I don't think the dress or her body have been majorly photoshopped. The dress naturally has that shape. It reminds me of harem jumper pants (the waiste part).
Mert and Marcus's W September cover from 2011>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>THis cover
I hope the Editorial slays
But honestly, Kristen Stewart looks like she could be absolutely ANYONE in that picture. Drop-dead gorgeous, sure, but it doesn't convey any sense of personality whatsoever. Gaga's cover does.
it doesn't convey any sense of personality whatsoever. Gaga's cover does.
yeah, but as Ace said, it's RuPaul.
I mean, if she wants to convey "chic drag" it's up to her, but it's Vogue, not Nickelodeon.
Kristen's is a throwback to classic beauty, and while Gaga's cover is better (because of that dress ), Gaga didn't really bring the looks when it comes to her face.
But honestly, Kristen Stewart looks like she could be absolutely ANYONE in that picture. Drop-dead gorgeous, sure, but it doesn't convey any sense of personality whatsoever. Gaga's cover does.
Don't get me wrong. That was the purpose of the shoot channeling 60's sexbomb. The editorial waseven better than the cover. It served its purpose.
Gaga's cover is interesting to say the least. IT deviates from other Vogue covers this entire year.....but it doesn't convey much. What I am hoping is that the editorial slaaays. It's styled by Grace Coddington.
I mean, if she wants to convey "chic drag" it's up to her, but it's Vogue, not Nickelodeon.
Kristen's is a throwback to classic beauty, and while Gaga's cover is better (because of that dress ), Gaga didn't really bring the looks when it comes to her face.
The Gaga cover is rubber, but only to a point
Not to mention Kristen's face looks like they let a hyperactive child loose on Photoshop.
), Gaga didn't really bring the looks when it comes to her face.