Vogue Philippines April 2023 : Apo Whang-Od by Artu Nepomuceno

[crmsn]

 

[romervogue]

Preview:



Producer: Anz Hizon. Production Assistants: Jojo Abrigo, Marga Magalong, Renee De Guzman. Photographer’s Assistants: Aaron Carlos, Choi Narciso, Sela Gonzales. Special thanks to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.

vogue.ph

 

[romervogue]

Preview:



shopee.ph

 

[Kimy Jo]

Cute lady!

 

[crmsn]

I checked the digital edition of this issue and it's stacked with six original beautiful editorials inside. I can't wait to receive my copy already!

I had qualms when I discovered that they're going to put Apo on their April cover since I can't see her wearing pieces by local designers, but I must admit that it is a captivating portrait by Artu.

I really hope that their know-it-all, hating followers are happy now since they did not only feature a full-blooded Filipina on their cover but an actual indigenous legend. Is she the oldest Vogue cover star at 106?

 

[marsnoop2]

I think Vogue has definitely lost its brand. I think this is a BEAUTIFUL cover, but is it Vogue? Idk I just feel that with the need to appeal to everybody it just means a loss of identity for many brands.

 

[penny609]

I think Vogue has definitely lost its brand. I think this is a BEAUTIFUL cover, but is it Vogue? Idk I just feel that with the need to appeal to everybody it just means a loss of identity for many brands.

I was thinking something similar actually. The cover itself is beautiful, there is not a single shadow of doubt about this fact but I don't call it Vogue. Sure, as a magazine, and like everything else, it has to evolve and embrace new paths, but without losing its core identity. If it were the cover of a new magazine, I'd be the first to admire the brave and beautiful cover choice. But it's Vogue, may it be an edition that doesn't have a long history yet, and as you said, it feels like the Vogue brand -as a global whole- desperately wants to please everyone...

 

[lightblue]

This is not Vogue.

 

[MON]

Immediate goosebumps when I saw this. No other magazine have dared. A must have!

 

[Idyll]

stunning!

 

[Deleted member 1957]

They are beautiful pictures but the style in which they are shot is giving more of documentary than fashion.

 

[Bertrando3]

I think Vogue has definitely lost its brand. I think this is a BEAUTIFUL cover, but is it Vogue? Idk I just feel that with the need to appeal to everybody it just means a loss of identity for many brands.

Absolutely agree. Vogue used to represent:
- the best of the best
- the wealthy life
- the most elegant and rich people
- the most unattainable life that we could only dream to get a glimpse of from reading Vogue
- the most beautiful models

Now BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE of society and NORMCORE TREND, Vogue represents:
- people from 7 to 77 years old
- men are heavily featured inside and on the cover
- genders A,B,C,D etc.
- sizes 0 to 16
etc.

Therefore Vogue has lost its identity / edge / prestige. I'm not saying it's bad that Vogue wants inclusivity in races / genders / sizes and wants to be WOKE so badly but nevertheless VOGUE for me and millions is NOT National Geographic. I mean I am always shocked to see what Anna Wintour presents in her Vogue now versus what she used to present. People might hate exclusivity or rich people or not being able to see every color and every size and every gender in EVERY SINGLE EDITORIAL OR PAGE of Vogue but it isn't Vogue or any FASHIONNNNNNN's magazine's mission to actually be like an mirror of the world.

I like to see every height, gender, color, age in real life or in books or in movies but a FASHION MAGAZINE was or is supposed to be this ''exclusive'' / ''special'' / ''out of this world'' type of world and that's for that snobiety that I used to buy Vogue for. Vogue in the past 130 years used to have that ELITIST / pompous / rich world reserved for wealthy people and it made me dream because the magazine created that impossible-to-get type of life. I didn't read Vogue because I loved to see ano***** models or white-only people or young-forever and only-types-of-people but I did want the magazine because it represented that exclusive and elitist life. Now it's all normcore:
- models who don't pose and just look at the camera
- photographers who don't know about lighting and just rely on instagram filters
- editors and stylists who just throw the total look on fashion stories
- readers who don't know anything about Coco Chanel or Christian Dior but post videos of themselves danding half naked on Tiktok with their change of outfits and think ''this is high fashion'' and Haile Bieber is a supermodel ahahahaahahahahahahahaahhhahaha gosh I hate this Z gen.

