Kate Winslet’s November Vogue cover. I’m not the first to say it – this thing is airbrushed. Her eyes glitter. Her skin’s porcelain-doll smooth. It’s miles away from the Kate we know, the one America fell in love with years ago. Voluptuous and identifiable and real. And that’s exactly why I think the public has reacted so strongly against it.
But I ask – what if we look at Kate’s airbrushing in an entirely different light? What if we view her cover not as reality (à la the old Kate), but as art? Would it upset us less?
When photography was invented in the 1830s, art was revolutionized. There was no need for realism, for portraying every last tiny detail of a subject. The camera could do that. Instead, we painted impressions. Brushy strokes. Cubist figures. We interpreted.
In a sense, Kate’s Vogue cover is doing the same thing. It’s an intentional interpretation of a woman. We are not meant to believe this is Kate as she wakes up in the morning. Or even red-carpet Kate. It is a fantasy. A bit of escapism. And, upset as I may be that the old Kate is gone, isn’t that what art is all about?
By Joanna Berliner, Editor
So, what do you think? Tweet us at @ruelala with #inmyopinion and let us know.
Not a Member and like The (Style) Guide? You’ll love Rue La La. Join now.