What was in Vogue

amandainvermont

amandainvermont

VFG Member
Reading Holly’s blog (Freudian slips) http://freudianslipsvintage.blogspot.com/ I was directed to this great site with of Vogue UK covers. You can search by year, model or artist/photographer

1916

dsp_voguecoverdec16_l.jpg


1926

dsp_voguecovermar26_e.jpg


1945

dsp_voguecoversep45.jpg


1965

dsp_voguecoversep65.jpg


1987


dsp_voguecoverdec87.jpg


and June of this year

dsp_voguecoverjune08_480.jpg
 
As usual, my fav's are the 60's & 20's ones! And I love the coat on the 1916 one. :wub:

Of course I would - look at my avatar.:wacko:

The modern one is all junked up with text on the sides. boooo! The older ones focus on the FASHION, not trendy "lists" and such - or celebrities.

Janine
 
I wonder if some of the lack of "junk on the sides" was due to the capabilities of the printing press at the time? Back then they would have still been setting with what would look like primitive tools compared to today's presses.

The introduction of the computer to the art/graphics/publishing world has changed it tremendously, often for the worse, as there are a lot of graphic "artists" wo don't have a clue of the basics of art, they just know how to run the machines.

:soapbox:
 
Thanks for reading the blog Amanda!

I love their cover archive, browsing through it makes me feel better when I get constantly outbid on vintage issues of Vogue on Ebay! Perfect vintage eye candy!
 
That's a good point about some of today's graphic artists being more competent in running machines and less competent in the actual design.

I think there is an increasing trend to crowd in information - more noise. It drives me nuts watching a show on TV and the banner advertising another show comes on the bottom.

BUT what bugs me THE most (and this probably shows my age) is listening to radio when they put the drums and music behind people talking. NPR is doing this more and more. If they start doing it during news I am shutting them off for good.

:soapbox:
 
I can't agree more about computer "designers." Graphic artists today who only learned how to "design" on computers typically don't have the knowledge of type or of how design on screen translates to ink on paper. Thus, we have lost the art of typesetting (e.g., the ubiquitous use of foot & inch marks rather than "real" apostrophes and quotes, type that is too small for its column width, and brochures that have 6 different fonts because the designer thought they looked nice (never mind they're not readable).

And we get designs that looked great on screen, but end up a bloody mess in printing because the artist doesn't understand trapping, screen tints, etc.

Almost the same thing as writers (of which I am one) being replaced by office personnel because, well, they have a word processor and spell check on their 'puters, don't ya know?
 
Amen, Anne!!!
I'm so glad that I went through an entire art program, rather than just a graphics only school. I got so much out of learning art with a pencil, brush, trowell, clay, metal hammer, etc. We had computers, but nothing like what there is now. I learned graphics a bit more hands on.
 
My experience with a graphic artist recently would lead me to believe that they not only have no artist talent and imagination but can't handle the equipment very well either. It was a nightmare. I'm still recovering. Claire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top