Porter magazine can only be deemed good. The articles are all infinitely read-able. And because the magazine barely relies on advertisers the content is varied, fascinating, and great a balance of trends to shop–on net-a-porter– and articles you can sink your teeth into like “The Fashion Memo” section and “The Big Idea” series of articles respectively.
“Come to Martha” is a hilarious glimpse into Martha Stewart’s life. Martha Stewart gives good interview. She is more entertaining than she is politically correct not to mention contradictory. This probably has more to do with Martha herself but Porter presented a great article with fun pictures nonetheless.
Now to the negative:
When the magazine came out, the magazine promised to be a magazine that created great editorials and not just the model-against-a grey-background kind. I find myself going through this season’s issue of Porter and being able to point out that 1 out of every 2 editorials are shot against a grey or white background.
Here’s a list of the editorials shot against a backdrop: “The Fashion Memo”, “C’est Chic”, “Powerful Statement Pieces”, “Insider Beauty”–a beauty article’s only important backdrop is a face so I can forgive this one,
Here’s a list of editorials shot with a context in a real place: “Field of Dreams”, “Come to Martha”, “Ethereal, Flowing Layers”, “Time After Time”
There are 4 real step-outside editorials which is exactly 1/2 discounting the articles with 1 or 2 photographs. And this would be fine except that these editorials do not have the imagination that I expect from Porter magazine. The Anja Rubik editorial is quirky and ethereal, but I don’t need 3 editorials (“Ethereal” and “Time After time”) showing a model going to the park–which is what it looks like to varying degrees. Fine, fine: to be fair “Etheral” looks like a model walking in the woods and “Time” looks like a model on the grounds of a mansion. But, where’s the story? Where’s the concept? A story can’t be “pretty girl outside”.
Recently I’ve noticed that a lot of magazines seem better served by the digital format. Vogue‘s editorials and covers pop and shine and Lucky was able to include more content. Is it that Porter looks like it contains less content or that the pictures look lackluster on my ipad and look great in print? Perhaps the problem is that the content isn’t being edited for both mediums.
What I liked about the 2 previous issues of Porter that I had the pleasure of reading is that I appreciate real women talking about their work and personal lives and how they dress for them. I seemed to read less of this in this issue, which I missed.
The “Night Porter” section is amazing. “Love is in the Air” is the wedding coverage of Poppy Delevingne and James Cook’s wedding and all of the photographs are stunning. Seeing real and extremely glamorous people in their best attire doesn’t get old. What a coup for Porter!
So what did I think of the issue?
There are some great parts and some parts are a little disappointing. There are some good articles but they seemed fewer than in previous issues. The editorials were disappointing and I’m not sure if it’s the lack of concept, that some shots were in black&white, that walking around outside is not a story to me. I just thought there was a lack of effort. I would give this issue 3.2/5 stars and say that “Night Porter”, “The Big Idea” and “Dreaming of a Place Like This” are the reasons to get your hands on the issue.