W November 2010 : Kim Kardashian by Mark Seliger

Discussion in 'Vintage Magazines' started by tarsha, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. tarsha

    tarsha Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    17,833
    Likes Received:
    13
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    perezhilton via tanii94
     
    #1 tarsha, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited by moderator : Oct 11, 2010
  2. elsaskywalker

    elsaskywalker -- aGGravaTion de caS --

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    4,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    oh god, the two pics are... disturbing. do not like that.
    the cover's not bad anyway.
     
  3. AnaBGD

    AnaBGD Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,488
    Likes Received:
    26
    Umm...no :ninja:
     
  4. tatouejeremie

    tatouejeremie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    352
    what is this

    W is trying way too hard
     
  5. Ives927

    Ives927 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    6
    Stefano....really? Really?
     
  6. CrisGalaxy

    CrisGalaxy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    26
    wow.... I knew that when it said Kim Kardashian for W it would be something bad but i never thought it would be this bad!
     
  7. testinofan

    testinofan ███████████████

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    31
    All i so ugly very cheap for W
     
  8. Luxx

    Luxx oh me, oh my

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    23
    I think her body is gorgeous and her face, when not painted within an inch of its life is very pretty, but she's just not giving the right energy for this and it doesn't feel all that artistic even with the Barbara Kruger text pasted on her. The concept is actually interesting - the silver paint, the voluptuous body, the use of an overexposed pop culture figure with that tongue in cheek text - it just doesn't mesh well. Her expression seems so lost and the pictures lack that sense of authority you'd expect from a shot like this.

    I see what they're trying to do though, but it isn't working for me. I do love that they didn't airbrush out the nipples or try to cover them up - I hate when magazines do that.
     
    #8 Luxx, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited by moderator : Oct 11, 2010
  9. masquerade

    masquerade God Save McQueen

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    8,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    I really really hope Barbara Kruger had an active role in that cover and they didn't just steal her style.

    I don't know I feel about this. When I see Kim Kardashian and Mark Seliger for W I just feel sad for the glory of what the magazine once was. The cover has potential and they tried for something different (at least right now, tons of magazines and papers hired Barbara Kruger to do just this kind of thing in the 80s).

    I don't know, I am still undecided. Although, seeing that the article is by Lynn Hirschberg has potential if only for the potential wank. She is not one for fluff pieces.
     
    #9 masquerade, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited by moderator kismetle: Oct 11, 2010
  10. Jacque Marcel

    Jacque Marcel army of lovers

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    14
    This is just sad all around. I'm sure it will sell which is what W wants.
     
  11. CrisGalaxy

    CrisGalaxy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    26
    Also... why is the W logo always white?!
     
  12. tigerrouge

    tigerrouge don't look down

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    3,477
    Ah, a Barbara Kruger cover, I'll have to think about that... if the content is intelligent, this wouldn't put me off, but I'd like to know how the article is trying to frame the choice of Ms Kardashian.
     
  13. Luxx

    Luxx oh me, oh my

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    23
    Just to play devil's advocate - if they did this same concept with a different person (and I'm not talking a model per se, because god the whole model vs. celeb debate is a dead horse, I just mean a woman who isn't Kim) and a different photographer, could it have worked? I think the answer is yes, personally.
     
  14. tarsha

    tarsha Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    17,833
    Likes Received:
    13
    I think white color logo goes well with this background but I hate you W for doing this, I mean all the covers after July issue.
     
  15. Bertrando3

    Bertrando3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    890
    Hate the logo as usual now, hate the cover and the editorial and really really dislike Kim K. I mean really Stefano? Kim trashy tv "star" on the cover of fashion magazine W ??? Gosh we're really facing hard times if supermodels or real stars aren't even gracing magazines' cover nowadays ... This new W direction is sooooooo far away from the chic magazine is used to be with supermodels-only on its covers.
     
  16. CrisGalaxy

    CrisGalaxy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    26
    ^ I just think they should change the color, its so boring. Thats the least good thing they could do :(
     
  17. Pedro

    Pedro Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    6
    these images deserve crude comments... what the hell was Tonchi thinking when decided to put this woman on the cover of W? photographed by one of the tackiest photographers? the result could only be disastrous...
     
  18. windlagoon

    windlagoon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    0
    when i saw the word "kim kardashian" i wasn't very happy about it. it turned out to be not so bad. the photography is nice but, i don't feel that she has the skill for this. it's bland. she looks good but it's not enough for me. the cover is smart though, very nice but a little...um...try-hard?

    i also thought about this, because kim kardashian isn't exactly the kind of girl who fashion lovers want to see on a magazine, so, just her name makes people say all those nasty comments without even trying to see the photos with a keen eye...but i admire the courage of tonchi putting her in the art issue, very bold. the new direction is very intriguing, but not boring. it doesn't exactly work for me, but at least it wasn't something plain and dead.

    ps: you shouldn't judge a book by its cover...or a magazine.
     
    #18 windlagoon, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited by moderator xianflux1: Oct 11, 2010
  19. Pedro

    Pedro Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    6
    I'm really upset about this magazine that I used to love so much! I hate it this right moment!

    Do you remember the spectacular Steven Meisel session for 1991 Vanity Fair of Ann-Margret body painted? simple and georgous!
    Mr. Tonchi I'm truly disappointed with this sh*t that you named ART! :sick::yuk:

    Source: ann-margret-from-sweden.com
     

    Attached Files:

  20. thankyouhon

    thankyouhon New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems like a cheap ploy to get publicity and sales. It's not artistic or what I would expect from W at all.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"