Vogue Scandinavia August/September 2021 : Greta Thunberg by Alexandrov Klum

^^ and I for one love how, in order to strengthen your argument, you try to mislead whoever reads this into thinking the commenters above are the same ones that maybe in some other thread, were lusting after 13 year olds and pushing for their oversexualization. And even diluted it some more by claiming the argument was against a 'normal teenager doing homework and going to soccer practice'.. who even said that?!. The whole discussion was about the potential reasons on why she's been choosing to be perceived as some 10 year old at all costs and how that relates to her arguments and public image. Most children, teenagers and young adults look forward, it is actually very rotting adult to always look back and desperately try to stay in certain years or to relive the past. Questioning that doesn't mean anyone here wants to see 14 year olds in thongs or in a threesome, let's not denigrate posters or discussions so quickly.
 
If an 18-year-old male activist appeared on the front of a men's fashion magazine styled to look like something from a nursery rhyme, questions would be asked.

The infantilisation of adult women is not something to strive for, and it is not a preferable alternative to over-sexualisation.
 
No sane person would argue that the fashion industry has always presented young girls in a more mature fashion than their age. Whether that be oversexualizing them or having them portray a “career woman in a boardroom” so much so that it goes almost unnoticed or unmentioned 95% of the time. It’s that skewed perception I find interesting.

As far as “the homework and soccer practice” comment, that’s the point Greta has been trying to make since she came to the public eye when she was 16 or however old she was at the time. Kids, yes teens are still kids, shouldn’t have to worry about the world they are going to inherit (in that sense, she is looking forward, as you say teenagers do)

Furthermore, there’s a double hypocrisy at work here, because when Natalia played Alice, Keira portrayed Dorothy, or Lily Cole played Gretel, nobody blinked an eye but how dare this 18 year old still use a fairy tale asthetic. Didn’t Taylor Swift use fairytales until 25? This doesn’t seem only the purview of a ten year old to me. Plenty of Teenage girls are still into fairytales. Let’s all shame them.
 
How Many Editorials Inside? :rolleyes:

There's the Greta Thunberg editorial, four solid fashion editorials, two beauty editorials, and an illustrated fashion editorial. There's also a couple of interviews accompanied with fashion editorials. Then there are of course some jewellery and accessories edits, too. :smile:
 
Last edited:
No sane person would argue that the fashion industry has always presented young girls in a more mature fashion than their age. Whether that be oversexualizing them or having them portray a “career woman in a boardroom” so much so that it goes almost unnoticed or unmentioned 95% of the time. It’s that skewed perception I find interesting.

No one is arguing this point, though. And on this forum people routinely express discomfort when it happens. I can recall having that reaction myself in response to some shoots with Kaia, with Millie Bobby Brown, etc. I was happy when Vogue said it would no longer use underage models. I don't know why there's this assumption that if someone doesn't like the infantilization of an adult woman, that they must be advocating for or at least ok with the sexualization of an underage person in fashion. Again, it isn't an either/or.


As far as “the homework and soccer practice” comment, that’s the point Greta has been trying to make since she came to the public eye when she was 16 or however old she was at the time. Kids, yes teens are still kids, shouldn’t have to worry about the world they are going to inherit (in that sense, she is looking forward, as you say teenagers do)

Ok, fair enough. At that age, that is a solid message and probably that age-appropriate perspective is what helped her message obtain global reach. But now she's not just a kid in school. Is it wrong to think her message/image should evolve over time? Perhaps it has, but the "child" image, if this magazine is any indication, is still part of her carefully calibrated public persona.


Furthermore, there’s a double hypocrisy at work here, because when Natalia played Alice, Keira portrayed Dorothy, or Lily Cole played Gretel, nobody blinked an eye but how dare this 18 year old still use a fairy tale asthetic. Didn’t Taylor Swift use fairytales until 25? This doesn’t seem only the purview of a ten year old to me. Plenty of Teenage girls are still into fairytales. Let’s all shame them.

I think this is a false equivalency. Those models/actresses were essentially performing in an immediately identifiable fashion story, as a specific character. All of those women presented in a myriad of ways in different shoots. Greta is not a model or entertainer, she's an activist. And so if she appears on a magazine, I think it's fair assume she is meant to be presenting as herself, not as a character. As an activist, everything she does can and should be viewed in that context, not as art, fashion, or simply a pretty photograph. Yes, I think it's very pretty cover, but I also think she or her team are deliberately trying to hold onto the precocious child image and I don't know why it's being seen as problematic or hypocritical to express that.
 
