these days. It’s the same in the cinema world, sometimes also in football, in music…

What can we do? They are all private companies, they chose the people they like and the people that sell. And even when there is no nepotism, there is always somebody that can do better. You are going to tell me Agyness Deyn is better than Kendall…

 

[blueorchid]

Sure, in nepotism, people end up doing the work, but you fail to see the matter of things. The question is, is it the best quality of work possible and does it deliver the same outcome as if you grant someone the opportunity to work on it without the connections, social status, etc? The fashion industry would be a million times more inspiring than it is now, yet you fail to see the core problem.

No offense, but I don't think you read my post. How do I fail to see "the matter of things" or "the core problem"? I wasn't responding to YOUR question about creative work in the first place. Yet you read my post and projected A LOT of meaning into it that I did not say. Do you think we all live in a vacuum or something where this is all avoidable?

 

[philophile]

But isn't it more about the media attention they bring rather than actual sales? Print doesn't sell and I don't think anyone can change that. Having Kendall on cover won't generate sales (aside from Kris buying 40 issues to stack them on table) but will definitely impact the digital engagement.

The logic of the industry is: the more exposure to more people (due to controversies, hype, or more followers, especially because of side gigs as reality TV, acting, etc)= more sales. However, perhaps they are focusing on digital engagement after all.

Yes, companies only do what is only right for them in order to survive, because they need to grow each year. This is Rand's rational egoism approach in practice, which is ridiculed in Europe and by any deep thinking, reasonable person. But we are now seeing the results of that and so many aren't happy with it and for a damn good reason. The system needs to change.

 

[philophile]

Accepting nepotism as a part of fashion is just healthy, and even more these days. It’s the same in the cinema world, sometimes also in football, in music…

2+2=5

 

[philophile]

No offense, but I don't think you read my post. How do I fail to see "the matter of things" or "the core problem"? I wasn't responding to YOUR question about creative work in the first place. Yet you read my post and projected A LOT of meaning into it that I did not say. Do you think we all live in a vacuum or something where this is all avoidable?

Apologies if I misread your post.

 

[blueorchid]

Yes, companies only do what is only right order to survive, because they need to grow each year. This is Rand's rational egoism approach in practice, which is ridiculed in Europe and by any deep thinking, reasonable person.

Do you think any of these "deep thinking, reasonable people" are working for multinational business conglomerates? LOL. Even in elevated Europe?

 

[philophile]

Do you think any of these "deep thinking, reasonable people" are working for multinational business conglomerates? LOL. Even in elevated Europe?

I don't. Rational egoism is a philosophically stillborn ideology and proven a million times so. Humans are social by nature. Rational egoism is antisocial at core.

 

[ivano]

I separate the case of Kendall of Gigi, Bella and Kaia. The last three have deliver better because I can see they have a genuine interest in being fashion models and do a better job the next time. They're not perfect, but they're not in the same place as the start. There's no evolution with Kendall, and her case is pretty rare. Sign of the times for sure.

 

[matheus_s]

Ok, ok… but when this Will be out?

 

[Toni Ahlgren]

Totally irrelevant but from this clan, Kim and Kylie are far more superior as models.

 

[kasper!]

Tabitha Simmons is so overrated.

 

[default99]

She looks beautiful, but also like a robot. I'm over the reality tv LA face, but this is not a bad cover at all. Editorial is decent as well. Take away the boxing, karate pose, and weird rock one and it's a solid story.

 

[tigerrouge]

I get that digital matters more - but if that's the case, then Conde Nast should stop wasting resources and go entirely digital - and see how long they remain a 'leading name' when they're operating on the same level as players who are far more agile.

Because the only thing that differentiates Conde Nast from the younger media companies is their history and those 'heritage products' - their print magazines - which they allow to limp along as an afterthought, even though they're still essential to the company's standing and success, but in a different way to how they were before.

 

[NYLA22]

I get that digital matters more - but if that's the case, then Conde Nast should stop wasting resources and go entirely digital - and see how long they remain a 'leading name' when they're operating on the same level as players who are far more agile.

Because the only thing that differentiates Conde Nast from the younger media companies is their history and those 'heritage products' - their print magazines - which they allow to limp along as an afterthought, even though they're still essential to the company's standing and success, but in a different way to how they were before.

I was just looking through the September 2001 issue, and in the feature well (one of the main stories) was a fascinating and beautiful story "Ornaments of Virtue: A historic exhibition of Renaissance dowry portraits shows young Florentine beauties at the peak of their social splendor..." And it was centered around an exhibit at the National Gallery in Washington DC. It was really so interesting and educational, relating Renaissance women and fashion to the theme of modern times. And it's unthinkable that anything like that would be published in Vogue today. What depressed me about it is knowing that that kind of thing, that kind of story, won't ever come back. I'm not sure where you'd look for such a story (combing history, fashion, art in a beautifully laid out way) now.

 

[blueorchid]

@NYLA22 Another sad thing to realize is that it just isn't Vogue, it's not just Vanity Fair, it's the majority of magazines. They used to be so interesting, providing different stories than what you'd find in a newspaper vs a book. Magazines were are little glimpses into other lives. I think a lot of magazine fans are mourning what used to be. I mean, Sports Illustrated, Rolling Stone, Time etc. all used to be important magazines. Now what are we left with.

 

[GERGIN]

Saw this copy on newsstands. Very boring content but another stunning D&G campaign for Pre-Fall 2024 with Lulu Tenney and photographed by Steven Meisel.

 

[crmsn]

Saw this copy on newsstands. Very boring content but another stunning D&G campaign for Pre-Fall 2024 with Lulu Tenney and photographed by Steven Meisel.

Another Meisel edit? Edward's departure did Anna a huge favor, though I want him to shoot for a cover just to see if his photograph still looks good with the current US layout (When was the last time he shot a US Vogue cover again? I can't remember.).

Do you know its page count, Gergin?

 

[Mr Yayo]

Saw this copy on newsstands. Very boring content but another stunning D&G campaign for Pre-Fall 2024 with Lulu Tenney and photographed by Steven Meisel.

Oh wow. Cannot wait to see Lulu’s ad

 

[Jvo723]

Saw this copy on newsstands. Very boring content but another stunning D&G campaign for Pre-Fall 2024 with Lulu Tenney and photographed by Steven Meisel.

Would love to see the meisel ad too. Any more new ads that you can remember?

 

[Urban Stylin]

People forget that with the likes of Kendall the magazine gets a 3 in 1 package as opposed to using a strictly high fashion model. They get a model, celebrity and insta star. Meaning the cover will be talked about and create hype and relevance for Vogue which is what their advertisers and suits want to see. Gen Z may not be buying magazines but they are buying the Balenciaga shoes and tiny Valentino bags and are the army Anna needs to create stars by them supporting that particular person on social media. We are in the era where even a celebrity cover has to really be a popular celebrity to create any hype otherwise the magazine becomes a fossil. Complaining about Reality stars, Nepo babies, Insta celebs, Kpop stars and now even Youtubers and Tiktokers is all in vain because all that matters is how much it trends. It has gotten to the point of Hollywood injecting in the random trending instaceleb to a tv show or movie to get more eyes. I remember in the 90s it was the same thing when people complained about the supermodels over exposure, then in the 2000s people complained that baby dolls and the Prada robot girls didn't have personality as the Brazilians then in the 2010s people complained that the new breed of Binx, Adwoa, Selena Forest, Mona Tougaard etc lacked charisma.