What Vogue Got Right and What It Got Wrong: A Corrective
Vogue is 130 years old, and it has earned the right to be assessed with the same rigour it has occasionally applied to the world. Not with reverence, and not with contempt, but with honesty — which is, conspicuously, not always something Vogue has offered in return.
Let us be precise. Vogue, at its best, has been one of the most powerful cultural institutions of the twentieth century. Its photographs have defined how women have seen themselves and been seen. Its editors — particularly Diana Vreeland and Anna Wintour — have been figures of genuine cultural authority, not mere fashion functionaries. Its covers have, at significant moments, said things about race and womanhood and beauty that mattered. Its journalism, in its best periods, has been genuinely excellent.
At its worst, Vogue has been a machine for making women feel inadequate. It has promoted beauty standards so narrow, so expensive, and so racially specific as to be actively harmful. It has confused luxury with intelligence and aspiration with value. It has been, by turns, sycophantic toward its advertisers, cowardly about political controversy, and astonishingly, systematically indifferent to the diversity of the women it claimed to serve.
Both things are true. And the second truth needs to be said with more regularity than most fashion media allows.
What Vogue Got Right
The elevation of fashion photography as art
Vogue’s most unambiguous achievement is the creation of fashion photography as a serious artistic medium. Before Vogue — or rather, before the photographers Vogue employed — fashion images were essentially product illustrations. Vogue transformed them into something else entirely.
Richard Avedon. Irving Penn. Helmut Newton. Annie Leibovitz. Cindy Sherman. Nick Knight. The list of photographers whose careers Vogue shaped, or whose most significant work appeared in its pages, is genuinely extraordinary. These are not decorators. They are artists who used the fashion image to explore power, desire, identity, and the female body in ways that continue to influence how we see.
Avedon’s late career portraits — stark, confrontational, unretouched — challenged the very beauty mythology Vogue otherwise promoted. Penn’s still lifes of fashion objects elevated craft objects to the status of high art. Newton’s provocations about sexuality and power in fashion imagery generated genuine cultural debate. The magazine that commissioned this work cannot be entirely indicted for indifference to women’s complexity.
Diana Vreeland and the intellectual ambition of fashion
Diana Vreeland, who edited American Vogue from 1963 to 1971, remains the most intellectually serious editor in the magazine’s history. Her famous “Why Don’t You?” column — which ran in Harper’s Bazaar, where she first made her name — captured something essential about her editorial philosophy: fashion is not about what you have, but about what you imagine. Vreeland treated fashion as a form of poetry, as a way of constructing the self through pure will and vision. Her Vogue was exhilarating, absurd, brilliant, and genuinely original.
She was also democratising in a specific and underappreciated way. While her actual pages were expensive and aspirational in the most conventional sense, her underlying editorial idea — that any woman could be extraordinary through imagination and audacity — was genuinely radical. You didn’t need to be born beautiful, or rich, or a certain shape. You needed to decide.
International editions and global fashion conversation
The Vogue international network — twenty-six editions as of 2026, from India to Saudi Arabia to Portugal — has done something significant in giving local fashion cultures international platforms. Vogue Arabia, in particular, has been an important space for modest fashion, for Middle Eastern designers, and for conversations about Muslim women’s aesthetics that simply didn’t exist in global fashion media before it.
This is imperfect. The international editions often replicate American Vogue’s hierarchies and blind spots in local contexts. But the ambition — a genuinely global conversation about women, fashion, and culture — is real, and worth acknowledging.
What Vogue Got Wrong
The body
This is the central charge, and it needs to be stated plainly. Vogue spent most of its history promoting a body standard — white, thin, tall, narrow — that was not only unachievable for the vast majority of its readers but was actively harmful to them. The research on the relationship between fashion magazine exposure and eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and low self-esteem is extensive and damning.
Vogue did not invent the thin beauty ideal. But it amplified it, legitimised it, made it aspirational, and resisted changing it long after the harm was clear. The “heroin chic” moment of the 1990s — the aesthetic of visible ribs, hollow cheeks, and pharmaceutical-grade vacancy — was not a deviation from Vogue’s standards. It was their logical extreme.
The magazine’s recent gestures toward body diversity feel, on the evidence of the past decade, more like marketing pivots than genuine editorial reckonings. Occasional plus-size covers exist alongside years of pages that tell a different story entirely.
Race
The racial homogeneity of American Vogue’s covers is, in the context of a century of operation, genuinely scandalous. In 2018 — 2018 — Vogue placed five Black women on its cover simultaneously, a gesture that was simultaneously celebrated and immediately critiqued as overdue by about 100 years. The first solo Black cover in American Vogue’s history was Beverly Johnson in 1974, 82 years into the magazine’s existence.
This is not a matter of its time. It is a matter of sustained editorial choice — choices made by people who believed, consciously or otherwise, that their readers were primarily white, that white readers would not buy magazines with Black women on the cover, and that this was an acceptable trade. It was not.
The advertiser problem
Vogue’s critical independence has been compromised, structurally and chronically, by its dependence on luxury advertising. The magazine does not review fashion in the way that, say, a food magazine reviews restaurants or a book magazine reviews books — with the ability to say, without consequence, that something is bad. The fashion brands that fund the magazine are the same brands whose collections appear in its pages.
This is not a secret. But its implications are rarely stated as directly as they deserve to be: Vogue cannot be trusted as a critical voice on the fashion industry because its revenue depends on the goodwill of the fashion industry. It is a promotional vehicle for fashion, not a critical interlocutor with it. This is worth knowing when you read it.
The class politics
Vogue’s definition of aspiration has always been specifically upper-class. The magazine is full of clothes that cost thousands of pounds, handbags that cost more than a month’s rent for most of its readers, and interiors that are available only to the extraordinarily wealthy. The aspirational framework is: you should want this, and if you cannot have it, you should at least appreciate it.
This is a particular ideological position — that wealth is beautiful, that luxury is a form of culture worth celebrating, that the distance between what readers have and what the magazine shows them is a pleasurable one. For many women, it is. But it is worth being conscious that this framework systematically renders invisible the majority of the world’s women — who are not wealthy, not Western, not interested in aspirational class anxiety as their primary relationship to fashion.
What a 2026 Magazine Should Do Differently
Vanity-X was built on specific answers to this question.
Critical independence. We will tell you when something is poorly made, badly conceived, or harmful in its implications — regardless of who made it or whether they advertise with us. Fashion criticism should work like book criticism or architecture criticism: with genuine standards, genuine accountability, and the willingness to be unpopular.
The female gaze, applied rigorously. Fashion imagery in Vanity-X is made for women, not for the male gaze that has shaped fashion photography for most of its history. This means different choices about how bodies are framed, lit, and presented. It means subject-hood, not objecthood.
Breadth of who “women” means. Our readers are not a demographic narrowly defined by race, class, size, religion, or geography. The women in our pages are the actual women of 2026 — which means they are Black and Brown and white and fat and thin and modest and queer and old and young and wealthy and working-class and everything the world contains.
Scholarship alongside style. We cite our sources. We engage with the research. We treat our readers as the intelligent adults they are. Fashion has a rich intellectual history and we intend to make full use of it.
Vogue built something extraordinary. We intend to build something better.
Related reading on Vanity-X: