One of the most pressing questions in fashion at the moment is the place of the model vs celebrity. There is much of relevance to both sides of the case - whilst I love models and the "talent" they bring to the table - there is no denying the importance of celebrities in selling magazines. Models do not sell, the May 2009 cover of Vogue US was their lowest selling of the year. There are some palatable celebrities, but there are some who are given covers over and over again to the point of saturation. The Cameron Diaz love-fest that is currently ocurring is an example of this. And the fact that Lily Allen and Kylie Minogue both had their second Elle UK cover in 2 years this year. Why can't we share the love? Some of my favourite magazines have the most diverse cover selection. Harpers Bazaar has has Vanessa Paradis, Marion Cotillar, Cheryl Cole and Jennifer Aniston in the past 4 months alone - love them or hate them. And we must comment Vogue US for upping their game this year, we have had Rachel McAdams, Tina Fey, Marion Cotillard and a resplendent Blake Lively so far, and the promise of Carey Mulligan in October. The solution to all this is, of course, to reignite the supermodel phase of the 90s, when models WERE celebrities. THe best of both worlds. It seems like this might be impending, what with the relevance of Lara Stone, and the rise and rise of interest in models like Miranda Kerr (mostly because she is dating Orlando Bloom, but still). Perhaps the 2010s will see a revival of the 90s cult of celebrity, that swung like a pendulum between over the top excess and underplayed shyness. The difference between Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss, you would say.
Like i said, some celebrities are TOO MUCH. But others, well.... they are just fabulous. I would rather have a thousand of these kinds of celebrity covers than just one average model cover. Because until models BECOME celebrities they have nothing to offer other than their beauty and their ability to pose well, and the fact of the matter is the models don't have the monopoly on beauty, some celebrities do that just as well - along with a healthy dose of personality. That is the material point regarding celebrities. You want to read about them, that's why the housewife doing the groceries buys Vogue, just as the fashionista dreaming of Balenciaga booties does - for different reasons, but their purchase of the magazine holds the same importance. W magazine is a celebrity magazine par excellence. I still remember my first copy of W - Kirsten Dunst on the cover with messy bed hair and a breton top, and I was enthralled. I remember reading the article - snippets of which, regarding her relationship with Jake G, remain with me to this day!!! - from start to finish, no pausing, completely enraptured. just like Vanity Fair, W can pull of a celebrity profile with relish. They dive under the skin to expose something about the culture of celebrity at the exact same time as they celebrate it. They poke fun at celebrity, but they are in the business of creating it too. Who can forget the Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt playing happy families shot by Steven Klein, totally controversial post-Jen? W gives you celebrity with extra brains. The celebrity will always have their place in a magazine. They are, after all, the purpose that magazines serve today. Until models can become as interesting, as enthralling, as captivating as celebrities, then their place on the cover will be supplanted by their more intriguing 'famous' counterparts.
wmagazine.com
This cover is W at its best. They take a celebrity, strip them bare, and then build them back again, piece by piece, so that by the end of the feature you feel you know something special, personal, EXCLUSIVE about them. It's a production in an of itself, yes, but it is a production that, in my opinion, is somewhat more meaningful than other magazines. I like that W occasionally does these kind of untouched covers that are raw and simple and, there is no other word for it, arresting. I hope they do one like this for Sofia Coppola's 'Somewhere' with Steven Dorff and Elle Fanning. I like how I know NOTHING about this movie that Rebecca Hall and Jon Hamm are in - and being an imdb buff I know a lot about movies - but after seeing this cover i went straight over there to find out. I like how just seeing these images makes me want to read the article. I like how the cover line is "this year's most adult film" and Rebecca and Jon actually look like adults, not botox-ed youths with perfect hair and wrinkle-free faces. I like how there is nothing to distract from Rebecca's absolutely symmetrical beauty and Jon's rugged stare. I like how the editorial is highly stylised, a perfect contrast to the cover and a subtle, but effective reminder about the reality of magazine production and the culture of celebrity. I like that shot with Rebecca and Jon peeking through the venetian blinds, just as evocative as this one of kristen stewart. I like how this cover tells you something about the celebrities it features, and that if it had been a model, you would always be asking - are they merely playing the part?
And I love how, amongst all that, amongst all the musing about the place of celebrities, the importance of models, the changing nature of magazines and culture, these pictures still make me smile and think, God, those sunglasses are bloody fabulous.
X
You have read this article celebrity /
editorial /
fashion /
magazines /
models /
photos /
pictures
with the title W. You can bookmark this page URL http://startthefire-cafagesta.blogspot.com/2010/07/w.html. Thanks!
