Explain: Total Looks

Jun 24, 2008 @ 1:59pm

total prada in vogue.jpg The first thing we do when we get a crisp, new magazine is flip straight to the spreads.

We're always curious to see how the season's most-wanted accessories were styled with the advertisers' best picks, and which models look best in otherwise impossible designs.

So we're always a little disappointed when we flip 200+ pages in just to find a gray or white backdrop and a model doing Frankenstein-esque poses wearing looks that are head-to-toe from a single designer.

We can't imagine it's an issue of not being able to hire a stylist - plenty of young kids would kill to do it for free and, in fact, we see this most often in the biggest magazines that have the biggest budgets to go with the biggest rolodexes.

We think we get the stark background - there are no distractions leaving you only to really examine the clothes. But shooting looks that were shown almost exactly as-is during Fashion Week? Which we've all already seen? And which anyone who missed the shows could see for themselves, along with detail shots, on Style.com for free?

We don't think stylists should pass up the chance to tell a cool story with an even cooler background when they have the best clothes in the business just a couple e-mails away. So is there something we're not getting here? Or is it likely that these shoots are done last-minute and on the fly?

Explain!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 2:05PM

UK Vogue is so guilty of this; but when they do something more interesting its usually AMAZING. so why not do something more interesting everytime?

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 2:08PM

TOTALLY AGREED!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 2:13PM

Hi Fashionista,

Just wanted to say when I read some of your posts, I think, "Wow -- they get fashion on a level I don't." I think I used to entertain ideas of working as a fashion editor, or even designing, but when I see how other people experience fashion on a whole other level, I think, "Maybe I'm just happy being a bystander."

I think I should be a teacher, health educator, actress/entertainer, writer, or entrepreneur anyway.

Sorry to digress from the post -- just wanted to say this gives me a whole different perspective when reading fashion mags!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 2:16PM

Advertising Dollars.

posted by Laia

Jun 24, 2008 2:19PM

The thing is, not everybody that reads fashion magazines obsessively logs on to style.com to look at the shows when they are happening. So although some of us have seen the looks, I would venture to say that most people haven't.

Usually after the first few months of the season they stop showing complete looks and then start mixing things up. After all, Vogue is a mainstream magazine that isn't exclusive to people in the fashion industry.

posted by hipstersdontlie

Jun 24, 2008 2:22PM

I love that Prada lace.

But yeah magazine editors don't want to anger designers by "cluttering" up the clothes with superfluous items or accessories.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 2:31PM

balenciaga only allows their clothing to be used in editorials on the stipulation that the "total look" is photographed, not individual pieces.

also, i have noticed that the first editorials that are published for a particular season often show only total looks, and later on the season they mix it up a little more.

but yeah, i would love to see more creativity.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 2:31PM

Well, the uncluttered background might be a legacy of Avedon. Where most of the current spreads miss out on is the lines of the models (think Dovima and elephants) and the lack of drama in the lighting.

posted by artthrob

Jun 24, 2008 2:39PM

It's all for the matter of hype, and no one will quite understand or remember that the ultimate must have is the "Prada lace" if it's mixed into a traffic of designer schmatta. These shoots definitely take time and effort, nothing in the industry really prints without going through the fine-toothed comb.

posted by fashionursta

Jun 24, 2008 2:43PM

They make deals with the designers to show the look in total, which = more money to be made. They loan out the clothes (or give them) witht he stipulation that they show the shoes, the shirt, the bag, etc, as it was seen on the runway. Not everyone can style themselves in a hip melange of high and low, or mix of designers. And the fashion houses know this. There are women out there who tear out the pics, bring them to the store, and say "I want this whole look". So now they didn't sell just the lace skirt and blouse, but the underneath shirt, the shoes, and the bag. Very smart on their part.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 2:46PM

I have to say that while I agree that it would be nice to see them mix clothes up in different ways than we saw on the runway, I like the uncluttered backgrounds. I'm not interested in some model sprawled on the grass. I'm interested in seeing every piece she's wearing!

posted by andremichael

Jun 24, 2008 2:47PM

uhm. i wonder if some design houses have stipulations on how their merchandise is shot/displayed.

maybe they want the public 2 see the TOTAL look in a magazine since its reach is far beyond the dedicated fashion folk like us who live & die by style.com.

because with mix & match comes confusion. esp with the casual reader.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 3:01PM

yes, and the models are NEVER actually standing on the ground...they're always jumping or leaping in mid-air!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 3:20PM

total looks are the looks of the season, meaning these are the highlights from the runway. it's also a good advertising tactic for the designers, readers see the total look, want it buy it etc...
magazines have to do these total looks for ad dollars and to showcase the seasons key pieces...
it's super easy to style these pages cuz really there is nothing to do but maybe add a hat or a piece of jewelry if that.
pay attention to who does total look styling...usually the ones with questionable talents!!!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 3:50PM

omg yes! why do many many designers, and sometimes the really awesome ones like Versace feel the need to a dd an ugly item to an outfit to make it "edgy". why??? I realise theat designers guilty of this only do it in some collections, usually a/w. but why do they do the freakish thing because it's edgy when obviously no-one would ever wear it! almost all balenciaga is like this, esopecially that weird sci-fi thing. was anyone ever seen wearing that who wasnt a model? NO!!!!!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 4:06PM

Many design houses get upset when their pieces are mixed in with other designers. I used to work at a magazine and many times the design houses would call and make threats to the editor of what they saw on the pages.

posted by hannah

Jun 24, 2008 4:24PM

I don't mind the plain background in some shoots, but I agree about the styling! I mean, they could make it a little more interesting, especially in Vogue which is a pretty boring magazine to begin with (not that I'm not subscribed!).

posted by Glamazon Huntress

Jun 24, 2008 4:36PM

I actually had the exact same thoughts as I flipped through the latest American Vogue. I am so tired and bored of the grey backgrounds. But it's not just that that drives me crazy; it's the same poses and the same girls. Give me some diversity!

