In Vogue?

Fashion magazines are pretty much evil. Fabulously evil (or something).

Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of editrix Anna Wintour's reign at fashion mag Vogue, and apparently she's done a whole great deal of good for the image of the publication, according to obsequious Robin Givhan, who penned in-case-you-weren't-aware-Vogue-is-really-great for the Washington Post.

Givhan spends the majority of the piece talking about how Vogue has become a cultural icon in its pure fantasy glamor and the fetishization of skinny bitches, celebrity obsession and luxury goods.

[Vogue] taps into that core desire to be gorgeous and declares it righteous and worthy and, most important, smart. [It] validates the modern careerist's fantasy, that she can run the world and look fabulous doing it.

Is that really all we ask from a fashion magazine? That it validate a consumerist cultural stereotype of the power female who not only wants to make a lot of money but spend it too? I mean, is this really celebrating, or even covering in a journalistic sense, the art of fashion? Sure it gives more attention to the few mega brands (CHANEL! PRADA!), maybe even fewer "up and coming" names who are already mostly well-known (Givhan reports that Vogue helped "two promising young designers" by paying for trainers and nutritionists so they could lose weight -- my money is on the Mulleavy sisters of Rodarte who DON'T NEED TO LOSE WEIGHT and have pretty much made it in the industry) but does that provide a cultural service? Or a consumerist one?

I don't know if we could really call Vogue, or Ms. Wintour for that matter, a cultural icon. I think it's more of a capitalist icon. Congrats to you Anna on 20 years of shelling out shit to the uber-rich! Here's to 20 more.

- C