Tracey Jackson

Mar 25 2014 | 9 Comments

WHY VOGUE?

Screen Shot 2014-03-25 at 2.25.11 PM

 

Two hundred and thirty- nine people are lying dead at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.  Putin has decided he misses playing cops and robbers with the US, and has decided to start stealing countries for what he hopes will be his empire.  Hundreds have just been washed away in fierce floods in Washington State, and I have not even inched my way towards Africa yet. So, why would I be giving any time, thought, energy or ink to Kim Kardashian and Kanye West and their controversial Vogue cover?

Because I need a break from depressing things, and it pisses me off.

I could write about the last four days I spent in St. Lucia, which I might next week if the pickins get slim. But I spent the first 24 hours of it sick in bed, physically exhausted and sounding consumptive from doing book edits. I spent much of the time on the sofa watching CNN and the endless coverage of Flight 370. And my father in law is deathly ill.

In light of all that Kanye and Kim are a welcome relief.

Plus I am really pissed off: As are many others.  Which is evident by the fact that Anna Wintour just had to release a statement defending her insanely tacky choice of putting a girl who became known for sex videos and rapper who do not represent what Vogue means people, on this month’s cover.

I don’t mind him as much as I mind her. Together they make me quiver from the  global photo-opability of their collective lives.  But at least he entertains and has a certain irony to what he does. But he comes off as mean, and compares himself to Jesus, so yeah, he’s pretty loathsome too.

They are everywhere.  But Vogue????

Since I was a girl Vogue has been the place one goes to for a type of glamour and elegance. None of which you can accuse Kim Kardashian of having in any way.

I know it’s become sport to criticize her, her sisters and that fright night of a mother who runs the show.

I think what pisses people off is they seem teflon coated. They have been anointed for something and nobody can figure out what it is.  And it just keeps getting bigger and more pervasive.

They are not pretty like, say, The Miller Sisters were. They do not come from a fancy family that would give them a Downton attraction.  They have done nothing but air their dirty laundry on not only TV, but any outlet they could find.

They are business women in the same way most athletes are business men; someone has figured out how to market them.  Someone runs the show. None of them have a degree from Wharton tucked inside their Birkins.

And now we find them on Vogue. Not them, her, the really tacky one. The one who gave us the sex tapes. The one who when she opens her mouth sounds like her entire IQ could fit inside a lipstick.

I think the world went, anywhere but there. Let something be sacred for the truly stylish.  Just Vogueish if you will.

And then of course many forget her father Robert -   the first famous Kardashian. The one who became celebrated for more than likely hiding the damming evidence for his best bud, that pillar of American society –  OJ Simpson.  The Kardashians have been the first family of repulsive behavior since they arrived on the scene.

So, when I saw Anna Wintour stuck Kim K. on the cover of Vogue, I vowed to cancel my subscription.

Now Anna Wintour is not sitting around worrying about me terminating my forty year relationship with Vogue.

But when I called to cancel this morning, the woman who handled it said, “What is going on? People keep calling and cancelling their Vogue.

I told her what was happening.  She said she was glad to know, she couldn’t figure it out.

People have breaking points. People get sick of certain people either because of who they are, what they represent or how they project themselves in the world.

I think the Kardashians, despite the fact the world seems to watch them like a train wreck , have built up nothing but ill will from the public.

You never see them doing anything for others. You never read about them in any philanthropic way. In fact they take money for showing up at parties. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and then we watch as they spend it on themselves. It’s all gross. They do nothing but Instagram their swag.

They represent all that is wrong with social media, our value system, reality TV and now they end up rewarded by getting a Vogue cover

I did put my money where my mouth was. I am getting back $20.00 and I will never pick up another copy of Vogue magazine. And I will be just fine.

 

 

  • Rich Goldstein

    I am no fan of Kim Kardashian.

    I am a fan of yours. Especially your films and your work with Paul Williams over at Gratitude and Trust.

    But Kim Kardashian was the breaking point? Not a fashion industry that regularly exploits underage models and rewards the male photographers that exploit and sexually abuse them (Terry Richardson)? Not a fashion industry that regularly employs child slaves in exploited countries (Bangladesh)? Not a fashion industry that perpetuates unreasonable beauty standards even in the face of the numerous physical and mental disorders it feeds?

    And on the point of THAT sex tape, the one filmed and distributed without her consent by then boyfriend Ray J, whom Kim dated after divorcing her physically and emotionally abusive first husband, and for which she received a $5 million settlement from the distributing company and a guarantee to cease distribution; since when did sex disqualify someone from having class? Especially in Fashion. I’m reasonably certain the modern fashion industry was created when the common practice of having well dressed royal courtesans (for those times when the nobles were tired of their (child) wives AND concubines) fell out of favor.

    Cancel your Vogue subscription, but take a closer look at Kim Kardashian. Her public persona’s lack of depth makes her an excellent reflective surface.

  • CindyBouchard

    Vote with your feet, my mantra. You done good, Tracey! Bravo!!

  • http://www.traceyjacksononline.com/ Tracey Jackson

    I appreciate what you say and the clarity with which you say it. And I don’t disagree with many of your points. I know Terry Richardson, he is the lowest of the low. But in this case we have to agree to disagree. We might be talking about two different things. Maybe not.
    Kim Kardashian embodies much of what many find distasteful, it’s not limited to her blatant self-promotion, her poor taste in mates, her publicly using Chris Humphries and then dumping him. Her foray into porn. Her taking millions for the use of her name and image and not being polite when she shows up. Without doing anything she has become this beacon of fame and the sleaze factor is just too high. It’s the more money and selfie generation.
    It’s fine for US. I like it there.. Its perfect fodder for TMZ, it’s not Vogue material. Or now it is perhaps and that is what makes it sad.
    In what has become the fervent cross pollination of media where it feels like all lead stories end up everywhere there needs to be, should be, some place that remains a bit of what it was.
    What people are reacting to Rich is the fact it’s Vogue.

    And look, like I said in a time with so much turmoil and havoc swirling the world it is a trite story to focus on. But maybe it’s beging a woman, Vogue is Vogue and Kim and Kanye don’t belong on the cover of it. It was the last straw for many.
    I think her lack of depth is an issue. I think it’s what makes it all so sad. Look who we pick for our role models.
    Not that Vogue every highlighted the great minds of our generation, they were usually vapid models until they became slightly less vapid actresses, but it was Vogue. I wish I could encapsulate it in a way that was more descriptive.
    I also wish one could point to one philanthropic thing the Kardasshians have done. And quote honestly, I have a hard time getting beyond her father.
    Too many hours in front of Court TV perhaps.
    Thank you as always for sharing your opinion. They are always valuable and I like reading them.

  • http://www.traceyjacksononline.com/ Tracey Jackson

    I think many are.

  • http://www.gothamgal.com Gotham Gal

    I have a 40 year relationship with Vogue too. I guess they need to sell magazines like everyone else. Unfortunate that this is how they went about it.

  • nancy clausen

    You have done a fine job again Tracey. No wonder I pass your blog on to so many! Vogue made a very bad call this time!.

  • http://www.traceyjacksononline.com/ Tracey Jackson

    Thank you Nancy. I appreciate it.

  • http://www.traceyjacksononline.com/ Tracey Jackson

    We are the sum of our choices.

  • penelope

    I completely agree! I would have cancelled my subscription; but I already did because of them having cigarette ads. This amazes me. What a stupid, stupid mistake on Anna’s part!!