Vogue Italia June 2008 : Linda Evangelista by Steven Meisel

[BerlinRocks]

what i find frustrating about this issue is it's just another example of what's happening in major fashion publications (even the ones often called 'on the verve'). actually it's the same happening with grand Fashion houses. repetitiveness, nostalgia, blankness. vogue italia doesn't care to bring something thoughtful and new anymore. all it does is throwing some furs and diamonds to you saying 'hey baby! look what a fancy stuff we have here. go, play, kiddo'. and it's not funny anymore.
the same old song about glamorizing the old-school glamour (the next most unnecessary thing to reinvention of a bicycle). the same old-fashioned salons (whether it's your grand palace next door, super-chic dusty hotel or some sort of kitschy mansion lost somewhere in Monaco). the same opulence for the opulence's sake, the same hysteria of over-consumption of everything hot, exclusive, one-of-a-kind, therefore, luxurious. is this what VI used to tell? is this what we want to hear about?
back in the 90s fashion people were blamed in glamorizing heroin chic. and what do we see in the major editorial in this issue? a lonely, un-wanted, un-needed Linda, burried alive in her jackets, dresses, jewels and furs. the only alive creatures around her are those untitled dogs which are hardly her friends, just another fancy things she can entertain herself with. she's bored, she's lost in between those rich interiors where anybody would hardly bother looking for her. money as the only vital force, the cause and effect of her life. and nothing more out there, out of this super-comfort shelter. is this the life VI finds worth of glamorizing? i thought these days of super-wealthy grand-dames are sooo gone. i must have been mistaken.
with this continuous nostalgic feel that has conquered pages of VI some time ago the only word that comes into my mind is 'stagnation' (God, forgive me my unfinished economic education). and it's not the best word to deal with in fashion because it automatically diminishes another great words, 'inspiration' for example.
dear VI, don't you think it's time to breath again?

it's tough and though i like Linda's ed (mainly a nostalgic feeling....), you've raised there interesting things about actual fashion editorials - because, imo this post is not only for VI.....

 

[Common_1031]

atleast its a model

 

[Snow-White]

Linda looks a bit old .. especially in the last picture of The Duchess shoot

 

[livvv]

Firstly, all the ed pictures look better on the VI website and I guessing even better in print. The concept is interesting, and Linda did a good job in portraying a mature and regal character. Its not the most amazing ed, and of course she's not looking like a spring chicken. But for those who complain about revisiting nostagia, mordernity is at times a reinvention of things past. Also the manner of photography emulates the time of grand dames like babe paley or barbara hutton, those one would see in Life magazine.

 

[Lackuiew]

Oh Jesus ! The eds inside are absolutely amazing...I love all of them , except for Linda's. Linda by Meisel reminds me so much of what was popular in 90s, nothing new and creative , the cover is also bad . I don't see any ageism , because you can choose the model you prefer . She is not young , that is the truth .IMO her best appearance for VI is Jul.05 " Makeover Madness" , and then it"s OVER !

 

[kissmesweet]

The editorials are promising; I'm looking forward to seeing more.

 

[adorefaith]

