|
|
Post by Annie on Jul 15, 2008 11:31:21 GMT -5
march 1998 Kate Moss & Amber Valetta  |
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Sept 4, 2008 17:04:27 GMT -5
November Amber Valetta  scanned by Wes |
|
|
|
Post by ellastica on Jun 10, 2010 15:28:35 GMT -5
Claire Danes July 1998. {Pat McGrath/Garren/Cavaco} Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Jun 11, 2010 5:57:20 GMT -5
thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fevrier on Jun 11, 2010 11:15:22 GMT -5
omg, that's an awful cover.
nonetheless, thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by ellastica on Jun 11, 2010 14:48:01 GMT -5
really? aside from zellwegers, i thought this was the best US VOGUE cover of '98.
slightly over board on the text sure but the image is stunning. for me the pose, clothing, pastoral lushness, conjures up images of a land stranded mermaid who discovers the cosmopolitan joys of Marc Jacobs mouse flats!
|
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Jun 11, 2010 19:42:27 GMT -5
^Aww, love that description! aha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fevrier on Jun 12, 2010 11:15:43 GMT -5
hahaa now i feel bad.
idk, the pose is not very flattering for her, and neither is the skirt.
and also, i have a bit of trouble with the mesh that is the skirt & the sequence of the shirt.
the background bothers me, it's too plain.
i mean, had it been a studio shot it would've been nice, but just grass?
n the composition of the picture just doesn't really work for me.
it doesn't really appeal to the eye and guide you up and down the page, it just sends u all over the place.
& yes, the font is horrible; however, it's always awful in most american magazines.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellastica on Jun 12, 2010 14:15:22 GMT -5
sounds like the very reasons you don't care for it are the same reasons i love it!
i really enjoyed the organic, narrative quality of the cover; it made me dream.
i've been following fashion and collecting fashion magazines since i was 5 (i'm 25 now).
the things i don't like about fashion are the stereotypes, complacency, jumping on the bandwagon, blindly subscribing to the status quo.
i remember in the the 3rd grade taking my VOGUEs to school. my classmates thought i was bonkers, 'oh the horrors, skimpy nylon body suits!'. they made out to be a freak and caused such a fuss the teacher confiscated them. apparently being 'in vogue' was not acceptable for 3rd graders!
what's the point in great art if the people creating it or experiencing it, are censored and not allowed to openly and honestly express their emotions or reactions?
in other words, thanks for sharing your perspective. it's great to hear the flip side of Meisel's work.
dynamic fashion inspires vast gut reactions, thoughts and emotions; and thanks god for that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fevrier on Jun 12, 2010 14:24:47 GMT -5
hahaha i completely agree.
i think the whole point of art in general is to create different feelings in each viewer rather than to look good.
although these feelings might be sometimes positive or negative, the fact that they get a reaction out of you is the beauty of it.
i love meisel and he'll always be my favorite photographer, but i prefer his perfectionist side compared to "amateur-ish" work like this. idk, it seems like it's another photographers, though i can't really point out who.
i get the point of the fantasy and dream this image creates and i do enjoy the mermaid-story hahaha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Jun 13, 2010 8:03:09 GMT -5
I brought my september issue of Vogue with me in 1991 in school and my friend said "Is it like the Sears catalogue?" Arrrgh!
|
|
|
|
Post by seabreezes on Aug 31, 2010 22:37:15 GMT -5
May Elizabeth Hurley  |
|
|
|
Post by seabreezes on Aug 31, 2010 23:36:59 GMT -5
January Spice Girls  April Amber Valletta  June Sandra Bullock  |
|
