W November 2007 : The Art Issue

[BerlinRocks]

But that's just me.

don't worry you're not alone... Tigerrouge explained it better than me but I think the same...
this is just bulls*** and this is not a way to make connections btw art and fashion!!!
not a way to make it work, sorry!!!

 

[spiceboy]

those b*tches should learn how to write... awfull cover

 

[MissMagAddict]

those b*tches should learn how to write... awfull cover

Richard Prince wrote what is on each image...not the b*tches

 

[strawberry daiquiri]

An ego on the rampage.. like he liked the idea of nine women saying his name and everyone else seeing.

 

[j'adorekapusta]

those b*tches should learn how to write... awfull cover

that is the comment these covers are worth.

i suppose the 'pretty ugly' concept was addopted not only be chloe sevigny. but what's okay for fashion doesn't always work good for media. they want some extra attention? i hope they'll get it. did they do a good cover? no, they did not.

controversy is so pathetic nowadays. it feels almost as old-fashioned as tom ford's sexual confessions. who cares now?

 

[masquerade]

I agree with tigerrouge, what works in the context of a gallery doesn't always translate in a magazine and this just doesn't translate. Instead of seeming ironic it just seems lazy and almost arrogant in some respects. I almost feel like the only celebrity truly commented on in this is Richard Prince, artiste. Who shouldn't be making any ironic statements on the nature of celebrity now that he's all buddy buddy corporate collaborator with Louis Vuitton. Its very pot calling the kettle black if you ask me - I'd like to see a cover with his image splattered on it with an autograph reading "Selling out and restocking the same night..."

But that's just me.

Last years Art Issue seemed much fresher and visually arresting in terms of design.

I'll pick up the Katie cover though.

I agree with you. And tigerrouge and BerlinRocks as well.

however, a cover is juts a cover and so far the content looks cool

One of the most influential artists to emerge since the mid-sixties, John Baldessari has produced work ranging from phototext paintings to installation and video. Here, in collaboration with photographer Mario Sorrenti, he turns his eye to fashion.

"John Baldessari" has been edited for Style.com; the complete story appears in the November 2007 issue of W.

style

 

[masquerade]

cont. im a sucker for photomontage

style

 

[masquerade]

last batch

style

Featured in the ed are Chloe Sevigny, Shannon Plumb, Michael Portnoy, Cedric Buchet, Missy Rayder and Daisy Lowe

 

[Melly5525]

^those are really cool, i dont like the covers at all, last years was amazing but I like the ed very much, thanks Masquerade

 

[hfgl]

God awful covers,yuck.but love the photo story.

 

[zaraffe]

Ooh, I like that ed and I love that he collaborated with Mario. But If I open up my mailbox and get greeted by Simpsons cover I will honestly throw up. Thanks, masquerade

 

[mikel]

love the photo story.

 

[LucyInTheSky]

I wish something from the "John Baldessari" ed would have gotten the cover instead. I don't want any of these covers arriving in my mailbox.

 

[jennifer~]

What works as 'ironic commentary on celebrity' in the detached context of the art gallery doesn't automatically stay smart when transferred back to the front of a mass-market magazine.

Ditto; it's harder to retain a sense of irony, for one. And I'm well beyond this kind of irony, having seen it done better enough times before...

 

[jennifer~]

^ I mean, it's arguably not the best platform for making such a statement, without a heavy dose of parody, perhaps. And it does seem lazy, as Luxx suggested: No actual photoshoot? It's a good thing W doesn't owe them in exchange, seeing as these women are the same whose images were used to sell issues in the past, based on their public appeal. I guess that's the only effective irony I can sense, that we'll probably choose the covers of our favorite actress(es) and be disappointed that the only interview is that of the artist's...

 

[cake_batter]

i'm so underwhelmed by this.

 

[frednginger]

i'm so underwhelmed by this.

Me too. I don't like the covers or the editorial

 

[rollagasper]

^I actually don't like the Baldessari editorial either. It's a cool concept but the images look amateur. Art is so difficult to judge because it's all so subjective. And if you say you don't like a certain piece of art, people can say that you just don't "get" it. But whatever, both the cover and the editorial are not pleasing to the eye so i'm going to say it's bad art. I'd rather look at Duchamp's toilet fountain or Malevich's black circle.

 

[BerlinRocks]

And if you say you don't like a certain piece of art, people can say that you just don't "get" it.

it's bulls*** if you don't like a piece of art explain why....that's it!
of course you have to have arguments... we are no more children...
but if you can look at Marcel Duchamp's Fountain and enjoy it... I think you can enjoy a lot of things...

Anyway, Baldisseri is pretty good...
But what annoys me the most is actually this "curated by..." I don't know yet if this really annoys me or if I'm kind of pleased by this desire to make of a fashion magazine a sort of exhibition on paper...
Neville Wakefield is someone who is doing a lot for a connexion btw art and fashion - photography... He did something with Meisel, I think... and Camilla Nickerson, too, non?
and perhaps more things I don't know about...
Anyway Baldisseri story is very good, to me...
And more interesting (as easier) to me... But still, I think we're paying more attention to his own work than to the fashion story itself (that is supposed to show us outfits, non?)... But as I don't have to complain about everything, I would say that it's a very good story... interesting...
His technics is pretty appropriate for a collaboration with a fashion magazine...
and his "aim" is pretty close to Richard Prince's one... so for the moment it's a very coherent experience and even though I'm not liking Richard Prince's covers I think this is a must buy....

Because to be honest, not a lot of magazines are doing collaboration btw art and fashion... and it's like having an artwork for only 5$

 

[iluvjeisa]

it's bulls*** if you don't like a piece of art explain why....that's it!
of course you have to have arguments... we are no more children...
but if you can look at Marcel Duchamp's Fountain and enjoy it... I think you can enjoy a lot of things...

Mmmm...I'd need to see a doctor to be able to do that. And for this W issue it looks like he would have to be pretty generous with the prescription pad too

I really don't see why people bother with art that looks positively bad. From that time period, I far prefer the futurists, at least they had some feeling.