This chat board is for comments on models, mag features, events, and all model-related stuff

Monday, September 13, 2004

I wonder...

Could the startling revelation (read Update II, below) that S Meisel - rather than the mature Italian lady with the doorless office who pretends to run the mag - is the real Vogue Italia editrix, shock the fashion world?
Yeah, right.
Mr Xerox (M. Gross revealed in his book that Meisel was known as such in the biz during the late 80s/early 90s) is in the news again - the predictable NY Times hacks (Don't Try This in Vogue, Sept 12) reveal that Conde Nast management decided to enrich W magazine with Meisel's artistry, for the very first time - an ed titled "ASexual Revolution" appears today (NY Times articles are always timely)

The pics in the article depict models in an attire familiar to anyone who frequented provincial British dance clubs in the 80s - I bet the Londoners will find the aesthetic as amusing and novel as the Ozzy Osbourne revival. The hack explains that "W has long been the most adventurous of mainstream American fashion magazines in imagery" - ie they print semi-naked pics of Kate Moss, which always drive the local hipsters crazy.
The rest, who have seen countless pics of Katie in full fluffiness (her stolen anatomically-correct butt casting from a London artist's studio has not yet been recovered though) couldn't care less.

We are informed that the editorial's "gender bending" is so significant for NYC fashionistas that "Next week under the tents, people will be talking about it ...That may be all they're talking about."
No wonder, since the NYFW is so terminally boring, with all the Bugs and assorted weirdos. No lesbian queens making news either - where is Amanda Moore with her vixenish Vogue editor partner? She didn't dyke-punch anyone this time around.

We also learn that US businesses like Wal-Mart and 7-Eleven may ban the mag because they will object to Meisel's "overtly homoerotic portfolio".
If Blog readers know any 7-Eleven customer who buys one of the measly 45,000 newsstand copies of W sold anywhere, tell me and I'll print his/her name.

On top of all that, a "curator" who had something to do with a "Men in Skirts" museum (!!) show apparently believes that the retro-editorial will be a "really potent social critique" - obviously of the "Mary Poppins" world that AW advocates.

Another scandal - not only is Meisel running Vogue Italia, he is now also "critiquing" A Wintour's shitty fashion dictates !!!


Some pics I found - dunno who took them - from the Lenny show in Rio Fashion.
The models are:
Gianne Albertoni with Fabiane Nunes, Ana Beatriz Barros with Elen Jabour, Isabel Gulart with Constantini and Isabela Tavares and finally, Mariana Marcki.




10 Comments:

At 9/13/2004 4:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>Where will this end???

Probably never. I personally find "the Bugs" and "quirky" models a bit more interesting than your run of the mill "beauties". Keeps things interesting. And after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder is it not?

Also, seeing the resurgence of the "supermodel" and girls who have a very early to mid-90's look, I'm curious what this SM editorial will do to the NYC world. Does this mean that skinny androgynous boys are back in again?

It firmly clashes against a year of bigger more manly and all-american boys that were sweeping the nation.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 
At 9/13/2004 6:26 PM, Blogger FV said...

Nope, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder - the same standards that applied to beauty 3000 years or more ago still apply today.

If some people are into "alternative beauty", that's another matter - it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with "conventional" beauty, it just means that some people decide to follow a (minority) path.

The fact that most people still agree on the same concept of "beauty" - while they tend to disagree on politics and everything else - should tell you something

 
At 9/13/2004 6:35 PM, Blogger FV said...

As for the "androgynous" theme, it's simple economics

- the high fashion conglomerates make a lot more money from men's fashions. It makes economic sense to persuade women to wear men's fashions, instead of wasting time and money to design and promote women's fashions that few will buy - which is why trashmeister Karl, Roitfeld and the whole cabal insist on models being so thin.

There is no real sociopolitical message in this, like the agenda Meisel has admitted himself pushing all these years - he just follows orders from luxury conglomerate marketing, that is "make women buy men's PaP"

Of course these women have to be very thin, but AW and Co are doing their best to get them to lose weight and "conform" to high fashion standards

 
At 9/13/2004 7:34 PM, Blogger FV said...

The latest scientific opinion



By Steve Connor, Science Editor

06 September 2004

Beauty is in the brain, not the beholder's eye. Just ask a baby


Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder ­ but firmly lodged in the brain of even the tiniest babies, according to a study by child psychologists.

Research shows that babies are born with a sense of beauty that develops in the womb as part of an innate ability to recognise human faces.

Tests on babies as young as a few hours old have shown they are not just able to distinguish between faces but show a definite preference.

Scientists believe this preference is largely genetically determined and may reflect the need for babies to be able to recognise human faces as soon as they are born.

