The problems with Vogue have been an obsession of the fashion and feminist blogospheres for ages now. But that's of no concern to the people who work at Vogue. As style editor Alexandra Kotur told the New York Observer in April, they just "carry on" and do what they do when such articles come out. Because they are Vogue, and Vogue knows everything, and we little non-socialite people are not Vogue, and know nothing. But there is something more powerful than bloggers, something more powerful than Vogue, that the magazine can no longer ignore: money. Whereas Vogue once used it to dab its forehead at private Pilates classes, and then bathed in it afterward, it can afford to do so no longer. The September issue is over one-third thinner than last year's, after steady monthly ad declines. The Imagist reports that in response to this tragic ad slump, the magazine is "quietly getting a revamp":
Think a new circle of models, an influx of fresh, young photographers and a desire for "unpredictability" in the stories.
What could that mean? Jourdan Dunn has to take maternity leave anyway, but no more Karlie Kloss? That would make us sad, but if we never see another picture of her against a gray backdrop jumping as though a spider fell down her pants, we won't be devastated. But no more Mario Testino? No more Annie Liebovitz? No more silly spreads inspired by Pimp My Ride or visiting the eye doctor? Might they deign to shill outfits that only cost as much as a new armchair instead of a new hybrid vehicle? Those would all be refreshing changes. But our greatest wish for Vogue is that they stop using Photoshop to turn their cover subjects into humanoid versions of themselves. And that they put Lady Gaga on one, finally. She's earned it after all — no one tries as hard with clothes as she nowadays. Not even Vogue.
Previously on The Cut...