The article below was published yesterday by The Daily Telegraph about the lastest issue of Vogue, the all important September copy (as the article will inform you), but for me it seems a tad harsh. Does Alexander Chancellor really expect to find this magazine to his liking? He’s not exactly Vogue’s target audience as he freely admits. He complains about all the adverts but they are often visually stunning and inspiring, and we all understand that they are what it’s all about, you wouldn’t want, and surely couldn’t have, Vogue without the adverts? He hates shopping…we’ve lost him from the start! Vogue is about looking and admiring some of the most beautiful, directional and perfectly crafted clothes, bags, shoes available, interpreted with great flair; it most certainly is not a catalogue. I’m not sure why he wrote the article if he didn’t set out to say something interesting. The only thing he does express a fondness for is Kate Moss, suprise suprise.
Tumbling yesterday out of the dark clouds of recession, unemployment and austerity came that gleaming almanac of glamour and self-indulgence, the September Issue of Vogue. I got my hands on the most important issue of the year – the fattest, the most profitable, the most influential – two days before it arrived in newsagents. I do not know if I deserve the priviliege: to my shame, I had never heard of “The September Issue” until I saw last year’s gripping film documentary of that name starring Anna Wintour as the despotic, blood-chilling editor of American Vogue. Only then did I realise that the September issue – whether in America, in Britain, or in any of the other privileged countries that have Vogues of their own – is the single most important reference book for anyone seeking to be in the swim. I find myself wondering how I have managed to exist without it.
Then again, as a 70-year-old man with no interest in fashion who never buys a garment anywhere other than at Marks and Spencer, I am not exactly Vogue’s target reader. But I checked out the UK’s September issue to see what appeal it might have for me. I fancied it might cut a dash in my study, if nothing else, make a proper modern man of me.
The most immediately striking thing about it is its opulence, page upon glossy page of advertisements for every expensive fashion house or jeweller you have ever heard of – so many that at least 100 pages go by before you arrive at the first bit of editorial copy.
Luxury can be especially seductive in times like these, but Vogue, charmingly, has attempted to show sensitivity to the country’s penitential mood. The trend this year is to be “minimal chic” – nothing fancy, just plain, clean-cut clothes full of understated elegance. (Make a beeline for the A-line, it advises, whatever that may mean.) There is a new taste for old-fashioned cosiness – sheepskin, log baskets, wooden basins, and anything furry or quilted. I cast around my own home and feel suddenly, and pleasingly, in the swim.
But then, in her “Editor’s Letter” promoting a Vogue-sponsored “celebration of fashion and shopping” in London next month, Alexandra Shulman writes: “The point of the event is not to encourage people to spend money [I will try to believe her] but to draw attention to the fact that fashion and retail are a hugely important and – let’s not forget – enjoyable part of the country’s economy”.
Here we come to the crux of my problem. I do not find fashion and retail “hugely enjoyable”. In fact, I much dislike shopping for clothes. I have no interest in trends or vibes, so all Vogue’s advice on such matters is wasted on me. But I do admit that I rather like looking at well-taken fashion photographs, and I find the pictures of Kate Moss by Patrick Demarchelier in the September issue particularly mesmerising. Kate Moss is also the cover girl, wearing a short, blue, brass-buttoned Burberry coat and nothing else, since fashion is now “all about the coat”. This is Kate Moss’s 30th Vogue cover, and her sixth for a September issue. I don’t know what it is about her that makes her so irreplaceable, but she certainly has some distinctive style.
I enjoyed David Jenkins’ feature on James Brett, the eccentric founder of the Museum of Everything. I thought I might take some tips from Frances Bentley, Vogue’s managing editor, on how to feel better by meditating in a down-to-earth way. I was even quite interested in a long profile of Giorgio Armanui, the 76-year-old billionaire Italian fashion designer and businessman, who says he doesn’t feel “remotely old”. That’s because he’s trendy and has to be. Trendiness is his business. But I feel a little bit more in tune with another 76-year-old, Jonathan Miller, who said yesterday in an interview that he had stopped going to the theatre and now only wanted to stay at home and shop at Marks and Spencer.
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
Blake Lively
August 19, 2010So, according to last week’s Grazia (yes, I’m a week behind on my lite reading), and I quote, ‘True style icons only come along once in a while. And when they do it’s pretty exciting. In a special report, Grazia reveals why the actress (Blake Lively) with the girl-next-door looks suddenly has the fashion world falling at her feet….’ !!
Now I have absolutely nothing against Blake Lively, I’m sure she’s a lovely girl, but style icon she aint! I think it’s really important that the term/accolade ‘icon’ isn’t bandied about too lightly. A majority of all the outfits featured in the article are taken from Gossip Girl or related promotional events, ie they are Eric Daman’s styling for GG and whoever her stylist is for the red carpet. This does not a style icon make. In the couple of pictures of Blake out and about she looks totally normal, nice but definitely not iconic. Eric Daman’s styling has elevated the show beyond a normal teen drama, but to credit Lively is misguided. In the article she readily admits she owns ‘half of her (Serena’s) wardrobe’. A style icon doesn’t need to borrow someone else’s vision. She’s also quoted as saying her favourite place to shop is ‘The fitting room on Gossip Girl. I go in and take pictures on my phone, then email them to the personal shoppers at stores and say, “Find me this”‘. Again, where is the personal touch? Great style comes from seeing a piece of clothing and knowing how to wear it, whether to add a great belt, shoe, brooch etc, not ‘that top’s nice, get it for me’! Grazia chooses to highlight a couple of outfits in particular, saying ‘it’s clear that Lively’s wardrobe is coming into its own – a pair of pink high-waisted trousers by Suni jumped on to every style watcher’s wishlist after Serena was seen out wearing them’…..but as Grazia admits, SERENA, the character Blake plays, was seen in a SCENE in them, ie Eric Daman’s styling, not Blake’s. They also mention a Preen outfit she recently wore to Comic-Con which in fact was widely panned for being far too cleavage-centric and totally inappropriate for a press day.
This is not supposed to be a rant but honestly I don’t understand how you can write an article celebrating someone’s iconic style status when it’s clearly so influenced by someone else’s professional expertise, ie Eric Daman for Gossip Girl. It seems such a lazy and inaccurate way to do a profile.
‘
Posted in Celebrity, Fashion Commentary, Magazine | Leave a Comment »