Saturday, April 12, 2014

Kimye takes the spotlight


Not only did Kim become famous from a sex tape, having a televised relationship with Reggie Bush, the shortest and most expensive marriage to Kris Humphreys, having a reality show about her family, a baby out of wedlock with Kanye West, but now she can say she assumed the cover of Vogue magazine.

The March 2014 issue of Vogue magazine contains the most controversial cover in the magazine’s history. The cover featured Kimye, the infamous couple of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian. The world's most influential fashion magazine turned heads by allowing such a controversial woman to be on the cover. The majority of Vogue covers are occupied by elite fashion models, with an occasional female political figure making an appearance. This is the first woman to assume the coveted cover who has a well-known sex tape and is arguably one of the most dramatic public figures in the 21st century. This stunt may have cost Vogue their iconic position within the fashion industry and have turned it into a trashy magazine comparable to less prestigious Cosmo.  

As an avid reader and collector of this iconic magazine, I am offended that Vogue would print this cover, knowing that their readers aren't into the trashy life of Kim Kardashian, but rather into a more polished idea of poise and etiquette. Reading this magazine gives me a life to aspire towards, and I would never aspire to be Kim Kardashian. Ever. 

The criticism that the magazine got in response for putting such a trashy woman on the cover may have affected the future of Vogue. The mere fact that Anna Wintour, Editor in Chief of the magazine, had to publically defend the cover shows how much backlash the cover created. Historically, the magazine created an alternative world where people have diamonds and elegant gowns paired with unarguably perfect figures and flawless beauty. 

What once was aspirational and undeniably classy has now become a nesting ground for parvenus reality TV stars. Perhaps Vogue is trying to change the type of readers they attract by bringing in Kim Kardashian, but in the process, they are losing the readers that loved the magazine for the impossibly beautiful fashion it contained. 

The cover of Vogue has broader implications than simply a pretty face in a pretty dress. It creates societal expectations and trends. Part of the long tradition of Vogue magazine is the ability to feature those who define culture at any given moment.  The trend of a floozy being important enough to assume to cover presents a shift in society. The vociferous approach that Vogue took by placing such a cultural provocateur on the cover captured the modern media. Kim Kardashian is indisputably trending and with the help of her hubby, they are defining a new idea of society. Kanye, with his impeccable fashion, and Kim with her flawless beauty have become a visionary couple, despite Kim's terrible reputation. There is indisputably no doubt that Kimye are defining a new social norm, from outlandish clothes and ostentatious cars to reality TV shows. Today, it seems as though society has become more open and accepting, which may mean America is becoming more pompous in the process. 

As a magazine that has always set the trends, Vogue is setting the trend for a more acceptably distasteful society. Allowing a trashy figure to take the spotlight and be the trendsetter not only gives Kim an even bigger ego boost, but also negates everything Vogue had created over the past 100 years. Perhaps Vogue foresaw society evolving in this matter with or without their presence, and thus had to be proactive in redefining what society should aspire to become. Even though acknowledging that Kim is able to capture modern media much greater than any of the past featured cover models, Vogue changed their readers view of the magazine.

While the risk that Vogue took isn't necessarily being rewarded at the outset, it may be evidence of a shift in target audience and the evolution of society. Vogue did a bold thing by putting Kim on the cover, and in doing so they are fulfilling their unique role as a cultural barometer for a global audience. Though society enjoys the juicy details of Kim K’s life, Vogue is not the place for such drama. Vogue is no longer viewed as an exemplary classic, but rather a place for tasteless décolletage of past trash turned class.  

6 comments:

  1. While this may seem trivial at first, you are so right in that this cover has much broader implications about our society and what it values. I agree with you that it is shameful to say that Kim Kardashian should be the type of woman for women to aspire to. It is well known that magazines and other forms of media contribute heavily to how women portray themselves and perceive themselves, and if I had a daughter, I would not want her picking up a Vogue magazine and thinking that she should look or be like Kim or any of the Kardashians for that matter. And like you said, I think the fact that Vogue believes this is the new standard of high society goes to show that America has a skewed view on what should be considered the standard of our society. Instead of valuing women who have made significant progress in our world, we have decided that the paragon of womanhood is a basic reality TV star. And people wonder why there is still gender inequality?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sex sells. There is no greater, living proof of that fact than Miss Superstar herself. Am I upset by Vogue's decision to put these two on the cover? No, but that's because I don't read the magazine or truly understand its role in women's fashion and culture. This is the first time in recent years they've made controversial headlines either; a 2008 cover with LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen striking poses that called to mind King Kong certainly made waves internationally (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583333/Race-row-over-King-Kong-Vogue-cover.html).