Alan Slater, a developmental psychologist at Exeter University, said newborn babies were capable of quickly learning to recognise not only facial features but whether they are attractive or unattractive.

"If you show infants a few months old two faces they will spend more time looking at the more attractive face," he said.

"The notion was that this was some kind of prototype of the face, which was averaged from the various faces the infants have looked at over the first two or three months from birth.

"But in fact we find we get exactly the same effect with newborn infants, which is to say that newborn infants will look at the more attractive of two faces.

"This leads us to the conclusion that babies are born with a detailed representation of the face that allows them to detect and recognise faces," Dr Slater told the Science Festival in Exeter. "So attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it's in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth, and possibly prior to birth."

 
At 9/14/2004 2:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>the high fashion conglomerates make a lot more money from men's fashions.

What kind of crack are you on? Women's side of things brings in TONS more economically; cosmetics, lingerie, clothes, perfume, etc.

Male models get paid 1/4 of what FEMALE models get paid, simply because of the demand for women over men. I also don't know many guys who will go out and spend $250 on a pair of jeans. And trust me, guys don't have ass to fit those kinds of jeans.

I can't wear any of the clothes that girls on the runway do. They won't look right on me. And I'm a wiry guy.

AND, the SM editorial was Males that look like Females, not Females that look like males. Not many people in the industry find the reverse of that attractive.

 
At 9/14/2004 2:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, i've heard about this thing about babies and the "standards of beauty". the only sort of problem is that these "standards" refer to specific features like, say, large eyes. now, the question is, do you find all women with large eyes beautiful? probably not.

i agree with the author of the 1st comment. i'd rather see an interesting face than just a pretty face.

 
At 9/14/2004 4:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i would have to agree: it's women's fashion and beauty that generates the most revenue (are men the ones actually paying for much of this, i wonder?!). are you sure you didn't just reverse the gender equation by accident in your post?

another interesting place to look for the trends is with young people (meaning 13-25 specifically), and i realize this is not a secret, but i was reminded of it with my own eyes a month ago while visiting L.A. and spending time with the 20 - 24 year old crew).

"all the kids" these days are looking androgynous, but most blatant is how the boys are skinny, reminiscent of 70's punk styles, have long, asymmetrical hair cuts, and dabble in "gay" mannerisms. anyone who has browsed the social networking sites (friendster, myspace, etc.) can see this...

the girls on the other hand want to be noticed by boys in the same way they always have, and that means being traditionally feminine (it's okay for a little tom-boyish punk to get mixed in though, but the overall effect must still be "girlie").

the power that social acceptability holds over people is what drives these styles, and girls who cut off their hair and wear men's clothes don't have it. perhaps you've heard that quote that "when a guy walks into a room he checks out the girls, and when a girl walks into a room, she checks out the girls.."

 
At 9/14/2004 7:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very true, homosexuality [both male and female] is much more acceptable nowadays. I have tons of friends who, over high school+ years "Looked for their identity", dabbling in various things including both sexes.

I also think that to some extent, certain social cliques see "homosexuality" or "homosexual" behaviour as being different and thus "cool". This is seen in various forms since the term "teenager" was coined in the early 20th century. Greasers, mods, hippies, etc. all exhibited various non-conventional philosophies and practices.

Also, the blurred line between the sexes for males is furthermore pushed with the invention [or is it classification] known as "Metrosexuality"?

Either way, none of this is THAT new. And on the topic of AW and minions pushing girls to become thinner and thinner, I only have to say one thing... TWIGGY. Nothing new if it's been around for 50 years, which AW hasn't.

-SXSW

 
At 9/14/2004 9:05 AM, Blogger FV said...

well, the facts are:

Galliano(?) turned his shop in Paris into a menswear shop a few months ago - and a "women wearing men's PaP" trend is going to hit big in a few months

The reports are that in the luxury PaP sector, womenswear isn't selling well, but men's does


Meisel is just signalling trends, which will last one-two seasons

These people are trying to maximise profits - and they only care about themselves and their major advertisers/clients and what they have to sell, not whether designer womenswear is much bigger than designer menswear overall...

 
At 9/14/2004 9:53 AM, Blogger FV said...

did I say somewhere that there are female models in the Meisel ed?


the "gender bending" works both ways - women wear men's clothes, men wear women's clothes.


I guess using men in women's clothes is one way to create maximum shock to attract attention to "gender bending" - since there is no commercial value in using "homoerotic" images in a women's fashion mag


as for the "attire" comment - if you know about the "New Romantics" and the "new wave" types that followed - like the "Cleopatra" fella who used to sing "Spin me round and round" - and how they dressed like in the 80s, you can figure it out...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home