British Elle December: Kate Hudson cover

It's rare that a mainstream fashion magazine cover deserves a second glance, but British Elle's December cover made me sigh with pleasure. It ticks all the boxes: fashion forward and arresting without being unduly provocative, and incredibly pleasing to the eye in its layout and colouring.

Most surprising of all, it features a celebrity whose styling is so immaculately unexpected and such a delicious departure from her norm that it makes us immediately consider our perception of her image, and therefore want to buy the magazine to find out more.

It's really no surprise that Elle's Creative Director Marissa Bourke wins so many awards. To me, this is the absolute exemplar of what a 21st century high circulation newsstand magazine cover selling to an increasingly fashion literate audience should look like.

Three cheers to editor Lorraine Candy for running with this.

Esquire October 2009 issue

Could this be the best news stand cover of the year? Stylish without being camp, retro without being a cliché. Above all, interesting. I've never read mens' magazines, (it's hard enough to keep up with the womens market), but since the glamorous Mrs Trefusis sent me the Star Trek issue last spring (okay, so I'm a geek in fashion editor clothing), and my brain didn't go into stasis (no chance here of being a pushmepullyou between good features & bloke stuff, it's all excellent) I've been a convert to British Esquire.

http://www.esquire.co.uk

GQ April Cover - Robert Pattinson

Apart from Morrissey when I was sixteen, I don't think I've ever found an actor, celebrity or famous person attractive in any way. Then I saw this today. But Robert Pattinson is twenty-two, so I'm just going to say that I greatly admire (photographer) Nathaniel Goldberg's body of work.

New Woman: on the verge...

Poor New Woman. First they tired to rebrand it by calling it NW, so no one recognised it on newsstand, and now publication has been suspended for a month-long consultation process, following Bauer's long rumoured purchase of Emap's UK Consumer Media section, (which also includes Heat, FHM, and its commercial radio stations.)

Behind the scenes at British Vague

This is a genius piece by interview doyenne Lynn Barber of The Observer about the mechanics of British Vogue. (To gain maximum enjoyment, you need to know that Ms Barber is the other side of fifty, larger than a Voguette, grey and completely uninterested in fashion. She is also probably the best feature interviewer in the UK.)

Newsflash: Geren Ford IS a woman

I'm a hack. Of course being a brilliant one, I try not to make factual errors. But generally, if I do, they get weeded out by my editors. If they miss them, then subs fact check rigorously, & then make squiggly marks all over the page proofs to highlight my idiocy. And, even if something misses their eagle eyes, then there are dummies & page proofs & chromalins & all the myriad versons of a mag that float around the office being read by editorial & art & production before it goes to print.

So someone please explain to me why no one at British Vogue noticed that, in the January 08 issue, American designer Geren Ford is described as being male? She can't be too chuffed that they have decided that fashion designers had better just be men...

US Elle December 2007 issue

Oh my goodness. What have they done to Keira Knightley?

BREAKING NEWS: US HOUSE & GARDEN TO FOLD

WWD reported an hour ago that US Condé Nast is to fold the US edition of House & Garden and the accompanying website with the December issue. This follows the closure of Jane and its website earlier in the year.

Prior to Jane folding, industry tactics dictated that the prnt version would fold, whilst the on-line one would continue, Hachette's Elle Girl & Time's TeenPeople for example. Although the clue there is in the demographic - H&G's somewhat silver readership does not, at least for the next few years, represent a guaranteed on-line revenue stream. And whilst Glamour.com & style.com have a fully functioning and rather good web presence, it's hard to not to suspect that the other CN titles' websites are there to drive print subscription sales, and build reader loyalty, rather than produce independent revenue streams.

The closure of H&G has been long rumoured, but this announcement came out of the blue, although it is thought to have been precipitated by the departure of publisher Joe Lagani last month.

things magazine

Hey thank you to the very good things magazine for including me in their, "sift through a collection of style, design, whatever weblogs, all of which pump a relentless stream of eye-catching imagery into your browser, day in, day out." Apparently I have, "a nice take on the Atlantic divide".

things magazine was originally founded in 1994 by a group of writers and historians based at the Victoria & Albert Museum/Royal College of Art in the belief that objects can open up new ways of understanding the world.

Now an independent magazine, things has built a reputation as a home for new writing – essays, reviews, short stories and poems – about objects and their meanings. The website contains a weblog, photography galleries, special projects, searchable archives and the occasional on-line only article.

Oh for goodness sake....

Vanity Fair has put Victoria Beckham on its best-dressed list. ARE THEY INSANE? She has absolutely no imagination or style, and dresses like a German fashion editor most of the time (that is she obviously points to a complete runway look and then wears it head to toe). And what about the fact that many designers refuse point blank to dress her, for fear of devaluing their brand? ( Obviously Chanel is the notable exception but, as I have noted before, Karl Lagerfeld would dress Princess Fiona if he thought she would get him some media exposure.)

