From Paper to Screen: How Creativity Has Been Portrayed Through the Lenses of Fashion and Individual Points of View
October has just begun, but I am still stuck on September’s Vogue issues. Known as the most important time of the year—fashion-wise—this month has given us a lot to talk about. For those who haven’t followed much of the discussion on American Vogue, the mainstream opinion on its covers is that they are not holding up to the standard.
There had already been some complaints that the magazine overused studio shots and wasn’t daring enough, but when the September issue featuring Emma Stone came out, the critics grew louder. Not because of the subject (Emma), but because the photoshoot was very bland. The goal of representing “The Weird and Wonderful World of Emma Stone” was not reached.
I always try to keep a positive view of the things I come across, and since I am not a stylist, take what I’m saying with a pinch of salt: considering it was the September issue and the actress is a two-time Academy Award winner, they could have done her more justice—whether through styling or setting. I also agree with the opinions that American Vogue is overusing studio shots. While they can be the perfect choice to portray certain concepts, when used too often they come across as repetitive.
What this whole debate and these critiques have made me question is where, as a society, we stand creativity-wise. If the most renowned magazine in the fashion industry is labeled “bland,” could it in some way reflect our society?
The discussion on the magazine per se:
If we take the magazine by itself, what seems to come through from an external point of view is that there is almost a fear of taking risks. For its last issue, the covers were all pretty much playing it safe and, while there was a different message behind each of them, none felt shocking or truly captivating. Slowly, the kind of images that were selected became predictable.
But in this field, as we have seen in the past, playing it safe does not work in the long run. People are not looking for ordinary; they want statements. Even when the first traces of minimalism arrived—which is the first style that comes to mind when we talk about “ordinary”—they were still very different from what the public had seen before. We had opulence, luxury, and color in the ’80s that transformed into neutral, simple, and polished in the early ’90s.
As for the magazine now, we have reached a point where the faces we see on the covers are the same ones we often see on our screens too, making the settings almost an overlooked part because the main focus is the celebrity on the front page.
Moreover, both the magazine and Guess received backlash for featuring AI models. This is another indicator that there seems to be no space for the new, as artificial intelligence reaffirms an already overly curated beauty standard and refines “imperfections” that are actually just natural differences.
Despite being a topic discussed more than once in the past, my question is whether Chloé Malle will be able to change how readers now perceive American Vogue. As Wintour did before, Malle has already brought some developments in the field: from 2023 to September 2025 she was responsible for Vogue.com and, in the meantime, co-hosted the podcast Run-Through with Vogue—both elements that played a key role in the magazine’s improvements. Therefore, while regarding the issues we have seen so far I stand by my previous opinion, I am also very intrigued to see if Malle will be the breath of fresh air the industry needs at this moment.
How social media and today’s society have shaped our creativity:
Earlier I wrote: If the most renowned magazine in the fashion industry is labeled as “bland,” could it in some way reflect our society? And, while Vogue does not rule over every creative field, I see in it an analogy for how we, as a collective, are approaching creativity.
From my experience, due to the heavy presence of the internet and social media in my life, consuming content is easier than creating it. Not because that’s what I rationally want to do, but because it’s what I am directed to. For instance, most people who are on social media are also on TikTok. The way the platform is designed makes moving from one video to another automatic, which creates addictive scrolling behavior to see what the algorithm will propose next.
But another factor to take into account is that this need to scroll is not driven purely by curiosity. “The behavior is rooted in our brain’s limbic system—often referred to as the lizard or reptilian brain—dominated by a structure called the amygdala. It promotes self-preservation and drives the fight-or-flight response to danger” (Harvard Health Publishing, “Doomscrolling Dangers” by Maureen Salamon). Meaning: our own brain, for self-preservation, finds in scrolling an opportunity to avoid stress.
This daily exposure to other people’s lives consumes the energy originally meant for our creative thoughts—energy we are no longer pushed to put into action. “So yesterday I started a break. Or really, it started sometime in the night before yesterday… additionally, after a break from social media, my capacity for creating increases. When my brain isn’t crammed full from a steady stream of the stimulus that is unrestrained scrolling, my own thoughts, ideas, sensations, feelings, and observations have a chance to surface” (“My Compulsive Scrolling Is Killing My Creativity” by Rebecca Francis on Medium).
Moreover, by constantly listening to everyone else’s opinions, we are logically more prone to be influenced by them and, in some cases, adopt them as our own without even thinking critically. When you are given a five-minute breakdown of specific news on TikTok, as useful as that explanation may be, it should not be your only source when diving into a new subject.
I would also argue that consuming too much media can discourage you from expressing or developing a different opinion than the mainstream one, as you are led to believe that the most shared content is also the most agreed upon. “This small vocal minority effectively shapes the norms people perceive online, leading to what psychologists call pluralistic ignorance—where people incorrectly believe that these exaggerated online norms represent what most people think or do offline” (“How Social Media Warps Your Reality” by the Center for Conflict Cooperation).
An analogy between editorial and individual creativity:
How this all connects to the Vogue argument is that this lack of creation and “safe play” we have seen with the covers is not too different from what we often see online: people would rather conform to what is agreed upon by the majority than develop something unique to them. But arguably the issue with our individual imaginations runs deeper—because at this point it’s not even about being scared to share a diverse opinion, it’s about not making the effort to formulate one.
While this article started with a critical view on the approach Vogue has had with its covers, the point I really want to emphasize is how vital it is to take the time to be with your own thoughts and create. This process can take you both to argue whether you like something from the industry or not, but it can also be a resourceful skill applicable to any kind of field.
