*GASP* I know. The reality TV tartlet, supposedly with the help of her eager fiancé Sir Kanye West, may perhaps grace the superior fashion glossy's cover in the near future, if these rumors are true. And it seems as though everyone has an opinion -- including yours truly.
So, since you were wondering, I'm sure, what exactly do I think about the whole potential fiasco? (As if dubbing it a fiasco doesn't tell you enough as it is...) Well, I think there are a lot of factors that play into a potential Kim K. cover that could make it both good and bad. I'm going to discuss three.
First off, let's discuss one of the arguments I've heard so far: that Vogue is just giving the people what they want; Kim is a major celebrity and it's the public's interest in her that has prompted her cover girl status. Ultimately, this argument blames the public -- that we have made her important and if we wanted her to go away, it is our job, as the media consumers, to just say no!
While I think there's some truth in that, I also think that argument shows only one side of the complicated circus that is the media-public relationship. Yes, the masses have spoken, and they watch all of Kim's shows, read other magazines with her bodacious bod on the cover, and probably buy her perfume and whatever else she sells at Sears. However, the media makes a conscious decision to give her those television shows, put her on their magazine covers, and write stories about her. When E! news decides to do a special on Kim, or if UsWeekly features a "tell-all" as their major headlining story, they are telling us that Kim is worthy of discussion -- that she is important. The media is setting the agenda, making Kim salient, and therefore, crafting her celebrity. With Kim's image over-saturating the media market, a passive media consumer assumes she has some sort of cultural value.
Granted, people could stop watching her TV shows, stop buying magazines with her on the cover, and stop buying all of her products as promoted in her advertisements. But they don't, and this then fuels the need for more episodes, magazine covers and Kim-approved products because they make money.
Which brings me to my next point: magazines need to sell because magazines need to make money. If Kim is a tried-and-true cover success, then perhaps Vogue is just being smart. If you've ever waited in line at a grocery store (or really, any store that sells magazines for that matter) then you've seen Kim on probably half of the magazine covers. The girl might not actually be news-worthy, but by golly, the magazines make her news-worthy, and her face sells. Now, I don't have any statistics supporting or refuting the influence of Kim covers on your purchasing decisions, but the fact of the matter is: she is always on a magazine cover. There must be a reason why she is: people must buy those magazines. And if that's the case, then Vogue is going to appeal to all of those people who have purchased Kim-covered magazines in the past, and it's going to succeed in making money.
But then, the natural question is: well, what about all of those people who already purchase Vogue? Does Vogue's *speculated* choice of Kim as a cover girl align with Vogue's current demographic? This is something about which I have no idea. Certainly, Vogue is called the "Fashion Bible" for a reason -- it is one of the most prestigious fashion magazines. It is an institution. For goodness sake, Carrie Bradshaw chose Vogue in lieu of food because "it fed [her] more."
On the one hand, it might seem as though Vogue is abandoning its current readership. These are sophisticated women. These are women who get their news from more than just E!. Could it be that Vogue is "selling out" and giving in to this talent-less celebrity culture, forsaking art, culture, and fashion for a woman whose career was built on a sex-tape? Could it be that they are no longer the institution they once were?
Well, clearly the fact that this is a controversy only serves to prove that they are still as culturally important and prestigious as ever -- or else no one would care who graced the cover. However, if Vogue does choose to feature Kim as their next cover girl, I think it makes a huge cultural statement. Perhaps Vogue is simply aligning itself with a new conceptualization of the "celebrity." Though Kim's career had an infamous start, she has developed her own empire -- a modern businesswoman, if you will (though that is still debatable).
And we must consider this: it was Wintour who revolutionized the fashion mag cover in the first place, replacing model-dominated covers for covers with actors/actresses and singers. She has proven her prowess in shaping the industry, and maybe this is just another strategic move in redefining the celebrity and fashion landscape. Vogue could be headed in a new direction, keeping up with our changing cultural and societal values.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
No comments:
Post a Comment