Log in     

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Cancel your subscription to me if you want, but I think putting Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on the April cover of Vogue is the most interesting move the magazine has made in a long time.


Image from Stylelist. Click for source.

This is a much more newsworthy choice than, say, an actress who is shilling her next movie. (Did anyone get this excited about Jessica Chastain’s December cover?) Love them or loathe them, the Kardashian family is an undeniable pop culture phenomenon. Kanye is a jackass, but an interesting jackass and always an entertaining interview. He loves fashion even when fashion doesn’t love him, and I’ve been fascinated by how he dresses up Kim as if she were some kind of doll/art project; there’s something very Warholian about it.

If we can’t go back to models on American fashion magazine covers, as I would prefer, I’m in favor of Anna Wintour continuing to troll everyone this year. First Lena Dunham, now Kimye! So go ahead and FLOUNCE! Keep threatening to cancel your subscriptions (I wonder how many threats come from people without subscriptions) like Buffy the Vampire Slayer.


Click for source.

Anna is probably laughing her wig-hat off at the outrage. Or maybe rubbing her hands together, saying, “Good … good,” in an ominous way like that big bug on Family Guy.

I’ve seen this when I’ve organized events. It doesn’t matter how people feel about the guest speaker. It matters how strongly they feel. Love/hate … it’s all the same. Either emotion is compelling. It’s indifference that’s a problem. I don’t believe for one second that Sarah Michelle Gellar will be able to turn away from that issue of Vogue when she’s getting her pedicure. C’mon, admit it. If you see that magazine lying out somewhere, won’t you have to peek inside just to confirm how terrible it is? Anna wins!

Related Posts with Thumbnails

27 Responses to “Kimye on Vogue: I Approve”

  1. Madeleine Gallay says:

    It’s the moment, the time of fashion noise and reality intertwined .. and it’s a magazine cover, not a divisive thing of importance – unlike the pain in Syria and so many sad torn-up covers, no one will die because of a magazine cover,

    I think she’s exquisite and puts the you-can-be-any-size p/c thing to the test.

    I don’t love celebrities at fashion shows or anything that detracts from the business of fashion but if that is what happens, oh well. Some fashion people exercise restraint and some choose to yell rather Mean Girl things more appropriate for, well, nowhere.

    Love what you do Ms. Brandes.

    • WendyB says:

      No, I love what YOU do, Madeleine. Your experience in the industry always makes your comments enlightening!

    • Candice says:

      Totally agree with you Madeleine.
      As an editor who’s been attending the shows for 15 years, it’s annoying that the business of fashion shows is who’s attending more than what’s on the runway, and editors and buyers can hardly get a seat.

      Also agree about KK. I hate that she’s famous because she did a porno film that “leaked” on the internet – before that, she was a little salesgirl in a boutique. However, she is gorgeous and I like that she’s got curves. Too bad she allows so many of her pics to be airbrushed to make those curves less curvy.

  2. Ashe says:

    I’m a huge Buffy fan, and have been since the first movie. BUT… it looks like SMG finally found something to get herself 15 minutes more of fame. It’s not like her last two tv shows shot her to the A-list.

    • WendyB says:

      I thought EXACTLY the same thing but didn’t want to write it because I do love BtVS sooooo much. Sigh.

      I bet she’d give her eyeteeth for a cover like that.

      • Ashe says:

        Oh, she SO would. And that’s what it comes across as – petty jealousy. Regret. I mean… the reality is, if you go back far enough, SMG burned a lot of bridges and it go her and her career exactly where it is. She didn’t have the business acumen that Kanye & Kim do, which got them a cover…. and not her.

        It’s funny, because I remember getting my ELLE recently and thinking, “Why is Emma Watson on the cover?” Not that, in theory, she shouldn’t be – a huge part of her breaking from the Harry Potter personality was her diving into the world of high fashion and modeling. But it wasn’t until I read an article that, oh yes- she must have a new movie coming out. I have no problem with performers who straddle the line between actor/lover of fashion (Lady Gaga comes to mind). But to just shill another product?

        In the words of Willow Rosenberg…. bored now.

      • WendyB says:

        Ha ha ha ha– I heart you, yes, of course evil Willow summed up the general cover trend perfectly.

        Gaga had a great cover. I think in general the music people make for much more exciting cover than the movie people. I figure it’s because the music people have to sell their own persona (and they often use style to do it), while the job of an actor is to disappear into another character.

