Tawdry reality of being in Vogue

Comment on this story
lara de matos INLSA Lara de Matos

Only two weeks ago, this column focused on Jay Z reportedly having rebuffed Kanye West’s request to be his best man.

The fact that I should be forced to focus on two people whose mere existence is the very definition of inanity pains me to the point of drinking.

Preferably, pina coladas. Copious quantities thereof. On some exotic Caribbean island far, far away from this capricious madding crowd.

And by “two”, I refer to Kanye and his trusty sidekick in all things self-worshipping and tawdry, Kim Kardashian.

Yet, here we are, compelled to offer such nitwits column inches yet again, due to the self-imposed mandate each editorial deal with that which was deemed most newsworthy within the world of entertainment, during the relevant period of publication.

Who knew that 1 x stretched, puffed and pulled reality TV star plus 1 x megalomaniac rapper would = such righteous outrage? And all because Kimye made the April cover of a magazine regarded as the bible for fabulous fashion and high-end living.

But longstanding aficionados are obviously of the view that Anna Wintour has finally lost her colourful marbles and confused “high end” with “high street” – and the very bottom end at that. Nevertheless, she of the perfectly coiffered bob stands confident in her own lunacy, declaring in a press release: “Part of the pleasure of editing Vogue… is featuring those who define the culture at any given moment, who stir things up, whose presence in the world shapes the way it looks and influences the way we see it.

“I think we can all agree on the fact that role is currently being played by Kim and Kanye to a T.”

That she even felt the need to issue an official statement in response to the backlash should have been the first glaring clue that, nay, the plebs most vigorously do not agree Lady Anna.

Furthermore, perhaps her platitudes would have borne more credibility, had they not come on the back of Kanye’s very vocal diatribe only a few short months ago that Kim, and not American First Lady, Michelle Obama, should have made the cover (Michelle was the face of last year’s April edition, as well as the March 2009 issue), because “(Kim’s) like the most intriguing woman right now”, adding:

“No one is looking at what Obama is wearing. And Michelle Obama cannot Instagram a pic like what my girl Instagrammed the other day (in reference to that white g-string swimsuit)…”

Well yes, one would hope the wife of the leader of the free world would have more pressing matters to occupy her time, than posting pics of her disproportionately large derriere (my money’s on implants) in yet another of many tasteless bids for attention.

And while we’re on the subject of garish, we’re not sure what’s more abhorrent: KK glaring out at us from every shelf, or that Vogue – a publication that has been associated with the concept of sophistication, prestige and class for over a hundred years – saw fit to throw in terms like “selfie” and (gasp) a hashtag phrase underpinning the headline!

Surely this must be the stuff of an April Fool’s joke, we desperately ask ourselves?

(Which, hey, would at least prove the perpetually sour-faced Wintour may actually possess something akin to a sense of humour after all.)

But the reality of the matter is all too concrete, and perfectly packaged for posterity, which can only lead us to share in one (former) fan’s sentiments:

“Vogue just took that first step into futile irrelevance and oblivion.”

LARA DE MATOS

TONIGHT EDITOR

[email protected]

To sign up for our Tonight newsletter click here

To vote on our Tonight poll click here


sign up
 
 

Comment Guidelines



  1. Please read our comment guidelines.
  2. Login and register, if you haven’ t already.
  3. Write your comment in the block below and click (Post As)
  4. Has a comment offended you? Hover your mouse over the comment and wait until a small triangle appears on the right-hand side. Click triangle () and select "Flag as inappropriate". Our moderators will take action if need be.