What's Wrong With This Picture?

Well, nothing. It's Halle Berry! She looks gorgeous and this cover is at least ten times better than last month's with awkward Gwyneth.

But you know what is wrong? That Halle is the first black woman on the cover of the September Issue (the biggest issue of the year) since 1989! That's right, it's been almost TWO DECADES since a woman of color was on the cover of this coveted issue. In 1989 the honor went to Naomi Campbell, and she was the first black woman ever to be on the cover of the September Issue.

I know I've talked about lack of diversity in Vogue's covers before, but I still don't get why Vogue won't address it. Or why Vogue is so stingy with putting women of color on the cover.

I. Just. Don't. Get. It.

It just makes me sad that in 2010 we're still talking about these issues. I feel like I'm living in the Dark Ages.

No More Gwyneth Paltrow

Gwyneth Paltrow is to me what wire hangers were to Joan Crawford. Okay, so maybe that's not the most appropriate comparison. I don't hate Gwyneth (in fact, I used to worship her), but I'm so tired of seeing her on Vogue covers at least once a year. Is she really that fascinating? Does she really have that much to say? I will leave those up as rhetorical questions.

Also, this cover? Standard Vogue fare: Boring, bland, and just plain bad. There's absolutely nothing special about it. Vogue is supposed to be the bible for fashion and this is the best they can come up with? In a word: Uninspiring.

I want to be wowed for once. I want to keep each issue like I used to instead of dumping it with relief into the recycling bin. If I wasn't a subscriber, I would never ever EVER buy this off the newsstand. I mean, the hair is stuck flat against her face, the dress is unremarkable, and is it just me, or does that pose look really uncomfortable and unnatural? I just wish Vogue would step it up. But I'm starting to think that Vogue doesn't care anymore. Or it has a completely different agenda than what I used to think it had. And I'm not sure what that agenda is now.

Italian Vogue is Badass

Though I cannot read Italian, I love Italian Vogue for its devotion to innovation and conceptualism, its tantalizing photo spreads and gorgeous covers. Italian Vogue isn't afraid to push the envelope, if you'll forgive me for using such a cliched phrase. Like an Italian mafioso, it's truly badass.

Just a few months ago, Italian Vogue had an "all-black" issue featuring only black models on its covers and inside photo spreads. People said it wouldn't sell; it sold out. Would American Vogue ever make such a bold move? Even with the first black president in office and February being black history month? No, of course not. American Vogue is too scared of making these types of statements for some reason. It would be truly refreshing to see something bold and new and fresh from the stale and boring magazine. And it doesn't have to come in the form of an "all-black" issue.

It could be something as simple as an innovative, creative, captivating and lush cover like the one above, also from Italian Vogue. OK, obviously the cover isn't everything, but in a way it is the most important thing because it's what you look at before you decide to actually look inside. If you really pay attention to these types of things, you'll notice that oftentimes the cover will determine whether you turn even one page of the magazine or none at all.

The Twisted Logic Behind Vogue's Covers: America Ferrera, bad; Blake Lively, good

So, La Wintour's decision to put Gossip Girl and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants star Blake Lively on the February cover of Vogue was met with a lot of criticism. Partly, because much of the public didn't think the blonde starlet deserved such a prestigious cover, which is usually reserved for A-listers and the occasional socialite (remember Melania Knauss before she became Mrs. Trump?). Vogue defended their decision by stating (and I'm paraphrasing) that Ms. Lively was on a popular TV show famous for its fashion. Now, I love Blake and the show so I didn't really think much of this whole brouhaha over the cover choice. But then I got to thinking: Hey, how come other super-popular TV stars haven't been honored with a Vogue cover? Namely, America Ferrera.

Coincidentally, America and Blake have very similar pedigrees. Both were in The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, both star in popular TV shows (in America's case, it's Ugly Betty, a tongue-in-cheek look at the craziness that is the fashion world), and both are super gorgeous, young and famous. It should also be mentioned that Gossip Girl averages about 2.5 - 3 million viewers a week, whereas Ugly Betty averages between 8 and 11 million. In case you're wondering what this means, it means more people watch Ugly Betty and ergo, it's the more popular show.

So, why on God's green earth did La Wintour choose to put Blake on the cover and not America? Hmmm, could it be that it's because America is......gasp! Latina? While, Blake is as white and all-American as apple pie. I don't know, but it was a thought that crossed my mind ;)

Why Vogue Sucks, Part I: The Covers

Vogue covers have been sucking for quite some time now, and everyone seems to know this but the people actually at Vogue.

Case in point: "OK, I'm getting bored with Vogue's covers. Time to bring back the cavalry: Linda Evangelista!" S.A. Lucas-Townsend, Roseville, CA. "Can you please go back to using professional models on your covers?" Jill Burgess-Grider, Brooklyn, NY.

When your readers are complaining about the covers (and begging and pleading for something new) in every issue, and you're actually PRINTING these complaints, maybe it's time for a change. I don't know, I'm just saying. I mean, I'm not a publisher or anything, but it seems like maybe, just maaaaaybe, you'd wanna give your magazine a makeover.

Things that suck about the covers:

1. Overrated white movie stars
2. Arms akimbo or three-quarter profile pose
3. Airbrushed to another dimension
4. Dress by Prada, Chanel or Marc Jacobs, again (hey, it's in the contract)

Which brings us to the February issue featuring the lovely Blake Lively. (I'm skipping January where Vogue somehow managed to make Anne Hathaway look like a vampire cause I can't bear to look at it anymore. Also, my grandpa ripped off the cover to pick some trash up off the floor, but that's a whole other story). OK, so what's wrong with this picture? At first glance, nothing. It's a great photo. She looks gorge, pretty dress, sunshine-y background, la di da. But in the immortal words of Chandler Bing, could this cover BE any more generic? There's no excitement, no emotion. There's no oomph. It's blah to the nth degree. It's just so sad, like a wilting flower that no one can be bothered to water anymore. *Sigh*

*blurry photos courtesy of my iPhone