I want to say that Diana Vreeland is a legendary fashion editor, but since that descriptor is so over-used for far lesser figures, I'll just tell you that Vreeland was at the true center of the industry for over three decades in the mid-20th century. First a columnist-turned-editor for Harper's Bazaar, she joined Vogue in 1962 and served as editor-in-chief of the fashion bible from 1963 to 1971. She discovered Lauren Bacall and Edie Sedgewick, styled Jackie Kennedy, was the first editor to photograph Mick Jagger, and so on. Vreeland had a major hand in creating the pop culture of the Sixties, and her influence is still felt even beyond fashion, in the image-based world of global entertainment.
Now the subject of a new documentary, Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel, directed by her granddaughter-in-law, Lisa Immordino Vreeland, those of us that are too young to remember her (Vreeland passed away in 1989) can commune with her spirit when the film hits theaters next month, on September 21.
The trailer's available below, and I got goosebumps on my goosebumps just from watching it.
Image and video courtesy of Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel
Creating covers using reprints from editorials in other magazines is certainly common and definitely not unheard of, but for its September issue, Elle Germany did something that strikes us as a bit odd. Not only did they use an old image, the old image they used is part of a Tiffany & Company ad campaign for Fall 2008(!) photographed by Michael Thompson and featuring Sasha Pivavorova.
Though the image is cropped well and makes for a pretty enough cover, the choice to use an ad from four years ago on the cover of a September issue just feels weird. Is this issue sponsored by Tiffany & Co or something?
“Magazines can use ad campaigns for covers?!” asked an incredulous Gabriel29.
Bertrando3 posted, “Such a shame! A 2008 ad for a 2012 cover = I know the world is in a big economic crisis but come on!”
Elsaskywalker noted that German Elle made “nice use of the original picture,” and while that’s true, there’s just something that doesn’t feel right about this. It's one thing for a magazine to feature certain brands and items in the styling on their covers and it's another thing for them to carry over a complete ad campaign image. Did they think no one would notice?
Kristen Stewart is reportedly "too ashamed to show her face in public," so she's dropping out of the movie Cali and refusing to attend the On the Road premieres. I don't know if you've heard, but I'm a K-Stew eggspert, so I get, better than anyone, where she's coming from: sometimes, when you cheat on your boyfriend with the gross director of your latest film project and then release a public statement admitting to the infidelity and proclaiming your undying love for the cuckold, and the Internet caves in from all the nosy outsiders speculating about the future of your relationship, you just have to take a step back and get a little "me time." It happens to the best of us, except like, on Facebook and practically no one cares. (Just kidding: you have to be really new to the Internet or young if you're still broadcasting your fallings in-and-out of love via your Facebook relationship status.)
Expensive and bizarre new beauty treatments regularly make appearances in The New York Times Style section. And even though the latest procedure to get the trend piece treatment, eyebrow transplants, is more invasive, expensive, and complicated than, say, junior high bikini waxing, I'm not horrified.
Dermatologists have developed a new way to harvest hair from anywhere on the body and transplant it onto your face to give your eyebrows a fuller, bushier shape. Finally, you can put your toe hair to good use!
The procedure costs $6,000 (the equivalent of many designer handbags) and takes about four to five hours. Everything about this screams objectionable — there's an infinite number of ways to better spend $6,000 or five hours of a day; this is just the latest expression of our sick desire to manipulate and control every aspect of our bodies in the quest to become physically perfect — but I feel strangely serene. I have a total weakness for big, messy-ish brows, and as long as women are going to be signing up for costly treatments in an attempt to outwit Mother Nature, at least they're finally following a beauty trend that doesn't make me die inside.
But, uh, if you're wealthy enough to be considering this treatment, you should still skip it and send the money to someone that needs it way more. Like the 12.8 million Americans that are unemployed.
Styled by the inimitable Grace Coddington and photographed by Mert Alas and Marcus Piggot, Lady Gaga graces the cover of Vogue’s September issue (complete with special anniversary red banner) in a fuchsia Marc Jacobs gown. I don’t know what I was expecting when I heard Lady Gaga would be fronting Vogue’s all-important September issue (I’m sure I rolled my eyes), but it wasn’t this, and I have to say I’m kind of pleasantly surprised. Gaga looks like some sort of statuette and the cover overall is really bold and different. It’s a departure from what Vogue has been doing and I think it’s kind of exciting, but forum member opinions were all over the map.
Hector voiced what many others were surely thinking: “So over her but it is an interesting cover.”
Spike413 appreciated the way Lady Gaga was represented, but like many others, took issue with the red banner. He wrote, “I love the shape of Gaga, the length, the curve of the dress, that halo of hair. Someone said it looks like a drawing, and it does, which could be why I like it so much. It really does evoke a fashion illustration—the exaggeration of the human form and the garment itself, and that hurried quality of getting all of the detail down.I hate the red banner, but I love the rest of it quite a bit. It's also amazing how doing something as simple as shooting a full body photo instead of a portrait can make all the difference.”
Others called the cover “tragic,” “awful,” and “horrifying” among other things, but it’s in Gaga’s nature to be polarizing, right? I myself, (and many others I’m sure) have a love-hate relationship with her. It just so happens that when I look at this cover I feel the love. That being said, I have no real interest in reading the article that is sure to accompany her editorial in the magazine. Like I said, love-hate.
Tom Ford knows how to make women look beautiful, and if his ads are any indication, he knows how to sell makeup. In his latest Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott-photographed beauty campaign for Fall 2012, Ford tapped Ukranian model Snejana Onopka to put her best face forward. Ford, as usual, is lurking in the background. Makeup artist Charlotte Tilbury expertly adorned Snejana with a smoky eye and potent red lip. I would be lying if I said I didn’t want every product she’s wearing to magically appear in my overcrowded makeup drawer.
I wasn’t the only one taken in by the campaign, but I think all of us in the Fashion Spot forums are wondering when Tom Ford is going to literally step out of the spotlight. “It would be better if Tom wasn’t creeping in the back, but Snejana really does look quite stunning,” KINGofVERSAILLES posted.
Agee wrote, “Damn they both look beautiful and they both look like they know they look beautiful. Tom Ford does look creepy but he also looks hot in this image; at this point I think that I would be disappointed if he did not creepily appear in the background.”
Tigerrouge called the ad, “Seriously gorgeous. But I do wish Tom Ford would stop filling up space in his adverts with his own face – 'the suave voyeur' seems to be his trademark pose – and he seems to think that if he doesn't appear in front of us every five minutes, we might forget what he looks like and his brand identity will dissipate. The brand needs to be based on something more than the constant sight of his artificially smooth forehead,” she continued, “because even with the best intervention of the surgeon and the airbrush, his physical self isn't going to last forever, and at some point, the sight of him loitering around young people's body parts is going to start to be unsettling.”
Is Tom Ford’s “suave voyeur” pose ready to be retired? I think we should prepare ourselves to see him at least a few more times. My guess is that he hasn’t gotten the suave voyeur fully out of his system quite yet.