Last edited:
Sailing around the world in a ship to decrease her carbon footprint, but wearing jumpers presumably made from wool? Unless it's acrylic or vintage which I doubt. Real vegans don't wear wool. :sick:

Article via Fashion United UK

Greta Thunberg graces first cover of Vogue Scandinavia, which aims to become the world's most sustainable publication

By Nora Veerman
13 Aug 2021

The first issue of Vogue Scandinavia has been published. On the cover is none other than Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, sitting under a bright green canopy. In a big pink trench coat, she leans against a tree trunk, stroking the nose of an Icelandic horse with her left hand. The magazine features a multi-page interview with Thunberg, about her vision and experiences of climate activism. Coincidentally, the launch of Vogue Scandinavia coincided with the publication of a new UN report that underlines the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis.

Attention to nature and the climate are intertwined in the new Vogue edition, which serves Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland. Vogue Scandinavia aims to be ‘the most sustainable publication in the world,’ according to a press release. Among other things, the magazine uses plastic-free packaging and two trees are planted for every tree that has to be cut down for the printing of an issue. Also, the issues are no longer sold in shops, but only via the Vogue website - to prevent printed copies from being left over.

The magazine is already produced carbon neutrally, but it doesn’t stop there, says Mariann Jacobsson, head of sustainability at Vogue Scandinavia. “Our goal is to give back more than we consume.” The magazine is working towards a completely carbon-negative production chain and in doing so hopes to inspire others to take steps for the climate as well.

Sustainability is key theme for new Vogue Scandinavia
Thunberg’s presence on the cover symbolises this approach. Thunberg ‘represents everything [Vogue Scandinavia] stands for,’ according to the press release. The magazine joins Thunberg in ‘calling for more responsibility in all industries - including fashion. Fashion brands should be aware of the impact they have on the environment, and should do everything possible to minimise the negative consequences of their actions.’

This critical attitude is remarkable for a magazine like Vogue. Most fashion magazines rely - in addition to subscription fees - mainly on advertising revenues from large fashion brands, and thus on selling not less, but more clothes. The question is how Vogue Scandinavia will deal with this in the future.

In an Instagram post in which Thunberg shared the interview, the activist criticised the fashion industry even more harshly. “The fashion industry is a huge contributor to the climate and ecological emergency (…) Many make it seem as if the fashion industry is starting to take responsibility, spending huge amounts of money on campaigns that portray themselves as sustainable, ethical, green, climate neutral and fair. But let’s be honest: almost always it is pure greenwashing. You cannot produce fashion on a large scale or consume it ‘sustainably’ in the world as it is today. That is one of the many reasons why we need a system change.”

Vogue and environmental issues
In recent years, Vogue has often drawn attention to environmental issues. For instance, for the January 2020 issue, Vogue Italia decided not to hire photographers or book distant trips for shoots. Instead, the issue featured illustrated covers. Earlier this year, the Italian edition did not put models on the covers, but animals, with fur and leather items kept to a minimum in the editorials. Articles on climate change also appear from time to time, such as a series of interviews with seven climate activists in Vogue India last winter.
 
Last edited:
Not being snide, I genuinely don’t know, but isn’t wool sustainable? Its not in the same category as leather or fur, to be sure. Acrylic is not biodegradable (though it is recyclable) so unless she’s spoken out about wool, I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all of her to wear it.
 
Not being snide, I genuinely don’t know, but isn’t wool sustainable? Its not in the same category as leather or fur, to be sure. Acrylic is not biodegradable (though it is recyclable) so unless she’s spoken out about wool, I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all of her to wear it.

It's actually not sustainable. A lot of people think it is because sheep don't have to die for us to get wool. But the moment an animal is reared on a large scale exclusively for its skin or meat, it's not sustainable. There's the land that's required for them to graze, the effects on the soil, the toxic pesticides etc.

But that aside, Greta is vegan. Wool is not vegan-friendly in principle. Even vintage merely fuels more of a demand for wool.

EDIT: Forgot to post the pictures earlier. Source, Vogue Scandinavia.