AND HERE WE ARE Y'ALL

 

[penny609]

^I couldn't care less about rich and famous people and their wealthy life so I disagree with you on that point as well as on what the definition of beauty might be... As long as a face is unique and a model is talented I absolutely don't care about other aspects (size, color etc.) and I'm more than happy to see more diversity today.

But I wanna dream when I buy a fashion magazine. I don't want to see reality or daily life in Vogue who used to be the epitome of a high-fashion mag. I know different people dream differently but to me, for example, Tim Walker's photography used to makee me travel to other worlds (I remember his work with Lily Cole among others). Photography was properly mastered, then styling back then was an art of its own (and there I agree with you that some editorials are more advertorials for a brand nowadays with no creativity left). As when it comes to "actual" models, I don't think the newcomers lack of beauty or skills but most of them don't even get the chances they used to get with Franca/Meisel's Vogue Italia for example... Not to mention the overwhelming amount of "fake" models around (I don't consider Kendall as a legit pro in her field for example).

Now back on topic, I feel a little sad this conversation happens in this thread because I actually like this cover and the concept isn't bad either. My main concern with it is just what I stated before but if you ask me sincerely, I'd take this issue over any kind of stuff with the likes of Kendall, Hailey etc.

 

[Xone]

If we stick to the idea of what Vogue used to be or represent how we let them evolve? it's true now all brands in general are focused on followers and to please everyone single person, in my opinion that made them loose identity point of view and quality.

The 90's and early 00's were an amazing time for magazines but we cannot live in the past, and not everything have to be a reminiscent of Franca's VI to be considered good. That doesn;t mean that we can take any pseudo photographer or model as good.

What editors failed is to nurture and find good talent and make them grow, and also they fall into the superficiality on checking talents only by their talents.

I love the cover, she looks amazing and i guess it works well for their market....we are watching this with occidental eyes and that lead us to fall into an easy missjudge.

 

[penny609]

we cannot live in the past, and not everything have to be a reminiscent of Franca's VI to be considered good. That doesn;t mean that we can take any pseudo photographer or model as good.

Very much my point of view too. It has to evolve and will anyway. It's just the path most mags are taking now that bothers me. We don't need wannabe Francas, we need people with an equally strong vision, able to move the lines, to make choices, to take risks (how welcome would this be during our tedious times?!).

 

[oaklee91]

Oh wow!!! Gorgeous!!!

 

[Paul Lintag]

Yes, she is now the oldest person on the cover of Vogue.

I love and totally get this. Vogue PH wants to celebrate one of the last women who practice mambabatok, a form of tattooing dating back to pre-colonial times. She is very popular here in our country and I love that they are honoring her, her legacy and showcasing her art to the world.

 

[Bertrando3]

But I wanna dream when I buy a fashion magazine. I don't want to see reality or daily life in Vogue who used to be the epitome of a high-fashion mag.

Exactly, that's what I meant, I want to dream and see SPECIAL OUT OF THIS WORLD BEAUTY in fashion, not normal people. I see normal every day in the street ahahaha it's gloom and not sexy or inspiring ahahahaha.

My main concern with it is just what I stated before but if you ask me sincerely, I'd take this issue over any kind of stuff with the likes of Kendall, Hailey etc.

I agree.

 

[Bertrando3]

We are watching this with occidental eyes and that lead us to fall into an easy missjudge.

True but beauty is still beauty. We can't just take any older woman (magazines do that all the time) and then say ''we are championing age and older women's beauty'' because that's the trend of the time.

If we stick to the idea of what Vogue used to be or represent how we let them evolve? it's true now all brands in general are focused on followers and to please everyone single person, in my opinion that made them loose identity point of view and quality.

