Vogue Australia April 2016 by Mario Testino

[MulletProof]

alright, so.. what's the feature with Tony Albert about? # of pages? GlamVal? couldn't find his name in the fashion stories so I'm assuming his collaboration came as an article?

 

[Bertrando3]

Let's focus on the issue of Racial Diversity for the sake of practicality. Historically speaking Gays weren't flying Women's Rights banners or visa versa. Such polarzing politcal and social issues are best handled one at a time, otherwise everything just becomes muddled. Let's not behave like politicians and bundle 20 different heavyweight, complex issues under one bill.

As an adopted Korean American who has lived in the US since 1989 and collecting American fashion magazines since 1990, I can tell you from experience that exposure to a vast sea of white models year after year is what made "edits, shows and campaigns so homogenous, so predictable, so formulaic, so PC" and not the other way around!

If racial diversity in the fashion industry is indeed PC and "forced" so be it.

Imagine for a moment if fashion magazines or runways only featured MOC with the exception of one or to White models, of course this looks like an afterthought! Back to reality! Wait, this does happen, has happened and will continue to happen for MOC until people demand change and upset the status quo.

The issue at hand is the current white-washed state of every facet of the industry.

So yes, it would be nice to know that the recent strategic rise of MOC in editorials reflected a major shift in ideology rather than fear spurred by public pressure. However it is this very PRESSURE which will hopefully LEAD to a more univeraslly inclusive shift in beauty ideals.

It's about time the images that the Fashion and Beauty industry so meticulously constructs, accurately reflects the beautiful color spectrum of the human world we inhabit.

Thank you for being one of the intelligent people here. I couldn´t have said this better myself, I truly believe in every word you used. People in the streets or HERE who continue thinking that not using MOC is `ok´or just a pure question of the EIC or the photographer or the designer´s aesthetic is pure bullsh*t. As an adopted brazilian french person I keep wanting to see diversity and it´s never forced y´all MOC exist just as people of color too. Fashion is the representation of our world but in a dreamy and more creative way.

 

[Phuel]

Oh wow, well put, Phuell!! If there's one thing which I cannot stand, it's enforced diversity - Prada's A/W15 campaign immediately comes to mind. You had 3 or 4 girls styled identically, all looking fairly clone-like, and then you had Lineisy. It just gave the impression that her casting was an afterthought.
I don't get the gripe aimed at Testino. People seem to forget that every photographer is armed with a creative licence. He's not obliged to incorporate diversity - that's Vogue Australia's duty. If it was so important to them, they should've offered the platform to someone like Roversi, who's subject matter encompasses a range of ethnicities. But they didn't, because they wanted the go-to photographer for the royals, a big name, the guy who shot 180 x Vogue covers. The way I see it, Vogue Australia build this issue around securing Mario Testino. The 'representation of Australia' appears to be a secondary incentive, a bait for him to photograph a selection of his Aussie crushes. I'm sure someone on that staff must've known purely by looking at all the edits and the casting of Lara Stone as the highlight, how poorly represented it all looked.

And yes, it's also high time the concept of diversity should expand beyond racial diversity. It's all you ever hear on TFS - MOC. Whereas, in fact, the industry is taking smaller steps in different ways. For instance, I really appreciate the new wave of models doing the rounds. There's so much individuality, shaved heads, pink hair, frizzy afros....that too is in a way diversity, no? And it gets overlooked so many times on here. Especially when you bear in mind that ten years ago the industry was flooded with 3 very distinctive looks: the babydoll, Amazonian, or and Slavic goddess. That to me was an awful era, hopefully never to be rehashed!

Lineisy is the only new face I’m drawn to; that Prada campaign should be all about her LOL There are so many new faces coming up, and the majority— if not all, just don’t get to me like this woman: She has such an air about her. I’ve always like that high-brow, regal and steely-cool attitude. Lineisy may end up being one-note with after all, but I’m really liking her look for now.

Anyway, yes of course— diversity isn’t just about a cast of models of all colors represented— it’s telling a fashion story with them; so if one issue casts all white models (to tell Mario’s stories— because with someone as famous as him, I would conclude the creative/ art director may have secondary input next to Mario's), the next issue would tell different stories with another group of models— maybe with all MOC, and even older models, models of different sizes... That’s the kind of thoughtful diversity I’m attracted to in high fashion. And this Australia Issue— gotta remember it’s as seen by Mario Testino LOL: It’s a high fashion presentation of Australia. Mario is a high fashion photographer shooting for Vogue— not photojournalist Halim Ina shooting for National Geographic, so please spare be the history and political lecture.