what i find frustrating about this issue is it's just another example of what's happening in major fashion publications (even the ones often called 'on the verve'). actually it's the same happening with grand Fashion houses. repetitiveness, nostalgia, blankness. vogue italia doesn't care to bring something thoughtful and new anymore. all it does is throwing some furs and diamonds to you saying 'hey baby! look what a fancy stuff we have here. go, play, kiddo'. and it's not funny anymore.
the same old song about glamorizing the old-school glamour (the next most unnecessary thing to reinvention of a bicycle). the same old-fashioned salons (whether it's your grand palace next door, super-chic dusty hotel or some sort of kitschy mansion lost somewhere in Monaco). the same opulence for the opulence's sake, the same hysteria of over-consumption of everything hot, exclusive, one-of-a-kind, therefore, luxurious. is this what VI used to tell? is this what we want to hear about?
back in the 90s fashion people were blamed in glamorizing heroin chic. and what do we see in the major editorial in this issue? a lonely, un-wanted, un-needed Linda, burried alive in her jackets, dresses, jewels and furs. the only alive creatures around her are those untitled dogs which are hardly her friends, just another fancy things she can entertain herself with. she's bored, she's lost in between those rich interiors where anybody would hardly bother looking for her. money as the only vital force, the cause and effect of her life. and nothing more out there, out of this super-comfort shelter. is this the life VI finds worth of glamorizing? i thought these days of super-wealthy grand-dames are sooo gone. i must have been mistaken.
with this continuous nostalgic feel that has conquered pages of VI some time ago the only word that comes into my mind is 'stagnation' (God, forgive me my unfinished economic education). and it's not the best word to deal with in fashion because it automatically diminishes another great words, 'inspiration' for example.
dear VI, don't you think it's time to breath again?

this is a really thoughtful post...and it made me think!....thank you...

 

[mikel]

what i find frustrating about this issue is it's just another example of what's happening in major fashion publications (even the ones often called 'on the verve'). actually it's the same happening with grand Fashion houses. repetitiveness, nostalgia, blankness. vogue italia doesn't care to bring something thoughtful and new anymore. all it does is throwing some furs and diamonds to you saying 'hey baby! look what a fancy stuff we have here. go, play, kiddo'. and it's not funny anymore.
the same old song about glamorizing the old-school glamour (the next most unnecessary thing to reinvention of a bicycle). the same old-fashioned salons (whether it's your grand palace next door, super-chic dusty hotel or some sort of kitschy mansion lost somewhere in Monaco). the same opulence for the opulence's sake, the same hysteria of over-consumption of everything hot, exclusive, one-of-a-kind, therefore, luxurious. is this what VI used to tell? is this what we want to hear about?
back in the 90s fashion people were blamed in glamorizing heroin chic. and what do we see in the major editorial in this issue? a lonely, un-wanted, un-needed Linda, burried alive in her jackets, dresses, jewels and furs. the only alive creatures around her are those untitled dogs which are hardly her friends, just another fancy things she can entertain herself with. she's bored, she's lost in between those rich interiors where anybody would hardly bother looking for her. money as the only vital force, the cause and effect of her life. and nothing more out there, out of this super-comfort shelter. is this the life VI finds worth of glamorizing? i thought these days of super-wealthy grand-dames are sooo gone. i must have been mistaken.
with this continuous nostalgic feel that has conquered pages of VI some time ago the only word that comes into my mind is 'stagnation' (God, forgive me my unfinished economic education). and it's not the best word to deal with in fashion because it automatically diminishes another great words, 'inspiration' for example.
dear VI, don't you think it's time to breath again?

You make some interesting points about the ed. The way you talk about it reminds me about the way people responded to Meisels iconic Versace campaign with Amber and Georgina.

Maybe is was not the intention of VI to glamourize the life you describe so perfectly. I think they made it so over the top to give it a sense of irony and satirize the life of those rich women.

But the fact remains that it is not very original of Meisel because he has done stuff like this countless times before (like with the Versace campaign).

I still like it though. The combo of Linda and Meisel can do no wrong in my book.

 

[MulletProof]

brilliant post, j'adorekapusta.

 

[betty_s]

I'm not sure Betty meant that, but I agree with the general sentiment.

Yes, c'est magique, I don't think everything that Linda is in, is automatically amazing. I've seen some stuff of hers in the past couple of years that have definitely under-whelmed me.

I guess for me it was a little less about the editorial than a chance to put into perspective the importance of Linda in the pantheon of modeling and what a magazine and photographer as powerful as VI and Steven Meisel are trying to say (along with Miuccia Prada, for the fall) when they do shoot her.

But at the end of the day, the fact that it's inviting such thoughtful and passionate responses (both for and against the shoot) is a wonderful thing, like j'adorekapusta's. When I said before that Linda lives and breathes fashion, for me the tFS community is the embodiment of that..

