Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by greyeyes, Dec 2, 2009.
NASTY! I like some of the models though.
I like the cover. It's different, unexpected and I love WTF reaction it's producing, it's amateurish but in a good way, twitter pics are like that after all.
I like it. I think there is something scandalous about it. It's shot in a way that makes you believe these photos were NOT supposed to end up on the cover of a popular magazine. Private photos for the public to see. Definitely voyeuristic in a way.
hmm that's actually one of my complaints - the photos chosen (sans maybe one or two) don't actually look voyeristic enough to pull this off. it probably could've been done better. but i think i should wait to see the full ed.
When I read the thread title I was expecting multiple covers. But I kinda like this.
I'm liking the Twitter reference on the cover, it kinda works with the cover shot and concept.
I saw the title of this thread and went WOAH WOAH WOAH!
Then I opened it and I was confused...it's so weird? Which makes it appealing, I dunno? I'm curious to see the ed. I hope there will be at least one blurry picture of a model strutting some runway. That's what I think of when I think about Twitpics: blurry photos of runway shows leaving us all in crazy anticipation
I think the only picture that doesn't really seem to fit is Christy's. The rest is perfect twitter/facebook material. A webcam still (Gisele) a mirror shot (Kasia - who looks a lot like Lindsey Ellingson to me here) a weird angle (Lara) and a picture all those 16 year old girls who are in love with themselfs and their mascara put up as a profile pic (Natalia). Perfectly voyeuristic as far as I am concerned, cause twitter, facebook you name is basically about voyeurism. Getting a sneak peek at someone else's life and these pics represent that perfectly.
It is amateur. All of the girls shot themselves for the twitter story. Kind of a cool concept in all reality. A very similar feeling to January 2007's Youtube story.
^ So it's not shot by Meisel ?
great models, sh!tty cover. it's very myspace-ish, not interesting.
hopefully the content doesn't disappoint.
That's excellent to hear they shot themselfs for the story. Adds a bit of authenticity.
I think we can say it was photographically directed by Meisel? Still counts as far as I am concerned.
I think it's the authenticity that I like about it. It's got just the amount of confusion to make you interested enough to open it. It definitely causes curiosity!
As YAARS stated earlier, the cover is deliberately amateur. I like how this looks. I like the Twitter theme and that the models (and there are a lot of models in this one iirc) took pictures of themselves and faux-tweeted them.
That's my assessment of the situation as well. Even if the girls shot themselves, there was art direction by Meisel and styling choices by Karl Templer.
Hearing this makes me appreciate the cover a bit more, conceptually anyway. But the execution is dreadfully elementary regardless. The cover looks like someone left Photoshop open and my Siamese cat went and slept on the keyboard.
Absolutely. Here's hoping the cover story will impressive.
When i saw the title of this thread, I expected gorgeous, unusual group shot. Damn, it could have been piece of art, great models+Meisel+VI...
I thought a user has done this cover dor the callenge
I could not be happier to see Gisele on the cover of Italian Vogue again! After 8 years! I hope the editorial is really long with more models.
It's bad, but it goes with the Twitter theme. Who looks good on Twitter anyways? Gisele looks so cute. Christy doesn't look her best. She looks like that model -- Jamie something? I feel horrible for saying that.
Same here! But after a few minutes I must admit I love it! Plus it's great to see Gisele and Lara back on the cover, and I'm glad Kasia was finally given a chance!
Thanks for that piece of information, I love it!