Let's focus on the issue of Racial Diversity for the sake of practicality. Historically speaking Gays weren't flying Women's Rights banners or visa versa. Such polarzing politcal and social issues are best handled one at a time, otherwise everything just becomes muddled. Let's not behave like politicians and bundle 20 different heavyweight, complex issues under one bill.

As an adopted Korean American who has lived in the US since 1989 and collecting American fashion magazines since 1990, I can tell you from experience that exposure to a vast sea of white models year after year is what made "edits, shows and campaigns so homogenous, so predictable, so formulaic, so PC" and not the other way around!

If racial diversity in the fashion industry is indeed PC and "forced" so be it.

Imagine for a moment if fashion magazines or runways only featured MOC with the exception of one or to White models, of course this looks like an afterthought! Back to reality! Wait, this does happen, has happened and will continue to happen for MOC until people demand change and upset the status quo.

The issue at hand is the current white-washed state of every facet of the industry.

So yes, it would be nice to know that the recent strategic rise of MOC in editorials reflected a major shift in ideology rather than fear spurred by public pressure. However it is this very PRESSURE which will hopefully LEAD to a more univeraslly inclusive shift in beauty ideals.

It's about time the images that the Fashion and Beauty industry so meticulously constructs, accurately reflects the beautiful color spectrum of the human world we inhabit.

There’s absolutely nothing practical, nor even necessary about high fashion LOL But if since you’re bringing it up:

I honestly don’t think you’ve even read my support of diversity and MOC—and you're just going by the first line of my last post for the offensive. Where in any of my posts do I ever state that MOC have been the majority and mainstay in high fashion going back to the 80s…???? Who’s saying high fashion shouldn’t “reflect the beautiful color spectrum of the human world we inhabit”????? I’m just bothered whenever there’s an all-white cast in some form of a high fashion presentation, someone is ready to wag their fingers at it in the name of lack of diversity, when they only need to look at another presentation to see diversity is very much a healthy part of modern high fashion: ELLE South Africa casts black models regularly for their covers. Vogue India may not be up to high fashion standards to many, but they only ever cast Indian stars and models for their publication. Vogue China only ever casts Chinese stars for their covers. There are always MOC in most of the European mainstream publications. If some feel that’s not enough exposure for MOC— fair enough of a criticism, but do you prefer MOC in every issue of every international publication? And that’s not at all a singular, homogenous, banal aesthetic to you…? Variety and diversity means more than seeing MOC in everything high fashion. Maybe you’ve mistaken consumer fashion for high fashion?

And why are you bringing the gay identity into this (although I suspect I already know why)? But since you brought it up, let me just say that gays are discriminated by every race, and by both genders, and by every culture and their religion, but that doesn’t mean I don’t support diversity and equal rights, nor do I feel any sense of entitlement or resentment towards any peoples— just being realistic rather than idealistic. And if we can survive all the discrimination and still maintain a fair perspective and a proud sense of self— and become successful individuals, anyone and everyone can as well. It’s not at all easy, but that’s what makes us hopefully all a little more resilient and a little stronger--physically and mentally.

 

[Cosmic Voices]

The amount of essays in this thread, lawd

 

[Aizanara]

I will probably get some hate but I couldn't help myself. The resemblance is so uncanny She looks so uncomfortable... Whoever chose that shot as the cover should be fired.

vogue.com.au

themetapicture

(going to hide now)

 

[Deleted member 1957]

love the eds though it leaves me wondering whether Australia only has 'white' models

 

[DelicateFlower]

And this Australia Issue— gotta remember it’s as seen by Mario Testino LOL: It’s a high fashion presentation of Australia. Mario is a high fashion photographer shooting for Vogue— not photojournalist Halim Ina shooting for National Geographic, so please spare be the history and political lecture.

Just cherry picking here because this part leapt out at me.

If published magazines don't in some way comment on the cultural ethos etc of their time, then what is their point, really? Why should we go out and buy a monthly mag when nowadays we can just get whatever fashion pictures we want from it online anyway (not to mention the whole issue free via torrenting etc)? One thing that got me buying Vogue regularly as a younger woman was the thoughtful articles they often publish, addressing varied issues, from health to personal experience articles to topical ones about political issues etc.

In a semiotic sense even just the pictures in Vogue, any Vogue, any fashion magazine, are telling us stories about what our culture is, what we think our culture is, who we are (or who we want to be, who we're meant to aspire to be?). Who is in those pictures is as important as the fashion story they tell, as both present to us aspects of our culture.

If magazines want to stay relevant in this age of free digital content then they need to be culturally relevant and aware of their place in both reflecting and shaping our society. Or intelligent consumers will consume their fashion and articles elsewhere.

I think any intelligent Aussie Vogue reader would have a right to expect the uttermost best from an issue that is meant to be the 'Australia' issue, and Vogue Australia have effed up to a remarkable degree and in doing so have missed out on riding a patriotic high, missed out on engaging with a wider and younger audience via the publicity a more culturally intelligent and sensitive 'Australia' issue could have attracted.

