Watching In Vogue: The Editor's Eye

History has always been one of my favorite subjects; I suppose I got that from my father. So, while couped up at home, under the fluffiest blankets I own, I wanted to watch a documentary and discovered In Vogue: The Editor’s Eye. Filmed when Vogue was marking it’s 120th anniversary back in 2012, the movie featured past and present fashion editors along with designers, models, actors and publishers discussing iconic fashion images printed by the magazine and the women who created them. When I first got the idea for this post, I thought I would just blog about the documentary as a whole, but one fashion spread had me reconsider…

MV5BNjQwMTQ0MzczOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzU1NzA2MDE@._V1_.jpg

Camilla Nickerson joined Vogue in 1992. Her style is described as “fiercely modern” and, when crafting an image, hopes that she poses a question to the readers. In 1995 she certainly did that.

The story, entitled “High & Mighty”, was published in the February issue (coincidentally, I was born in February of 1995). Legendary photographer Helmut Newton shot supermodel Nadja Auermann in a high fashion editorial discussing the power and danger of high heels. To illustrate her point, Nickerson styled the supermodel in sky high stilettos, “the wicked footnote” to a dynamic suit or dress. In one of the shots Auermann is being pushed around in a wheelchair, in another she is climbing the stairs with crutches and a man on each arm. A third shot has her standing with the support of a cane, one leg braced in an external fixator (I only know what that is because I had one once, although I affectionately called it “ugly-metal-painful thingy”). The fifth shot focuses on Auermann’s legs from behind, one leg crossed over the other, whereas the sixth reveals one of her legs to be “prosthetic”. For the record, Nadja Auermann is able-bodied.

Not surprisingly, members of the disabled community found the pictures offensive. Remember, this was only five years after passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Nickerson, in the documentary, said she found the images “quite handsome in a way”.

As for me? I’m conflicted. Do I understand why the pictures angered the disabled community? Yes. Do I think the pictures are glamorizing someone with a disability? I’m not entirely sure. One could make the argument that Auermann is portraying someone with an injury rather than a disability. Do I think the pictures are effective? Yes. In one fashion spread Nickerson is making a valid point: high heels do indicate power and stature but, sometimes, at a painful price. As someone who is often the shortest person in any room I walk into, I wear heels any chance I get and am reluctant to take them off no matter how much they hurt. To me, those few extra inches can sometimes make the biggest difference. I think my mom said it best, “Perhaps the message is that height and glamour are just hat, height and glamour. They (high heels) do not make a woman smarter or more qualified.”