No more magazine purchases for me. The idea that those rags can blame the internet for their demise is ridiculous. After reading the book, "Diana Vreeland The Eye Has To Travel" I realize the problem must be the editors of these operations are just plain boring people. I will explain...
Name your magazine they are all the same. No, this is not just my opinion but anyone I speak to has noticed the low low low quality of the magazine publishing world. What the hell happened? For one thing they have about 6 personalities they keep recycling to put on the covers. The interviews are merely PR style advertisements and every article in the magazine sounds like the same reporter wrote it no matter what the topic.
The mag I picked up today is titled "MORE". Please, the title alone is on the level of a three year old asking for more, more more. What the heck? Then the subtitle is "For Women Of Style And Substance". That statement is code for "the older woman". That is not okay. It screams for help from the inside out. Then why did I choose it? Because I wanted to make sure when I started ripping on these rags I knew what I was talking about. How do you know something is garbage if you've never read them?
.jpg)
Unless you were doing a book report or a post about magazines why would you ever pick this cover up? If you want to know what is going on with Julianne Moore get online. If you want "best spring looks under $150.00 get online.
Now for the difference as I see it. 1967 Vogue had these subtitles. "Fabulous Forecast Your Next Best Looks" and "The Beautiful People Their Hair and Makeup This Summer". Yes one could Google those titles and come up with similar info except for one major point. The article in Vogue would have been written by well paid journalists who took pride in their craft. Today it must be interns that know how to cut and paste ho-hum articles from the net and we have.....well you know.
It must be the editors have become ordinary business people who are well suited to run a business but are not within themselves interesting at all. Think Anna Wintour. She may not be meek and mild but with her head down and bangs in her eyes and dark glasses her demeanor does not exude someone who lights up a room. She seems quite narrow instead of open and exciting. Think again when we had Diana Vreeland as the editor of Bazaar and Vogue. She wanted for her magazine a combination of culture, art, happenings and vibrant fashion. All things that she was within herself. D.V. had the talent to give people what they never knew they wanted. HELLO!! Yes, yes, yes, give me something glorious, glamorous, dreamy, intellectually challenging, a party that I will never be attending.
The comparison is not even close. "More" wants readers to send their opinions to help make "More" even "More" fabulous. Everyone has their head and eyes in their I-phones at all times and only know the art of tweeting. They do not SEE or FEEL their environment even if they do get sent to "the land of the gods" for a shoot they would not know how to BE THERE and encapture it. If they get sent to a fabulous party with fascinating interesting people to report on they will not be able to translate it because they will be too busy tweeting and not actually be at the party. So I guess it is the internet to blame after all that is making every Dick and Jane a very dull person. My opinion is keep thinking your "More" magazine is fabulous and more than that be fabulous yourself and hire personnel that are masters at their craft.
Name your magazine they are all the same. No, this is not just my opinion but anyone I speak to has noticed the low low low quality of the magazine publishing world. What the hell happened? For one thing they have about 6 personalities they keep recycling to put on the covers. The interviews are merely PR style advertisements and every article in the magazine sounds like the same reporter wrote it no matter what the topic.
The mag I picked up today is titled "MORE". Please, the title alone is on the level of a three year old asking for more, more more. What the heck? Then the subtitle is "For Women Of Style And Substance". That statement is code for "the older woman". That is not okay. It screams for help from the inside out. Then why did I choose it? Because I wanted to make sure when I started ripping on these rags I knew what I was talking about. How do you know something is garbage if you've never read them?
Now for the difference as I see it. 1967 Vogue had these subtitles. "Fabulous Forecast Your Next Best Looks" and "The Beautiful People Their Hair and Makeup This Summer". Yes one could Google those titles and come up with similar info except for one major point. The article in Vogue would have been written by well paid journalists who took pride in their craft. Today it must be interns that know how to cut and paste ho-hum articles from the net and we have.....well you know.
It must be the editors have become ordinary business people who are well suited to run a business but are not within themselves interesting at all. Think Anna Wintour. She may not be meek and mild but with her head down and bangs in her eyes and dark glasses her demeanor does not exude someone who lights up a room. She seems quite narrow instead of open and exciting. Think again when we had Diana Vreeland as the editor of Bazaar and Vogue. She wanted for her magazine a combination of culture, art, happenings and vibrant fashion. All things that she was within herself. D.V. had the talent to give people what they never knew they wanted. HELLO!! Yes, yes, yes, give me something glorious, glamorous, dreamy, intellectually challenging, a party that I will never be attending.
 |
| Image from Diana Vreeland The Eye Has To Travel |
.jpg) |
| Images from Diana Vreeland The Eye Has To Travel |
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment