Everyone in the English speaking world -- whether they wanted to know, or not -- has seen pictures of Victoria Beckham's new pixie haircut. So what on earth possessed Vogue India to put her in the cover in The Worlds Most Awful Wig?
It seems like they missed a trick to me: if they were going to be edgy enough to put a Western celebrity as the cover star of the bridal issue, why didn't they go the whole way and ditch the traditional long locks for a short messy do?
Also, I can't believe that VB allowed it, to be quite honest. Vicky love, it looks like something slithered around in a vat of grease and then died on your head.
Original post. Been having a little spy on my blog have we?!
Posted by: Haribo | 27 October 2008 at 16:43
I thought the same; I love her, but I'm seriously underwhelmed by this shoot. The hair looks like her extensions circa 5 years ago, and why is it covering almost half her face on the cover?! Odd.
Posted by: Blair | 27 October 2008 at 21:53
it's hardly thieving harry. this is big news, i first read about it in the mirror. did they steal your post too? ;)
Posted by: R | 28 October 2008 at 02:39
Harry: I wrote this on Sunday and scheduled it for Monday morning. I don't need to steal ideas from you: I have plenty of my own.
Blair: I remember your love for her! I just can't believe that the cover shot was the best image they took, you know?
R: Thanks :)
Posted by: Amy May | 28 October 2008 at 09:41
It's edgy to feature Victoria Beckham? Is that because the Indian Vogue demographic is notoriously xenophobic? Maybe it's controversial to people who are already have concerns at how much emphasis Indian society puts on Caucasian appearance and devoting such a big spread (bridal wear is big news, right?) to another Western face is a mixed message* to give out.
I dunno if it's edgy in the classic, zeitgeist-y sense of taking risks and forging bold, creative new paths. I don't know much about the Indian fashion climate, though. Maybe I'm projecting what a colossally safe move it would be over here and adding that projection to your other report that they originally launched the magazine with a western face, which one assumes wasn't a direct challenge to the status quo.
And maybe this isn't the time or the place for such liberal hand-wringing.
_
* I say mixed message. It strikes me as uniformly bad but I'm probably missing something significant.
Posted by: dnai | 28 October 2008 at 13:30
Dnai: I think I mean edgy for Vogue India, which is about as edgy as a catalogue most of the time. But, still, perhaps edgy is the wrong word.
Most of the covers have featured beautiful Asian women: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan for October, Priyanka Chopra for September, Asian TV actresses for August, Asin Thottumkal for July... etc. What's worrying to me is that the arguably most important issues -- bridal and first -- are presented with white faces. I wonder what that says to their target demographic.
However, caucasian bride or not, featuring short hair on the cover would have been a bold move for the bridal issue and I would like to see Vogue India taking some risks!
P.S. Hand-wring away. You're awesome.
Posted by: Amy May | 29 October 2008 at 13:19
Vogue India, not Indian Vogue. I knew that. Consider my sub-editor sacked and their home torched.
Dark, provincial Indian faces with pixie hair in African garb and Christian iconography.
Mmmmmm. Homoeroticism. A bridge too far over the river Indus?
_
Posted by: dnai | 04 November 2008 at 08:09