In their latest issue, The Daily posted an item insinuating that Vogue editor Anna Wintour just bought up a house adjoining her Hamptons estate so that she wouldn't have to deal with the "wrong kind of neighbors." The four-bedroom house, located on 5.9 acres of land, sold for $350,000 ($249,000 below asking price). As The Daily Mail points out in their coverage, Wintour has not shown herself to be terribly open-minded towards the other residents in Mastic, Long Island: "I just import the people I want," she said, famously, in an interview with journalist Kelly McMasters. "I don't mind the town. It's white trash, of course, but I don't care." Sealing yourself off from the outside world — that's what I call living the dream.
Viviane Sassen photographed runway sensation Marine Deleeuw for Carven’s Fall 2013 ad campaign, but it seems she found the landscape to be of more interest than the lady. While blurring Marine and her various ensembles was obviously an intentional artistic choice, I can’t say it’s really the best way to sell clothes. The risky approach garnered mixed reviews in the forums.
“Too blurred, not cool,” GIVENCHYlover posted.
Gossiping, on the other hand, wrote, “I love it! Really gorgeous.”
Crying Diamonds was also a fan. “I really like it,” he posted. “It's as if the photographer saw something stunning in the background and focused on that at the last second. Also love the negative space with the fitted dress and the super-size coat in the pink shot.”
Teaars tipped the scales toward rave reviews as well. “I can never not love Viviane's work and this is no exception,” he shared. “I actually quite like the blurred effect. Marine looks good even when blurred, like a painting.”
My indecisive side tends to agree with everyone at the moment. But I like Carven, I like Viviane Sassen, and I like Marine, so I’m leaning toward a favorable feeling when I pore over these images. But still… does anyone else feel like it’s time for an eye exam?
Piggybacking on a New York Times article last year, which dubiously reported that "among young Parisians, there is currently no greater praise for cuisine than 'très Brooklyn,' a term* that signifies a particularly cool combination of informality, creativity and quality," Vogue's newest issue includes a ten-page editorial trumpeting "New York's Left Bank" called "Bonjour, Brooklyn."
The lead copy: "Models, writers, actors, and artists have been flocking to New York's Left Bank for its destination restaurants, bustling farmers' markets, Parisian-style parks, and passionate dedication to l'art de vie. Welcome to the new bohemian chic."
Shot by Boo George and styled by Tabitha Simmons, the editorial features top models Lily Aldridge, Devon Aoki, Sasha Pivovarova, Jourdan Dunn, Angela Lindvall and Christina Kruse (as well as artists Elliott Puckette and Glenna Neece**) photographed in Brooklyn with their kids.
Finally, a Vogue-approved tour of the borough: the restaurant Rucola in Boerum Hill, the Bedford Cheese Shop in Williamsburg, the Army Plaza farmer's market, on the streets of Dumbo, at the carousel in Brooklyn Bridge Park, at the Botanic Gardens and at Sugar Shop in Cobble Hill. (Links go to individual shots.)
The borough is much larger and more diverse than Vogue gives it credit for, but then no one would expect the fashion glossy to spend much time fawning over neighborhoods like Bensonhurst, Brighton Beach, Bay Ridge (home to many different immigrant communities) or Bed-Stuy, Flatbush, East New York (which are quite poor and predominantly Black and Hispanic). The photos really are adorable but still. Rent's already so damn high and the effects of gentrification so devastating that it really would be better for everyone if Vogue would just keep out.
(Kudos though, for representing some of Brooklyn's diversity by tapping two non-white models, Aoki and Dunn.)
You can check out the spread in Vogue's August Issue and via the Forums.
*Actual young Parisians had never heard the term prior to the Times story.
**The latter is a sometimes-model who also happens to be the wife of Rag & Bone founder Marcus Wainright.
The battle over whether or not men should wear shorts (or as the Boston Globe called it, "shortsgate") has been raging ever since designer Tom Ford outlined his five commandments for being a modern gentleman to AnOther Magazine in March 2011. His comments were fairly reasonable and frankly, nothing more than a matter of his professional opinion — "A man should never wear shorts in the city. Flip-flops and shorts in the city are never appropriate. Shorts should only be worn on the tennis court or on the beach." — but ever since then, "Whither men's shorts?" has been a conversation that just won't end.
The most recent contribution to this fascinating and important debate: The only slightly hyperbolic polemic "Wear Your Shorts Proudly, Men," which was published on Gawker yesterday evening with the caption, "To refuse to wear shorts marks you as a fool."
I guess. Do the extra few inches of fabric in pants really make such a big difference? Are some people's calves really sensitive to heat? Are boys just babies? Women are better at ignoring arbitrary fashion rules (to be fair, we have more rules to contend with and hence, thicker skin; we also have more choices about what to wear). Not long ago, fashion editor Anna Dello Russo laid out some of her own rigid guidelines for women's attire: "If you’re not that important, you cannot be wearing sunglasses inside," she said; also, "I prefer to go barefoot rather than wear cheap shoes." Obviously, we cherish and adore every sweet word ADR has ever said, but we're not going to throw away our Urban Outfitters flats just because some fancy lady wrote a list.
Anti-shortsers: Here's a little perspective on where your tyrannical position will lead. Today the Telegraph posted a video reporting on a shorts ban (really) at a school in Wales, which has driven schoolboys to wearing skirts both in protest and to keep cool in the heatwave. Personally, I greatly enjoy the male skirt, but I suspect that shorts opponents may feel differently and should be fully informed if they want to continue along on their crusade.
[h/t Forum member Pricciao]
The last time Claire Danes appeared on the front of Vogue was in July 1998. Back then, she was barely 20; the photo taken by Steven Meisel shows the actress bright-eyed and smiling, truly blooming in the grass. The image couldn't be more at odds with her latest Annie Leibovitz-lensed August 2013 cover (it's the annual "Age Issue") which (playing on Danes' lead role in the show, Homeland) shows a severe, dour woman gazing back at us. For this I blame Vogue — not the actress — whose famously bad perspective on aging is all over this cover, from the hard-bitten expression (that is not the face of a woman who is enjoying her Vogue cover shoot) to the airbrushed Land Before Time backdrop. No one chooses to get older, but people do get to decide whether they want to be miserable. (Things don't, unfortunately, improve in the accompanying editorial, which reimagines "famous" scenes from Homeland, but styled with designer clothing.)
Other things worth pointing out:
The "Fall Looks for Everyone (With a Little Help From Daft Punk)" story most likely features Karlie Kloss (the model was seen taking photos with the French music duo on the streets of NYC a couple months ago), but probably doesn't answer the question: Isn't there someone better suited to giving American women fashion advice than Daft Punk?
I'm also greatly anticipating "Brooklyn Chic — the Girls, the Dresses, the Food." I love all those things, so surely Vogue's unique perspective will enrich my future experiences sampling the lost borough's superlative souvenirs.