before they were "complicated"

i know i watch too much 90210 (old school of course).

here we have denise richards as an extra at jackie and mel's wedding.

the new new interview

March 09, May 09

March 09

May 09

april 2009 brings yet another redesign to interview magazine, a mere seven months since its last overhaul. co-editorial director fabien baron and creative director karl templar are out and parisian art team M/M are in as the new co-creative directors.

the transition has not been an easy one for readers. april, featuring a zac efron cover was the first issue to host the whimsical art direction of M/M, however the fashion shoots, most likely conducted before the change was decided, feature the severe photography and fashion styling associated with baron and templar. while the may issue with emma watson feels more uniform, with a full transition to cute and pretty, there is still a huge disconnect. i would think that typically readers spend little time thinking about the art direction of a magazine. that's a good thing. the best books just flow (ie vogue). but here, regardless of what one might think of any of the recent designs, we have a book that has changed its entire image three times in less than twelve months. the look of a magazine is arguably more important than the words (how many people just flip through vs. actually read). with such drastic changes, one has to ask the questions, "what is interview" and "who is its reader"?

it is important to remember that a magazine exists as a business (to make money) and therefor financial factors were certainly in play in all of the changes.  this fact sparks an entirely different question. after two redesigns, two editorial staff conversions, and most importantly two huge pr pushes (the party at the under construction standard in september and the glen o'brien daily cover during february fashion week) is interview anything more than it was under longtime editorial team sandra brandt and ingrid sischy? are there any new readers? does it have any more influence in the marketplace? does it sell any more ads?  

cosm(ic) disaster

proving that magazine covers are more about the magazine and less about the subject, this month cosmopolitan manages to turn typically cute and quirky whitney port into a slutty vamp.

the makeup and the dress are disgusting. but i have to say that the hair is the worst. is she a midwestern weather woman?

whitney -- why did you agree to this cover to begin with? what good could have come of it?

anyone know the cost of a flight to rio?

i stand by what i said about the armani empire.

armani exchange may be shit that cheapens the armani brand image (similarly i recently saw a coach edition toyota), but they certainly know their customer. what goes best with a poly blend, body hugging, logo t you may ask? tiesto, of course.

the hills are alive

the hills is back tonight. new york magazine is already on it. but more amusing that anything on the show, or even anything the magazine can say to mock it, is primary "tag" they assign blog posts about LC.  

"people who do nothing for a living"

+1 for straightforward humor.

endless beachball

the kkk took my baby away-

not really-

but the genius bar did take my mac away-

light posting this week-

they say ss87, i say ss09