Monday, March 2, 2009

GaGa is stupid and so is LOVE

I just read an article about Lady GaGa in the Style supplement of The Sunday Times. She's a dope, seriously. And what's even more annoying is the way these magazines try to make idols of these idiots.
''it's quite refreshing to meet a pop star who says things like, ''In this time of recession, people love this hair - it's so nostalgic!'' when demanding a James Dean quiff; or deadpanning, ''I don't get body anxiety - I don't eat,'' as she prances naked around the studio.''
Ruby Warrington should be ashamed of herself frankly. Cop on like. GaGa has the worst dress sense any of us has seen in a long time, and naming her as an overnight icon is just spurring on this bad taste, letting it grow into something worldwide.

Which brings me onto LOVE magazine, published by Conde Naste, the first of which came out this month. I should have known what I was in for when the the little subtitle was ''fashion and fame''. My goodness, where to start? Icons of our generation? Kelly Brook? Pixie Geldof? Georgia May Jagger? What?
LOVE is a joke, it's main aim is feeding the egos of the fame-hungry hipsters. Beth Ditto gracing the cover is proof of that, in what way exactly is she an icon of our generation? With one alright album from The Gossip a couple of years ago she's managed to sustain herself by being a fat lesbian. Ah yes, how unique you are Ditto.

Along with that many of the 'icons' that LOVE 'loves to love' are fashion models. Two features alone are dedicated to pictures of models, not even for the sake of telling a story or showcasing the talents of designers, just them. How sad is it that a magazine claiming to be at least partly about fashion, looks at the pretty face wearing the dress rather than the talent responsible for it?

I shall be sticking to Vogue from now on, at least when glorifying people, it's usually the talented that they're after. Along with that, I'm still reeling from last December. Swoon.

No comments: