Why do editorials oftentimes seem aimed at a male audience, when the majority of fashion magazine readers are women and gay men?
Go here to see the rest of the photos. The only way I can make sense of the seemingly necessary shower-scene is by reminding myself that sometimes men buy women jewelry. If Vogue Italia wants to entice men to buy jewelry, then putting it on a nude woman might work.
You can go here to see the remainder of the photos.
I get that it's Vogue Paris and they're all into nudity like the Italians, but nudity has been done before many, many times. I understand that it is an art form, and I am totally cool with seeing naked people in art. But when it doesn't have a purpose, as in this case, I don't care for it. Arizona Muse is naked. That's great, but it's not why I want to buy the accessories. Surely they could've come up with something more original than purses and belts hanging off a model.
Here are the rest.
This one is more tongue and cheek, and most of the photos make me laugh.
There are no nude pictures in Cesare Paciotti's spring '11 ad campaign, but I really want to buy that dress and those shoes if it's going to make me look how she does here. She looks glamorous and haughty and bitchy and gorgeous. Not all of those characteristics naturally go together, but it works here. The remaining photos in this campaign are not worth mentioning.
There is a distinct difference between an editorial like this and the first two spreads I mentioned. The one lensed by Sorrenti is strange and interesting; it's not exactly beautiful. The first and second editorials are boring and lack substance. I suppose the magazines are wanting to sell the jewelry/bags/belts for various reasons (like making the designer happy, etc. etc.), but they're not selling it to me. I realize not everyone shares the same taste, but I wonder if anyone who actually reads fashion magazines is tempted by the first two spreads.