JANE MAGAZINE FOLDS

US Condé Nast have decided to fold their flagship magazine for twenty-something women. Founded in September 1997 by the eponymous Jane Pratt, the current editor in chief is Brandon Holley, formerly e-i-c of Ellegirl, and who will now be leaving the company, along with the magazine's publisher

Media pundits are suggesting that the competition posed by on-line media has contributed to Jane's demise. But I suspect that Condé Nast has lost faith in the brand: Jane's mixture of fashion & feistiness didn't necessarily sit well with the Condé Nast ethos. This theory is supported by the simultaneous announcement of the closure of the Jane website. (Two recent closures, ElleGirl & Teen People still exist in on-line form).

Fashion comes in all shapes & sizes part two

The move towards a more fitted silhouette has been on the horizon for a couple of seasons: for every twenty trapeze dresses, there’s been a Christopher Kane bandage dress, or a Todd Lynn suit.

And so, of course, with such a drastic about turn in fashion sensibility, the new editions of the fash mags all have pieces on how to update your wardrobe for Fall. If you aren’t in the industry then these nuts & bolts service pieces can be very useful. However, my main reaction upon reading JJ Martin’s piece in July US Harper’s yesterday made me want to throw something (probably my already-feeling-very-dated-and-it’s-not-yet-July Chloé wedges). She tries very hard to suggest looks for women with shapes that aren’t fashion model standard, but fails miserably.

“A sexy set of legs and a thicker midsection demand a short tight skirt( or substitute a slim pencil skirt), and a blousy top with the new puff sleeves”

Is the woman insane? Does she ever REALLY look at bodies that differ from the fashion norm? Sure the pencil skirt is going to show off my legs but, take it from me, the cinched in waist that looks best with a pencil skirt is impossible if you have a ‘thicker midsection’. And if you have great legs then you’ve probably got a larger bust, and the last thing you need is blousiness up top – unless you want to look as though you are in danger of toppling over in a heavy wind. I do wish some fashion writers would do more than pay lip service to the idea that women have different shapes. (Although I must give a shout to US Glamour, who, to their huge credit, do occasionally shoot their swimwear on normal women.)

US Harpers Bizarre

As a long term fash mag slag, I'm perfectly aware that in our populist, multi media society that the net result of running picture of (non-celeb) models on the cover of fashion magazines is a downturn in newstand sales. Apparently the reader wants a cover star they can identify with, someone whose life speaks to them. This is why Jennifer Aniston (ubiquitous, not too pretty girl next door) covers fly off the shelf, Naomi Campbell's (ex-drug taking, bolshie diva) always, always tank.

BUT WHAT THE FUCK IS US HARPERS PLAYING AT? IT'S A FASHION MAGAZINE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. I understand that magazines exist to provide a kind of social commentary, and that these girls are part of our society, like it or not. But when, when did Paris Hilton ever dress in any style other than hooker on street corner crossed with Barbie crossed with Olivia Newton John? Why should we be aspiring to the look & lifestyle of a girl with the fashion nous of a tween and a do-anything-for-money-even-though-I'm-an-heiress, venal, amoral, laws-don't-apply-to-me mentality?

Let us not forget that this is the magazine which positions itself as the magazine for "the well-dressed woman and the well-dressed mind", whose staff have included legendary fashion editors Carmel Snow, Carrie Donovan, Diana Vreeland, Anna Wintour, Liz Tilberis, art directors Fabien Baron and Alexey Brodovich, and which has commissioned photography from Louise Dahl-Wolfe, Man Ray & Richard Avedon amongst many, many other luminaries.

To it's sister publication in England, Virginia Woolf, Rose Macaulay, and Elizabeth Bowen contributed fiction; Gertrude Stein wrote about Alice B Toklas, Vita Sackville West wrote on gardening, Seigfried Sassoon contributed poetry and Evelyn Waugh extolled the pleasures of ocean cruising. And now we have Paris Hilton & Nicole Ritchie.

I despair, I really do.

British Vogue May 2007 cover

There are many, many reasons why I think this is a shockingly bad cover but I'll start with the most obvious. If you were a famous model would you want to be photographed with a dodgy rocker with the words 'Fashion's Big Easy' stamped just under your groin?

It cld be argued that now Johnny Borrell is shagging Kirsten Dunst, Vogue were remarkably prescient in putting him on the cover, but surely they could at least have run a cover that hinted at some chemistry between their chosen stars? We all know she's married with two kids, but hey, fostering the illusion that they wanted to rip each other's kit off would at least have made a visually interesting cover. And what's with the dragged-through-a-hedge-backwards hair on Natalia?

British Vogue does have a history of putting dubious celebrities on the cover. Robbie Williams with Gisele Bundchen in October 2000, P.Diddy with Naomi Campbell in October 2001 and Elton John with Elizabeth Hurley in December 2002... the last one in particular set a new low at the time.