/can't say i have much liking for any 'victorian' stylings tho ;(
I'm not 'missing' anything, i just do not have a taste for styles that include *intentional* nods to vintage styles. Just because 'clothes are still clothes and always will be' doesn't mean that all designs pay homage to the clothing of yesteryear. That line does, and I dislike that about it - i'm missing nothing.as for "fashion as vintage/old/whatever"...there is really nothing new under the sun. marie Antoinette wore dresses. women wear dresses now. sure they have different shapes, but it's still a dress. look at that double breasted jacket. that's some classic shit. Chanel will still be making double breasted jackets in 2030. as they were in 1940. maybe they'll have IP address on them, or scrolling twitter links, but it will still be double breasted with beautiful buttons and lapels. i think maybe you're missing it... collections build upon what the house has already done, and puts them in a new light. even brands that "go a whole new direction" are still recognized because why start from scratch?
I'm not 'missing' anything, i just do not have a taste for styles that include *intentional* nods to vintage styles. Just because 'clothes are still clothes and always will be' doesn't mean that all designs pay homage to the clothing of yesteryear. That line does, and I dislike that about it - i'm missing nothing.
/just because someone doesn't share your tastes doesn't mean they "don't get it".
after reading your post again, i think you comment is about the magazine in general. not the cover in specific. if that's the case, i agree. there is too much nakedness in it. at least in the one issue i've seen. gives it a bit of a of a Mirage magazine feel. or what i imagine the inside of Vice magazine to look like. but ali's nakedness on the cover is good stuff.