That is classic Vogue. I am glad that the book (it is not a mere magazine!) has stayed with it's focus on fashion, instead of turning into a trashy mag. Don't get me wrong, I like my dose of Cosmo. But Vogue is style and class. This cover though, is brilliant. Plus, no cranky underfed model ;)
It's a beautiful cover -- a beautiful piece of artwork. It's sad that magazines today don't print such beautiful images on their covers. Imagine suggesting to the editorial or production people at Vogue (or any glossy magazine today) that they shoulkd reproduce artwork on their covers. They'd balk and look at you like you were crazy.
Since the age of photography, I think it has been somewhat forgotten. Most of the covers in Vogue were peices of art, right up into the 1950's (more predominantly before the 1930's). I remember two covers (having been infatuated with Vogue as a teenager) that were paintings of the models that Vogue hired. I would imagine that since the dawn of camera shoots, this is a far simpler way to get a cover with multiple choices. Plus, the point in Vogue, is the fashion. Nothing shows textiles better than the actual textile. But I suppose this is a voice of a Vogue admirer. If Mrs.Winter were to ever leave the mag, or dies, I am pretty sure we will see another change. So we shall see.
Post a Comment