Britney is an icon. Plus her complete disregard for fashion has become iconic in itself.
Today it seems you only have to go to any one extreme and be lauded as "iconic". I'm not denying Britney Spears is an icon, but her particular lack of style or interest in fashion isn't what has made her "iconic".
Eh. I, for one, am not thrilled with either these covers or that Britney Spears is on them. I might've known Mario Testino would be booked to shoot her; the preview looks trite, safe and ultraboring. The monocoloring of her photos is irritating as well. It's eye-catching on the cover, but when it extends to the entire ed I feel cheated out of proper pictures.
The word 'relevant' needs to be banned around here I think! She has a new album coming out, and once was one of the biggest stars in the world... I think, like people like Madonna, she's always going to be somewhat 'relevant'. There are plenty of people who still want to read about her I'm sure, and didn't her single break records the other week? I know Lady GaGa then broke them again, but still. She's still around, she's still big.
I see where you're coming from, but just because you're producing new material doesn't make you "relevant". Sure, Britney's historical relevance in music and entertainment has long since been cemented, but that she has an album coming out (the previews of which have so far sounded dated and uninspired -- but perhaps that's just me) which her fans are touting doesn't
automatically make her
currently "relevant", especially in the case of someone like Britney Spears, whose large core fanbase is notorious for its rabidness.
That said, "relevant" or not, why not Britney Spears? I don't see why magazine cover subjects always have to
be so very currently relevant in order for him or her being featured to be seen as acceptable. Where's the surprise in that? My only beef with Britney Spears being on the cover here (in addition to the fact that I don't particularly like her) is that she is supposedly back at last and "better than ever", which I think is more than a little presumptuous, considering she was previously "back" both with
Blackout and
Circus, neither of which were really any comparative match for her early career successes (or the commercial and critical successes of certain other pop artists then or today). Now feels premature for a "comeback announcement", and the timing reduces this to little more than album promotion. And while I don't have much against promotion per se, I think I'll wait for the sales and radio play figures for her album to come in before I really believe "the b*tch is back".