So Lana Del Rey, who made a name for herself by writing a catchy little ditty and then following it up with one of the weirdest live performances ever (on SNL, if you’re curious…I can’t find an appropriate video), is GQ‘s Woman of the Year. Which is cool, I guess. I’m not really into it, but the people that I would pronounce Women of the Year probably aren’t appropriate for the nude cover shoot that comes along with this auspicious title. Oh yeah… she’s naked on the cover of GQ. Which is kind of what I wanted to talk about. Before we have a look at Lana, let’s look at the other covers, shall we?
Ok. Cool. I see how it is. Now for Ms Del Rey’s cover.
Spot the difference. I’ll give you a hint: It isn’t the fact that Del Rey is wearing lipstick.
I’ve got a couple of issues here. Aside from the strange definition of what constitutes a “Man/Woman of the Year” (…Robbie Williams?… Actually?) was the nudity totally necessary to shift the magazines? I’m not opposed to a naked cover shoot. In fact, I quite like them and I realise that this is a ‘gentlemen’s’ magazine, so I guess there’s some lee-way for having boobs on your cover. Honestly though, I just think it would have been a funnier and much more interesting statement if they had dressed the five cover models in exactly the same way. I mean, the four guys are wearing identical suits. With the exception of Tinie Tempah’s slightly sassier pocket square, they’re all exactly the same. But it’s then topped off with “also…ladies have boobs.” It’s just kind of… boring. It’s not provocative. She just looks nice and nude.
On top of the nude cover, this is the photo spread inside the magazine:
Now, that’s just provactive for the wrong reasons. It looks like the beginning of a higher end porn film. Jesus, GQ! Learn to find some middle ground. You’ve gone from bland to a bit off in 10 seconds. They didn’t even bother to find some suitably saucy male model to sexy it up with her. It’s just the creative director from the shoot. His name is Paul apparently. Del Rey called him “very hands on.” Seems accurate.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. You know that the lady would have looked fine as hell in a suit, so it’s just a little baffling as to why they didn’t just do that instead. Oh well.