    While I detest the K family and every single thing they represent, I know that someone high up in Vogue was pressured this decision to expand their demographic and drive sales. Low and behold, it worked: the sales of this Vogue edition is expected to top issues featuring Beyonce and Michelle Obama (http://www.eonline.com/news/529641/kim-kardashian-vogue-sales-reportedly-on-par-with-beyonce-and-michelle-obama-what-s-her-fave-spoof-cover). It's a business, and at some point you have to make the decision to sink or swim, even if it compromises your core values. The fault here should be placed upon the public for giving networks and publications incentive to publicize such trash. The main point being: We as a nation need to reevaluate our cultural values.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Forewarning, I do not read Vogue, I do not keep up with trends, and I would not consider myself to be educated in mainstream media.
    Overall, I agree that Kim Kardashian was not the best choice for their cover girl. It's confusing for the reader to have Michelle Obama on their cover one week, and Kim Kardashian on it another.

    And I by no means aspire to be like Kim Kardashian, but there are aspects of her life that I think deserve praise. For example, with past (and current) boyfriends (and husbands) including Reggie Bush, Kris Humphreys, and now Kanye West, she clearly isn't against inter-racial "bonding". I personally think this is awesome! I also think it is pretty neat that she had a child out of wedlock. America is very obsessed with the claim that you can only have babies if you are married, and this bothers me, because marriage isn't an entity innate to Earth, it's something that religions created to control their followers. Some might consider is trashy, but I personally find it pretty progressive (and realistic, people have sex before they get married) that she wasn't ashamed to admit she had sex before marriage.

    Maybe Kim wasn't the right choice for Vogue's target audience, and undeniably she is not a perfect person, but she does have redeeming qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So I would like to preface this with - I do not like Kim Kardashian at all and I agree with you that she should never have been put on the cover of Vogue.
    However, I question if putting her on the cover is as detrimental to Vogue as you suggest.
    I understand they have upheld an image of high class models and readers have come to expect a certain level of quality that they do not get from other magazines. It is clear from your article that Vogue is experiencing some backlash from this breach in protocol for their cover model. Does this really mean they have ruined everything for their audience though? Couldn't this just be their one slip up where they tried something new, realized the public hated it and then returned to their classic Vogue feel? I don't think that Vogue will really ever go out of style and need to assimilate to America's recent obsession with reality stars. It is too big of a classic empire for that to be necessary in my opinion. I understand that current readers were upset with their deviation of usual cover models but did they really alienate their whole audience with this one slip up?

    To play devil's advocate on one more point, maybe putting Kim on the cover represented something new for girls to look up to (as far as body type and what beauty is considered). As you have stated all of their cover models usually have the same type of quality, being tall and super skinny super models. Maybe Vogue departing from this image for one cover was in an attempt to give girls someone to relate to since most readers most likely resemble a body type closer to Kim's than that of a super model.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with and want to add to the idea that Americans are now more accepting but perhaps also more pompous. It seems so unfair to me (and ridiculous) that people are judged in our society based on their appearance (and often their money) rather than on their character. It is sad to me that in this day and age people look more at the exterior and are less concerned with the heart. I can see this causing even further problems for our country down the road, because we are going to create a bunch of shallow, corrupt citizens who have no sense of actual decorum or even concern for others (others includes their audiences and the people who are looking up to them, whether that is a famous person like Kim or a big sister). Our society is accepting garbage and promoting it as normal through media and as I can see through your point of the instance of the Vogue cover. This is not alright. I do not think people should be shamed or cut out of society because of wrong things that they do, but I also do not feel that they should be worshiped or publicized for these things, as so many celebrities often are. In my opinion, "trash", as you say, should not be turned to class unless trash have changed their ways.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My view is consistent with that of ferverrevolucionario's. Personally, I have very little respect for Kim Kardashian. She's doesn't have talent, she never went to college, she sounds dumb when she speaks, she's materialistic, she was married to a man for less than a year but felt the need to air her wedding on national television, and above all, she made a sex tape with Ray J. So...why the f*ck did Vogue decide to put her and her new beau Kanye West on the prestigious cover of Vogue? Simple: sex sells. Interracial relationships are also big in today' day and age, and being progressive, Vogue didn't see any issue with putting Kimye on the cover.
    Being a business major, I can see why this may boost sales of the magazine. Nowadays, everything is going digital, and magazine sales are probably not doing so hot. People simply prefer their ipad or kindle fire to carrying around various books/newspapers/magazines. Putting something controversial or new would definitely influence people to go out and buy the magazine to see what its all about. Like ferverrevolucionario said, I wouldn't place blame on Vogue, but maybe question our society's core values.

    ReplyDelete