 
Last edited:
I guess one could raise sheep for wool sustainably, but the likelihood that it's happening, given the scale of wool used by the industry, is just about zero. I didn't know she was vegan, but yeah I agree, in that case it is hypocritical. I guess the problem with so readily accepting the fame and accolades of celebrity activism is that you damn well better not be caught slipping.

I looked up the outfit she's wearing in the first shot. Vogue Scandinavia claimed "all of Greta's clothing is made of recycled materials and deadstock", but the ($2,000) dress she's wearing by Gabriela Hearst is merino wool and the site doesn't mention it being recycled or deadstock and the blanket she's wearing ($8,000) also by Gabriela Hearst, is cashmere and also I can't find anything about it being recycled or deadstock. Interesting!
 
There’s always been such a “how dare you" arrogance, haughtiness and inflated sense of self-importance aura all about her that I’m always amused why anyone would give her the time of day, let alone stan her as some demigod prodigy: She’s just so obnoxious even if she were self-made instead of a product of sly marketing that she’s proven to be. And even in these supposedly softer sets of her that are nothing but careful, strategic branding to have her appear more accessible, she still undeniably comes through in these carefully curated photographs reeking of insufferable douchery. I guess the “cause” is way way way more important than the mascot in her case. Either that, or her supporters are likely of the same unbearable attitude as her.

( Thanks for those 2 shots, Benn. Just in these shots, she reminds me of that overly-entitled socialite brat that Kristen Stewart’s character plays assistant to in Personal Shopper.)
 
There’s always been such a “how dare you" arrogance, haughtiness and inflated sense of self-importance aura all about her that I’m always amused why anyone would give her the time of day, let alone stan her as some demigod prodigy: She’s just so obnoxious even if she were self-made instead of a product of sly marketing that she’s proven to be.

And that's part of the reason why they're going to hang on to the 'childish' image for as long as they can. People are inclined to make allowances for children, and to believe there's something special about her. But imagine a 25- or 30-year-old woman telling the world what to do, without possessing higher-level academic qualifications to support her position, or enough normal life experience to make her seem relatable. That's going to be a hard sell, and possibly a painful sight, as the years go on.

By now, we're all well aware of what happens with child stars in the entertainment industry, and that the odds of ending up in a good place are not great. And it's no different with any child prodigy or wunderkind that has 'chosen' to appear in public. Every single one of them has had people pulling the strings behind the stage, and not always in the child's best interests.
 
First cover and Vogue Scandinavia is already sitting with egg on their face, lol.
Love how Greta is now claiming ignorance saying she didn't know, and getting her flying monkeys (PETA) to make Vogue Scandi carry the can. So much for 'the world's most sustainable publication'..... accused of tricking vegans into wearing animal-derived fashion. :lol:

Via Totally Vegan:

Greta Thunberg blasted for wearing wool in ‘Vogue’ cover article

Posted by Mohsina Dodhiya
18th August 2021

The teen climate activist was called a ‘fraud’ for being a vegan and still promoting animal cruelty by wearing wool.

Greta Thunberg has come under fire for wearing wool in her latest inaugural cover photoshoot for Vogue Scandinavia.

In one of the photos, the 18-year-old, who has become a prominent global voice for climate activism, was pictured sporting a full wool look. She wore a Gabriela Hearst Django merino dress with an Alec blanket crafted from wool by the not-for-profit Manos del Uruguay draped on her shoulders.

For the cover, Thunberg posed with an Icelandic horse underneath a tree. She wore a billowing upcycled trench coat in that picture. According to the lifestyle magazine, the clothes were made of sustainable, recycled fabrics.

The pictures were shot by conservationist duo Alexandrov Klum.

Thunberg blasts fast fashion

In the interview, Thunberg discussed how fast fashion contributes to the climate crisis.

Later, taking to Instagram, she posted an image of her on the cover and said: “The fashion industry is a huge contributor to the climate-and ecological emergency, not to mention its impact on the countless workers and communities who are being exploited around the world in order for some to enjoy fast fashion that many treat as disposables.

“ Many are making it look as if the fashion industry are starting to take responsibility, by spending fantasy amounts on campaigns where they portray themselves as ”sustainable”, ”ethical”, ”green”, ”climate neutral” and ”fair”. But let’s be clear: This is almost never anything but pure greenwashing.”

Thunberg added that fashion cannot be ‘mass produced’ or consumed ‘sustainably.’