 

[dsamg]

love the eds though it leaves me wondering whether Australia only has 'white' models

You can stop wondering - that is in fact the case here.

 

[Phuel]

Just cherry picking here because this part leapt out at me.

If published magazines don't in some way comment on the cultural ethos etc of their time, then what is their point, really? Why should we go out and buy a monthly mag when nowadays we can just get whatever fashion pictures we want from it online anyway (not to mention the whole issue free via torrenting etc)? One thing that got me buying Vogue regularly as a younger woman was the thoughtful articles they often publish, addressing varied issues, from health to personal experience articles to topical ones about political issues etc.

In a semiotic sense even just the pictures in Vogue, any Vogue, any fashion magazine, are telling us stories about what our culture is, what we think our culture is, who we are (or who we want to be, who we're meant to aspire to be?). Who is in those pictures is as important as the fashion story they tell, as both present to us aspects of our culture.

If magazines want to stay relevant in this age of free digital content then they need to be culturally relevant and aware of their place in both reflecting and shaping our society. Or intelligent consumers will consume their fashion and articles elsewhere.

I think any intelligent Aussie Vogue reader would have a right to expect the uttermost best from an issue that is meant to be the 'Australia' issue, and Vogue Australia have effed up to a remarkable degree and in doing so have missed out on riding a patriotic high, missed out on engaging with a wider and younger audience via the publicity a more culturally intelligent and sensitive 'Australia' issue could have attracted.

Cherry-pick away, it's is all that’s happening here— rather then acknowledge the larger picture, sadly LOL

Because if you’d like to be genuinely culturally and politically-conscientious and sensitive and address the “intelligent” reader at all times, why even bother with models? The majority of girls and women are not 5’11” and a size 2; The majority of women spending money on these designer clothes are not eternally 20-yo; Why not present women of all ages and sizes? And why bother pimping designer garments that regularly costs in the tens of thousands of dollars— instead of promoting conscientious and sustainable clothing…? Wouldn’t all of these suggestions be the “intelligent” alternative to the thin, tall, pretty young things wearing ultra-expensive rags if you want to get real?

High fashion magazines, just like high fashion, is all an allusion: a luxury, a privilege, an indulgence. Because I indulge in all these things does not make me any less” intelligent” and unaware of the real world. And because I’m OK with an all-white cast of models from time to time does not make me an “unintelligent” individual as has been alluded to, either. I don’t need to learn about the world through my high fashion magazines. I work with, and contribute to various humanitarian organizations, when I have the time from my regular paying-job, from the mainstream ones to the smaller ones that most people are unaware of— unless Vogue writes about them, I suppose. If anyone would like to learn more about these organizations that help mostly women and children mainly from The Third Worldw achieve the basic amenities of life— like clean-drinking water for their village, a simple education so that they may be literate, then they too can learn, and contribute to helping these organizations— even if Vogue doesn’t chose to write about them, rather than finger-wagging at an all-white high fashion edit/issue, or someone like myself for being OK with such an edit/issue.

High fashion and its accompanying publications are not your only sources to learn about the rest of the world. (Nor should it be your only reference to define beauty.)

I’ll leave it at that since those responding to my posts would rather dwell in subtle (and not so subtle) accusations of anyone being OK with an all-white cast as being unintelligent (I’m the only one here with this opinion, so I guess that would be directed at me LOL). I’ll cordially agree to strongly disagree at this point.

 

[MulletProof]

My view on this discussion is quite gray. The issue is a celebration of mainstream Australian culture and its relationship to fashion, it's not a documentary and thank god it's not some nationalistic propaganda on Australian exports. Reason why I don't take offense in one of the biggest international models going there and landing the cover... or Kate Moss being on the cover of the Vogue Brazil anniversary issue. It's about Vogue itself and its presence in one country, and having the big players going there to interpret Australia and celebrate it.

I can't name a single Australian aboriginal model with significant success in the international scene. Putting to one side whose fault is that or whether Mario is a pig for not going out of his way to find one, it's just sadly the current state of things and questioning the morality of the editor for overlooking or neglecting them is trying to find shock in mere surface, when going through agencies' sites and seeing the lack of aboriginal models speaks about a problem that's far more complex than what Vogue Australia has to say for its April 2016 issue.

