Usually a sneak peek at French Vogue sets my pulse racing...and means that the staff at Barnes & Noble are about to be besieged with a daily game of Question & Answer..."is it in yet?"..."no". But this time there's no excitement, instead I find February's edition a little disturbing (and a little sad and depressing too).
| According to the cover this is the "Bad Girls" issue. But what qualifies someone as a Bad Girl? Well, if the editorials are anything to go by...marrying decaying millionaires for their money...drug overdoses...short-shorts, and tattoos. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned but in Paris Vogue I'd expect slightly more "wanton, yet chic, femme fatale" and slightly less "trailer trash". Is this really aspirational? Are there really no better role models for modern wannabe bad girls than Amy Winehouse and Anna Nicole Smith? Don't get me wrong, I like Amy Winehouse's music...I just feel that style-wise (especially since her latest tracksuit and Reebok phase) she may not be the best person to emulate. I think, in the end, it comes down to this...I love satire, but this is overly cruel...both to the people being satirized and the people paying to enter the funfair. |  |
 |  |
I is about disdain...their personality is bigger than "trends" or "taste" therefore unattainable style -in spite of tackiness-. The glam of independence even when being ridiculed for being lone spirits: an imposible risk for most.
One would think that the bad girl was simply a girl who was the antithesis of a Barbie girl. I would, anyway, and I could think of many girls who would qualify as true "bag girls," but not Trash Girls.