The environmentalist also told Vogue Scandinavia that she has not purchased any clothing in three years. “The last time I bought something new was three years ago and it was second-hand. I just borrow things from people I know,” she said.

Backlash

While Thunberg called out fast fashion and promoted sustainability, Thunberg’s wool look was heavily criticized and sparked a huge outcry on social media since Thunberg has in the past revealed she is vegan.

“Very disappointing to see Greta Thunberg promoting animal cruelty. Animals don’t exist for us to use and abuse however we want. The wool industry is very cruel. Go vegan,” wrote one user.

“Absolutely despicable, sheep are not here for us humans to use no matter how ‘sustainable’ their exploitation is.

Another added: “Greta Thunberg lied and told the world she was vegan, exploiting the bodies of sheep is not very vegan. All of the sheep in the industry end up slaughtered like all other animals in the industry and none consent to any of this. Go vegan Greta, this is nonsense.”

“A vegan wearing wool? looks like she’s a fraud all along,” a third commented.

However, vegan charity PETA came out in defence of the young activist.

“We have confirmed that Greta Thunberg was unaware that the outfit she was photographed in was made of real animal wool,” PETA said.

“We were sure that as a vegan and an environmentalist, she would not have worn it had she known.

“The wool industry is based on exploitation, so it’s not surprising that it has attempted to exploit Greta’s Vogue Scandinavia shoot to promote its bloody and environmentally destructive business.

“The woolly bullies—who are using this mistake as a selling point—shouldn’t be surprised if they hear from Greta’s lawyers.”
 
"I didn't know!" might have flown several years ago, but as an adult, she needs to accept responsibility. Threatening the wool industry with legal action? Implying they bullied her into wearing the clothes? Laughable. Even if she didn't know (unlikely), as an activist known for slamming others for their clothing choices, the onus is on her to do the approximately 3 seconds of research required to determine that the clothes she's putting on are wool. I don't have a problem with wool personally, but no one likes a hypocrite and that's how she's coming off here. And people who subscribe to her particular brand of activism need to realize that they will be the first to be canceled, if their peers are given a ripe opportunity.
 
With this little brat being unable to research and accept responsibility with her excuses for wearing wool aside, can we all appreciate that shot of Mayowa? Stunning!
 
"I didn't know!" might have flown several years ago, but as an adult, she needs to accept responsibility. Threatening the wool industry with legal action? Implying they bullied her into wearing the clothes? Laughable. Even if she didn't know (unlikely), as an activist known for slamming others for their clothing choices, the onus is on her to do the approximately 3 seconds of research required to determine that the clothes she's putting on are wool. I don't have a problem with wool personally, but no one likes a hypocrite and that's how she's coming off here. And people who subscribe to her particular brand of activism need to realize that they will be the first to be canceled, if their peers are given a ripe opportunity.

'I didn't know' saved Gwyneth Paltrow in the late 2000s when she was caught wearing fur in a campaign for Tod's. You're right, it simply doesn't work in 2021 because conscious shopping which is so encouraged in Greta's circles means consumers have to be savvy enough to read the tags and trace the origin of materials.

The harder PETA goes after critics, the worse they make Vogue Scandinavia look in this entire debacle. And if things escalate into a lawsuit, then VS may well be implicated. I hope the magazine realise how bad this can turn out for them. Because it seems they're relentless. Either being stubborn or it could be that Gabriela is the one who's not being honest about the true origin of her wool and the magazine purely took what she claims as gospel....

Check the 1st comment on this IG post and the responses. Vogue Scandinavia responded that all Greta's clothing is made from recycled material/deadstock, but then some artisan group in Uruguay called Manos del Uruguay perhaps wanting a slice of the publicity posted that Gabriela designed the looks but they made it. Only there's not a single mention of wool being upcycled/deadstock on their website, everything looks sourced freshly from sheep.

 
I wonder if people read the earlier comments in this thread from this past weekend about the wool and the recycled/dead stock claims and it helped ignite the controversy.


Probably not, but it’s fun to imagine having been a part in the backlash haha
 
underwhelming. i hate the art direction and i just can not find anything exciting. i expected something of acne paper/holiday magazine quality, but these features all look very mediocre. for a debut issue, it is really quite a shame.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,901
Messages
15,133,190
Members
84,667
Latest member
aytac523
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->