It probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Vogue would pay tribute to the heroes of last year’s Hurricane Sandy. The magazine routinely features earnest photo spreads of non-fashion figures (politicians, athletes, people from the news) nestled between photos of models in expensive clothes. What led them astray this time was combining the two. Shot by Annie Leibovitz and titled “Storm Troupers,” the editorial features New York firefighters, nurses, and members of the National Guard. It also features models such as Karlie Kloss in designer gowns.
“When Hurricane Sandy hit, the city’s bravest and brightest punched back,” states the introduction on Vogue’s website. “With the area now on the mend, we paid these stalwart souls a visit, dressed up in the best of the New York collections. Call them New York’s other finest.”
The fallout was as swift and harsh as the hurricane itself.
“This is tacky and tasteless.”
“Inane.”
“I have made my living as a professional photographer for the past 23 years and at best, I find these photos offensive. If they were not related to the storm it would be different but it’s exploitation of the situation is appalling.”
Those are just the first three comments on Vogue‘s site. Professional commentators were just as critical.
Slate‘s Katherine Goldstein asks, “Is this what happens when Anna Wintour feels emotion?” She accuses Leibovitz of turning the heroes of Sandy into props and points out the darkly funny incongruity of the photo shoot’s captions.
“Employees were evacuated on rafts that floated on top of parked cars–and came back to work the next day. ‘It was a matter of getting the station back online,’ says mechanic’s aide Robin Yang. ‘It was, Everybody join heads and do what you have to do.’ Oscar de la Renta double-face duchesse-satin dress.”
Clearly, the elitism that people associate with Vogue is partly to blame. But interestingly, when Brazilian model Nana Gouvea posed seductively in front New York’s fallen trees and crushed cars the response was just as negative, despite the amateurishness of the pictures. (At least some people got a chuckle from Gouvea’s obliviousness–her photos inspired a site dedicated to photoshopped pictures of her in front of historical disasters like the Titanic and the Hindenburg.)
Vogue raised money for the Sandy relief fund, so why do the pictures still seem jarring and insensitive?
Art should respond to what is going on in the world. It provokes thoughts and discussion on controversial subjects. Most people recognize that’s the artist’s job. This even applies to film. The debate surrounding Zero Dark Thirty is the latest example.
Fashion, despite its beauty and craftsmanship, is not art. Individual items of clothing can be elevated to level of masterpiece. But the fashion industry exists to sell clothes, accessories, and makeup. Nowadays, haute couture mostly exists as an elaborate advertisement for luxury conglomerates that make most of their money from sunglasses and status purses. By wearing couture gowns on the red carpet and dutifully repeating whom they’re wearing, Hollywood starlets act as the most glamorous form of spokespeople.
Fashion magazines like Vogue exist for the same purpose. There is almost no difference between the ads in the front and the photo shoots in the back. The smell of commercialism is stronger than a Chanel No.5 insert. What’s offensive about the ‘Storm Troupers’ photo shoot is not the subject matter, but that the subject matter has been turned into an ad for Narciso Rodriguez and Diane von Furstenberg. It’s not the art, but the commerce.
Two things bother me. Fashion, like art, can reflect the zeitgeist, but in its own subtle way. And Vogue has responded to current events in the past in a much more sensitive manner.
In autumn 2001, the September 11th terrorist attacks shook New York, the United States, and the world. We found out later that they also dealt a devastating blow to New York businesses, including the fashion industry. The November issue was Vogue‘s first chance to respond to the event. But they had a problem on their hands. They had planned a flamboyant photo shoot with models posing as rock stars (David Bowie, Courtney Love, Marilyn Manson). Britney Spears was locked in for the cover.
Drawing inspiration from what the magazine did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, they dressed Britney in a simple white shirt and surrounded her with the American flag. They kept the rock star spread, but pushed up a preview of spring looks. The trends of 2001 were androgynous, hard-edged, and uninspired. With Vogue‘s help, the industry did a complete 180. If 2001 was all about the black leather jacket, 2002 would be the white peasant blouse. The issue’s photos of models wearing long, romantic dresses in front of the New York City skyline spoke to optimism, hopefulness, and the resilience of the city’s spirit. And they probably helped boost flagging sales.
Fashion magazines can sell stuff while reflecting current events. But, to do it, they have to remember to be elegant, not ham-fisted.
____
Max Mosher writes about style for Toronto Standard. You can follow him on Twitter at @max_mosher_.
For more, follow us on Twitter @TorontoStandard or subscribe to our newsletter.
