Love the whimsy of these vintage VOGUE covers.
Makes me wonder why the covers* have been so lacking for such a long time.
I'm already pretty frustrated by the typical whatever-celebrity-has-a-new-movie-out-right-now selection of the cover girls - but seriously, why can't you do something beautiful like these?
Am I really supposed to believe that covers like these just would not sell a magazine?
How did they sell magazines before?
1. October 1945
2. January, 1964
3. May, 1935
4. June, 1950
*I should specify that my issue is mainly with the American edition of Vogue - I know that other editions like French or Italian Vogue, take more risks with their covers. And it's really not fair to single out only Vogue, most North American editions of the major publications tend to be on the stale side. I remember subscribing to ELLE not too long ago and being really upset that the subscription covers were completely different than the news stand covers - much more artistic and creative. Why not make the cool covers the real covers? Every single ELLE cover I see at the grocery store is a celebrity in front of a white background. Like an afterthought. Thanks for nothing, Gilles Bensimon.
1 comment:
Alot of models have been talking about this recently too - these days it seems it's all about celebrities!
You have to sing/dance/act to get the magazine covers and cosmetic contracts.
I say bring back the model and a little old world glamour and artistry!
(and stop cluttering magazines with a million headlines so we can enjoy the artistic cover!)
Post a Comment