@canice
- great story about university barriers non-status cdns face because they must pay int'l fees http://bit.ly/bffV7p (by @caromorris via @hjli) 24 minutes ago
- trying to listen to meat is murder, but now all i can picture are the idiots who say the smiths are their favourite band. out, damned spot. 48 minutes ago
- day of UI surprises: @twitter has new hover pop up bubble for @user links, and @foursquare has new menu bar. 1 hour ago
- HOW IS THIS EVER A GOOD IDEA? RT @Slate Check out the stock art on this awful story about a dad who raped his daughters http://bit.ly/c3fcBp 1 hour ago
- @EYEWEEKLY i thought as much — if it was on TV, i wouldn't change channels. ps i love that levack squeezed in another mention of the MPDG. 2 hours ago
Quick thought about the new Love covers
Quick blog post this afternoon, as my CMS at work is down and thus have been handed a free extended lunch break.
So, have you seen this?
Well, this, 8x.
Love Magazine (y’know, the one that put the outsized, in girth and personality, Beth Ditto on its cover for its first-ever issue) is putting eight naked supermodels on its “Fashion Icons” issue, due Feb. 8.
On its own, it’s not much of a crime. Fashion editorials in which clothes are out of frame are pretty par for the course, so there’s not much to be offended by at this point. (Though I still contend there should be — replacing fashion’s primary concerns with aesthetics, form, art with that of the human body, etc. etc.)
But then Katie Grand had to open her big fat yap and try to explain what was a mostly innocuous, kinda cool cover concept:
Oh, okay. So you’re taking the eight most beautiful, genetically blessed women in the world, whose jobs are to fit sample size clothing (and thus, more or less have identical bodies), and comparing the minutiae of their forms? Yeah man, Kate Moss’s legs are stumps (or is that only because she’s a mere 5′ 6″ compared to her giantess peers?). Or maybe that youth is so fleeting that Moss — who was discovered TWENTY-TWO years ago — scarcely looks like a decade has passed, or that Naomi Campbell — who was discovered 25 years ago — looks better than my not-yet-24-year-old self. If you want to bring out the sociological hand-wringing, yeah, it’s problematic because readers could see this as some distorted signal that average resides somewhere between the two-inch difference in Moss’s and Lara Stone’s hip measurements.
Mostly, though, it’s just proof that PR spin has either reached a new low, more proof that journalists can’t do PR, or both.