As for the issue of one of each, tokenisms, racial identification.. that's certainly one way to stimulate integration, which, without significant efforts to erradicate inequality, may or may not have results. It's strongly enforced in the US and it's a valid effort, but it's NOT the only path towards achieving tolerance and equal opportunities. If it works in the US (and fyi, not working wonders), great, but for a lot of countries with similar foundation but different historical elements, including not having turned identity into a commodity, such route would only create more fractions for multiple reasons, so they've gone in other directions, different, maybe slower or less obvious but still valid efforts to face a problem, so this rather authoritarian approach, especially towards non-American publications, not to mention societies, often swings between very sensitive and concerned and very arrogant. It's anchored in mentality, but I do think the idea of imposing a solution to one problem that one country has come up with, for other countries, which seems to be quite a nationalistic trait on its own, should be reconsidered, if only for the sake of toning down the faux outrage towards structures that are layered, gasp, differently.

Back to modeling, I would like to add that Phuel is right in that the proportions in models' bodies are also quite exclusive. Coming from a country with a large indigineous population, I can say that unless mixed, good luck trying to find someone over 5'9 and size 2. These dimensions are not even that common in the place where the prototype comes from, which is Western Europe, and it's somehow the ideal for everyone, but the idea that a more socially conscious modeling scouting will suddenly uncover that population in maybe a Central American jungle where everyone's vertically enlarged.. only in fashion's fantasies.

Having read the feature on Tony Albert (Thanks Zorka! ), some of the questions Anna Funder raises, and the importance of heritage in the interview about MATE Foundation, I think Vogue Australia put a decent effort on the topic considering its limitations. The content is infinitely more valuable than some photoshoot, but the text is sugar-coated and easy enough so that consumers can actually read it and wonder about it. The link between Peru and Australia was a good one and I appreciated Mario's efforts in putting it as an example of an ongoing effort to embrace roots in order to move forward as a society. One thing that did get me scratching my head a little regarding Mario's take is that he's interested in the history and struggles of indigenous and aboriginal populations but claims to be an urban tourist and doesn't like nature.. hm, wouldn't that conflict with understanding? you don't have to love being out in the wild, but you have to see the importance of knowing it and exposing it because in North and South America, and I assume Australia too, that's where the struggles take place, in remote, isolated regions. Besides, personal view, but to be from the American continent (or Australia) and not love nature or find the vastness of landscapes too adventurous?.. not the first time I heard that, but..sighs..

 

[DelicateFlower]

Cherry-pick away, it's is all that’s happening here— rather then acknowledge the larger picture, sadly LOL

Because if you’d like to be genuinely culturally and politically-conscientious and sensitive and address the “intelligent” reader at all times, why even bother with models? The majority of girls and women are not 5’11” and a size 2; The majority of women spending money on these designer clothes are not eternally 20-yo; Why not present women of all ages and sizes? And why bother pimping designer garments that regularly costs in the tens of thousands of dollars— instead of promoting conscientious and sustainable clothing…? Wouldn’t all of these suggestions be the “intelligent” alternative to the thin, tall, pretty young things wearing ultra-expensive rags if you want to get real?

High fashion magazines, just like high fashion, is all an allusion: a luxury, a privilege, an indulgence. Because I indulge in all these things does not make me any less” intelligent” and unaware of the real world. And because I’m OK with an all-white cast of models from time to time does not make me an “unintelligent” individual as has been alluded to, either. I don’t need to learn about the world through my high fashion magazines. I work with, and contribute to various humanitarian organizations, when I have the time from my regular paying-job, from the mainstream ones to the smaller ones that most people are unaware of— unless Vogue writes about them, I suppose. If anyone would like to learn more about these organizations that help mostly women and children mainly from The Third Worldw achieve the basic amenities of life— like clean-drinking water for their village, a simple education so that they may be literate, then they too can learn, and contribute to helping these organizations— even if Vogue doesn’t chose to write about them, rather than finger-wagging at an all-white high fashion edit/issue, or someone like myself for being OK with such an edit/issue.

High fashion and its accompanying publications are not your only sources to learn about the rest of the world. (Nor should it be your only reference to define beauty.)

I’ll leave it at that since those responding to my posts would rather dwell in subtle (and not so subtle) accusations of anyone being OK with an all-white cast as being unintelligent (I’m the only one here with this opinion, so I guess that would be directed at me LOL). I’ll cordially agree to strongly disagree at this point.

Hey hey, you seem to have taken what I've said personally, particularly regarding intelligence? My comment was discussing an aspect of what you said because I found it interesting to think about and respond to - in no way do I think you're an unintelligent person. I think you've raised a lot of interesting, valid and intelligent points that help contribute to the general discussion.

I personally think that the Vogue Australia team and Testino should have embraced more diversity etc in this issue for various reasons - that is my merely opinion, as your opinion (that you have backed up well) is your opinion.

And yeah I'm cherry picking here again because I'm about to run about the door! Lol. Don't even have time to read and respond to any other comments. Happy Easter Monday everybody!