That's the very issue right there indeed, I agree, hence why I would however take again and again Franca's Vogue italia's vision over anything that magazines have to offer us today.
I don't live in the past nor do I want to go back but I still feel magazines need to focus on their target readers and stop trying to grasp tiktok and instagram people who DO NOT buy magazines. They take screenshots of their favorite stars and watch YouTube videos, they don't spend 10€ on a single fashion magazine. So there's some strategy problem here with getting money from selling magazines and/or identifying a way to get to your core readers as a magazine.

Don't you agree on that point? (and yes the multi cover technique or the new CEO's with Vogue' sharing contents across all Vogue ain't it either)

 

[blueorchid]

Absolutely agree. Vogue used to represent:
- the best of the best
- the wealthy life
- the most elegant and rich people
- the most unattainable life that we could only dream to get a glimpse of from reading Vogue
- the most beautiful models

Now BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE of society and NORMCORE TREND, Vogue represents:
- people from 7 to 77 years old
- men are heavily featured inside and on the cover
- genders A,B,C,D etc.
- sizes 0 to 16
etc.

Therefore Vogue has lost its identity / edge / prestige. I'm not saying it's bad that Vogue wants inclusivity in races / genders / sizes and wants to be WOKE so badly but nevertheless VOGUE for me and millions is NOT National Geographic. I mean I am always shocked to see what Anna Wintour presents in her Vogue now versus what she used to present. People might hate exclusivity or rich people or not being able to see every color and every size and every gender in EVERY SINGLE EDITORIAL OR PAGE of Vogue but it isn't Vogue or any FASHIONNNNNNN's magazine's mission to actually be like an mirror of the world.

I like to see every height, gender, color, age in real life or in books or in movies but a FASHION MAGAZINE was or is supposed to be this ''exclusive'' / ''special'' / ''out of this world'' type of world and that's for that snobiety that I used to buy Vogue for. Vogue in the past 130 years used to have that ELITIST / pompous / rich world reserved for wealthy people and it made me dream because the magazine created that impossible-to-get type of life. I didn't read Vogue because I loved to see ano***** models or white-only people or young-forever and only-types-of-people but I did want the magazine because it represented that exclusive and elitist life. Now it's all normcore:
- models who don't pose and just look at the camera
- photographers who don't know about lighting and just rely on instagram filters
- editors and stylists who just throw the total look on fashion stories
- readers who don't know anything about Coco Chanel or Christian Dior but post videos of themselves danding half naked on Tiktok with their change of outfits and think ''this is high fashion'' and Haile Bieber is a supermodel ahahahaahahahahahahahaahhhahaha gosh I hate this Z gen.

AND HERE WE ARE Y'ALL

I mean... yes and no. Grace Mirabella's Vogue was criticized for being more "down to earth" than Vreeland's, but that's what was demanded of her as women (even wealthy women) were entering the workforce. Vogue (and Harper's Bazaar--which used to be quite literary) were also a glimpse into arts, sometimes even the avant garde. It wasn't all about the elite thumbing their nose at "poor" people. Not all fashion magazines are founded on being "elitist," French Elle was very down to earth (and more literary/journalistic) than Vogue Paris, for example, whereas Jardins des Modes was more creative (IMO). Vogue being this totally "ONLY ELITES ALLOWED" is more narrow than what it actually was (that's more Town & Country territory). I don't think Vogue was as elitist as you're remembering it.

In my opinion, there's nothing at all wrong with a magazine like Vogue trying to be progressive. That's the way of the world, if the magazine can't adapt... too bad. My problem with a lot of Vogues is that their attempts at inclusivity are obviously insincere, which is why they're so abysmal. Anna had a chance to slowly start incorporating a wider variety of models and features, but she didn't. Now it all reads as a giant mea culpa, "look, I'm progressive too!!!"

I mean... so what about young people not knowing who Christian Dior or Coco Chanel are? I didn't know who Vionnet and Paul Poirot were when I was buying Vogue. But that's the difference, these young people are NOT buying Vogue and all the attempts to "pander" to them are alarmingly insincere. And it's obvious they didn't nurture another stable of talent to replace the "masters" of the 1990s/2000s, after they either died, retired, moved on, or were banished.