I am honored to have some part in this community!

Betty
MDC

 

[tocceve]

^sorry the first sentence in my post was just in general and I don't remember why I quoted your reply but I think I was about to response to it but in the end my post went in another direction

I just wanted to pouint out that it could have been any model, the cover does nothing for me but the editorial seems to be okay (not good for Vogue Italia standards but okay) now that I've seen it.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

j'adorekapusta i always enjoy reading your thoughts, specially on styling in editorials, and you made some excellent points there.

 

[j'adorekapusta]

But at the end of the day, the fact that it's inviting such thoughtful and passionate responses (both for and against the shoot) is a wonderful thing, like j'adorekapusta's.

the thing is that i'm not that negative about the editorial itself. i don't criticize it and my first comment was about not the editorial for what it is but the things it represents to me. as for the whole ed i find it quite a good job but not that special to pray for. i mean when such people as meisel and linda collaborate you expect the sun, the moon and the stars to fade away. this didn't happen to me. maybe i'm just a bit spoiled with great imagery nowadays, maybe that's just not my cup of tea. but it in no way means it's good or bad.
anyway, thank you everyone for paying so much attention on my post. these are the things i keep on thinking for a while. i guess it's all because of the exchange rate. lol

 

[mademoiselle_]

Contradiction all over!!
"it's very repetitive, nothing new, 90's nostalgic"
shall we bring Coco Rocha to the cover and ed with futuristic clothes? I bet that's NOT repetitive

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

what i find frustrating about this issue is it's just another example of what's happening in major fashion publications (even the ones often called 'on the verve'). actually it's the same happening with grand Fashion houses. repetitiveness, nostalgia, blankness. vogue italia doesn't care to bring something thoughtful and new anymore. all it does is throwing some furs and diamonds to you saying 'hey baby! look what a fancy stuff we have here. go, play, kiddo'. and it's not funny anymore.
the same old song about glamorizing the old-school glamour (the next most unnecessary thing to reinvention of a bicycle). the same old-fashioned salons (whether it's your grand palace next door, super-chic dusty hotel or some sort of kitschy mansion lost somewhere in Monaco). the same opulence for the opulence's sake, the same hysteria of over-consumption of everything hot, exclusive, one-of-a-kind, therefore, luxurious. is this what VI used to tell? is this what we want to hear about?
back in the 90s fashion people were blamed in glamorizing heroin chic. and what do we see in the major editorial in this issue? a lonely, un-wanted, un-needed Linda, burried alive in her jackets, dresses, jewels and furs. the only alive creatures around her are those untitled dogs which are hardly her friends, just another fancy things she can entertain herself with. she's bored, she's lost in between those rich interiors where anybody would hardly bother looking for her. money as the only vital force, the cause and effect of her life. and nothing more out there, out of this super-comfort shelter. is this the life VI finds worth of glamorizing? i thought these days of super-wealthy grand-dames are sooo gone. i must have been mistaken.
with this continuous nostalgic feel that has conquered pages of VI some time ago the only word that comes into my mind is 'stagnation' (God, forgive me my unfinished economic education). and it's not the best word to deal with in fashion because it automatically diminishes another great words, 'inspiration' for example.
dear VI, don't you think it's time to breath again?

wow this is not only thoughtful but kinda true

 

[alix*]

Linda is looking extremely dead in all the photos.... not very impressive.

Love the sound of Anja by Summerton and Anabela by Sorrenti!

 

[ultramarine]

It reminds me of old photos from Vogue .... esp the work of a photographer ... Mapplethorpe?

 

[nuehomme]

it'll be great if vi continues to use sofi berelidze and giedre

i think both of their work was great

 

[RochaLover]

The Linda Editorial reminds me so much some Daria's photos from Vogue US

 

[ysljunkie]

As for the cover and main ed. I like it. Reminds me of the older Vogue-a bit more simple