The reason why she's getting so much flak over her public image is because, as the Madonna-quins rightly rant, she's got complete autonomy to do as she please. And as with most things in life, that can be both a gift and a curse. If you've made a career out of reinventing yourself every 5 or so years, don't be shocked when others point out when you're stuck in a state of regressive stasis.
Also, she's surrounded by a team of yes-men. Supposed 'stylists' and 'photographers' who simply kowtow to every demand regardless of how stale, disjointed and overrated it may be. There's a huge disconnect with these images, and not even in a cool soft/hard light/dark kind of way. The shot of her and the girls running through the garden, the one with the buggy, these show a romantic side to her which I probably saw last when Testino shot her and Lourdes for Vanity Fair. A full edit only with that would've been refreshing for her. Then you have the rest of your usual fetishised Madonna x M&M/L&I gaudiness with a heady dose of photoshopping, of course. Who's still asking for that?
I always find these high-profile celebrity family pictorials very interesting because in many cases it shows just how carefully people craft their image and what message they're trying to send. It's an PR exercise after all, so the message they're trying to send is always intriguing. In this case, how the kids are styled (vaguely late 1800s), the activities, her positioning in the family pics, it's all very.......interesting. I'll just leave it at that.
Anyway, there's one screen-cap showing a profile shot, with flowers covering half of her face. That would've been perfect for the 2nd cover instead.