Monday, May 4, 2009

more dramz.

I get it, Anna Wintour, you need to sell magazines. You need to keep your job, and you need to keep Conde Nast happy. But this?

"The public interest in models these last few years has not been as it was during the early ’90s when Naomi [Campbell] and Linda [Evangelista] caused so much excitement. And until models become celebrities again in their own right, I can’t see them selling as well on magazine covers as actresses. "The generation that followed the supermodels shied away from that sort of fabulosity and scrutiny."

She also says "For models to have the same social and commercial clout as Hollywood stars, they will have to want to live that sort of ‘fishbowl’ existence; they will have to be up for living a glamorous and public existence,” she says. “Gisele and Kate did this, of course, by dating the likes of Leonardo di Caprio and Johnny Depp early in their careers; by going out to events and walking the red carpet; and by each having, in their very different ways, a world-class sense of style." [ny times]

I just don't know how to respond. In my opinion the interest in models has, if anything, grown simply because it is easier to know about these models. There may not be a "big 5" of Naomi, Kate, Christy, Linda, et al, but there is probably a "big 20" set of girls, they just happen to live more private, though maybe not less privileged lives. There are entire blogs devoted to the style of Erin Wasson, entire forum threads devoted to the newest model to star in the Nina Ricci campaign, and well, you get the idea. Perhaps Ms. Wintour should keep Vogue a fashion magazine and leave the celebs for Glamour and other magazines of that caliber, and focus on targeting these young fashionistas into buying a subscription.

No comments:

Post a Comment