no, it's not an illusion

no, it's not an illusion

Chanel_vogue0507 >>  ...although the dress Chanel Iman wears as part of the May Vogue models feature makes you look twice -- the way Meisel shot it, it looks 3-D at first.  And then you just want to stare.  Okay, I'm focused now.  The editorial preview is up over at style.com, and the girls -- Lily, Hilary, Doutzen, Sasha, Caroline, Raquel, Chanel, Stam, Coco, and Agyness -- all ten of them -- are showered in bright colors.  There are accompanying little tidbits of information on each -- for instance, Sasha embraces her Russian roots with her current read: War and Peace.  But my favorite of it all: the fact that Vogue managed to stay true to its commercial roots even when putting models instead of celebrities on the cover -- those white shirts each girl is wearing on the cover?  They're from Gap.

On that note, you'll be interested to know, Internet, that the Vogue article accompanying all this model madness speaks to the issue of clashing art and business in fashion:

Fashion is, obviously, one part art, one part commerce, though there are plenty of people out there who see it merely as clothes for sale. But the one thing that everyone understands about fashion is that it is entertainment. It is show business. And you can't have show business without stars. Fashion needs supermodels. To reject that idea may very well be the best example I've ever encountered of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

So suddenly fashion needs supermodels, eh, Vogue?  I feel like this stance is a one-time thing -- conveniently appropriate to match with the issue.  But what about next month -- will June have a model on the cover?   Or will supermodels not be so necessary anymore...

Latest