  3. Candice says:

    I too have always been on the side of keeping models on the covers of magazines and I dislike seeing the latest movie-hawking starlet gracing the cover. On that basis I don’t like Kim and Kanye cover.

    However, being that Anna is no longer interested in keeping Vogue, “Vogue”, and is turning it more into “OK”, “People” or “Us Weekly”, K & K are a perfect choice for her “classy” gossip rag.

    • WendyB says:

      Totall agree — she’s gone down this road already –a road I don’t care for — so now that she’s here she might as well pick someone who is going to cause a huge buzz.

      I actually love Rihanna and seeing her on magazine covers, but she just had her THIRD Vogue cover, and it wasn’t anything spectacular. Cate Blanchett in January did NOTHING for me. Lena Dunham should have been Vanity Fair, not Vogue. K&K at least are both fashion-obsessed and controversial.

  4. Alice Olive says:

    Nope, Anna doesn’t win. The March issue was the last I will read. I’ve cancelled my subscription after 20 odd years. Extremely disappointed that the vulgarity of KK has been celebrated by Vogue. Quantity is not quality.

    • WendyB says:

      Okay, so she doesn’t win with you. 🙂

      But maybe the people she gains will outnumber the people she loses. Or not. Or maybe she’ll get a different demographic that’s better for the bottom line. Maybe the effect won’t be immediate — for good or bad — but will show over time. That’s why I say it’s an interesting move. I’m always interested when people take a risk!

      BTW, I hope you were getting those $12 a year subscriptions, like I do when I subscribe (which I do off and on depending on whether I bother to open one of those $12 a year offers and feel motivated). I’ve always been amused that that price doesn’t even cover the postage but, of course, it’s the number of subscribers reported to advertisers that matters, not the money.

      • Candice says:

        Wendy, you pay $12. a year? You’re overpaying dahlink!

        I get it for $8.00. As long as those advertisers keep paying those $40,000. a page rates, Vogue would pay readers to take it! As you say, it’s all about the numbers to impress advertisers.

      • WendyB says:

        That’s what I get for not opening the special offer envelopes! I didn’t even know the price had gone down. Though now that I think of it, I’ve seen the $8 price for Vanity Fair.

      • Alice Olive says:

        Yes, I was one of those subscribers! I’m sure subscriptions will be boosted by this. However, that’s a demographic I choose not to be part of. Not to worry, I will find a magazine home elsewhere, for sure! Hello my name is Alice and I am a magazine-aholic. Ha!

      • WendyB says:

        I haven’t been into any magazines in so long, which horrifies me a bit because 20 years ago, I remember women (who were my age now) saying they hated fashion magazines and they seemed so old and boring. Ha! Though, as I recall, their complaint was that the fashion wasn’t for them. I have no problem about the fashion. I just don’t like the blah covers and all those “dress for any size!” “dress for any age!” generic features. I’d be happy to look at nothing but fashion on models! I like it when the big magazine-like Bergdorfs catalog comes out.

  5. Lynn says:

    Awww, can you give us a link to see kanye dress up Kim like a paper doll? That sounds like fun!

  6. I totally understand why Kim and Kanye are on the cover. They’re both big celebrities, they’re stylish, they can sell anything. As a former magazine editor, I can pretty much say that they’re a dream couple if I want to sell issues. I disliked featuring the Kardashians (and all the reality stars!) on my magazine before but they sold copies and that’s what matters!

  7. Eli says:

    I love how people are turning this nonstory molehill into a mountain. I think AW’s explanation of the cover was a perfect answer. And the fact of how people are reacting like they’re fashion experts, come on!

  8. HelOnWheels says:

    Jessica Chastain was on the December cover? As much as I don’t care for KK (nor for her entire family) or for the whole phenomenon of being famous for being infamous, this cover “controversy” is going to do exactly what Anna Wintour intended – sell more issues. If we can’t go back to models only (I’m with you on this! Bring back the new supermodels!) then I’d rather have more interesting covers, even if the subject keeps me from buying. At least it won’t be yet another actress.

  9. Why not have Kim and Kanye on the cover of Vogue?! It’s a beautiful photo!! And whether we think having them there is “controversial” or not, the fact is that EVERYONE knows who they are; and most of us have at least a passing interest in their shenanigans. I’m sure the magazine is selling well…and that, of course, is the whole point!!