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 5:26PM

Some have said that the designers and advertisers make deals with the magazines to show their full outfit and that makes sense in a way, but what I don't understand is why the designers need to make these deals and rules when they pay large amounts of money to have their clothing and models photographed on actual ads. They have complete creative control over the ads yes? So why not put their regulations that they force the magazine to do on their own ads?

posted by Model Liberation

Jun 24, 2008 5:53PM

I bought the magazine looking for inspiration and all I got was this bland spread. So blah.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 7:43PM

i agree; many outfits in Vogue spreads are straight off the runway. i wish they could mix up some things a bit. i think the gray background is all right because the magazine can't possibly afford to shoot all their spreads in nice locations. One thing that Vogue can do is use Trentini less often--as much as I like her, I get tired of seeing her in like, every issue.

posted by naughtyintern

Jun 24, 2008 8:16PM

I totally agree. It's all about the bottom line, which at the end of the day is mostly advertising sales. Fashion brands do actually call up and harangue editors that mix pieces together, or if they only shoot the head and you just get a glimpse of the dress.

Depends on what mag but most, especially in america, will listen to these fashion brands so as not to piss them off. These brands are thier clients and have the power to spend more in ads, and less if they're unhappy. It's totally political. Some mags are more obedient (ie vogue) and others are more rebellious (think W) in thier styling.

posted by guest

Jun 24, 2008 11:16PM

It isn't just the background (which doesn't help) it is the models and their hair & makeup. It isn't very intriguing. Usually the models are noteworthy on their own. Pair that with the photocopy of the designers' runways and it is a big disappointment. In the May issue of UK Vogue there was a editorial called "The Sheltering Sky." It was beautiful in every way. The model, the clothes, the photography and the hair/makeup all synched perfectly. Makes me believe in fashion mags again.

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2008 12:38AM

the september issue of american vogue is so heavy it pratically weighs as much as my calculus textbook did. and somehow i don't think its because of the editorial content. this is sort of like a thank you to the advertisers...plus they demand it. lol

also american vogue wouldn't be so famous and influential around the world if anna wintour didn't understand the connection between fashion and commerce as well as she does.

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2008 2:03AM

If I was a fashion editor I'd much rather have people remember the Prada from that great "farm" or "beach" shoot instead of the Prada from that gray backdrop that everybody has seen a thousand times.

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2008 5:46AM

I do think the complete looks can be great. It definitely reminds me how wonderful the season has been! At the same time, I love the looks being interpreted in a completely different way than certainly I apprehended! There are women out there who love fashion but only ever buy the clothes (lucky for them!!) and don’t trawl through style.com for inspiration/catwalk collections! I also have to agree with many of the other posters advertising comments!

But on a more serious note: Ms Zimmerman is working that Prada, surely that’s all that really matters!

Adjoa

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2008 12:27PM

that's so Vogue...boring as hell

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2008 1:04PM

i agree 100%- its why i stopped subscribing to vogue (i switched to teen vogue- they've had some amazing editorials recently).
if magazines wanted to keep the advertisers happy maybe they could do one of those runway/our way shoots?

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2008 4:48PM

I was just flipping through Vogue yesterday and I too headed straight the the photo spreads. Blah, blah, oooh, eck!, blah- was my reaction. I understand that these shoots are for advertising dollars, but then, shouldn't the clothes be showcased rather than putting me to sleep

posted by guest

Jun 25, 2008 7:04PM

ummm...honestly maybe its just time for Grace Goddington and Tonne Goodman and maybe even Anna Wintour to retire...maybe that's what's wrong!

posted by guest

Jun 26, 2008 1:55PM

this annoys me almost as much as teen vogue throwing random designer clothes and accessories on a couple of fourteen-year-olds and having them jump up and down in front of a white background with blank expressions

posted by mckeb753

Jun 26, 2008 2:00PM

i totally totally toally agree with this...it's so unimaginative...the thing is, i've noticed that it happens a lot less in french and italian magazines than in american ones...perhaps it has something to do with the relatively conservative style of americans in comparison to europeans...

and i've interned for a couple designers, and i've never heard of designers calling magazines to complain about press coverage...usually the designer is thankful to be featured, because most of what gets sent for shoots never ends up in the pages...they may have to call and harass them to send the clothes back on time, but not about the final results...the designer is not in the position of power there, especially when we are talking about an influential magazine like vogue...vogue can pick and choose which designers they want to feature, and the manner in which they wish to present them...if a designer is a difficult to work with, then the magazine doesn't need to keep working with them, and it's the designer who loses out