Christy Turlington is fascinating because she is beautiful. Reading her interview in this month's Vogue is therefore a painful exercise for her fans. But the blame is more on the reporter (Sally Singer) than on Turlington herself. The interview is a pure commercial promo, not very honest in its journalistic ways. Can you really publish 3,000 words about Turlington "healthy living" without even mentionning that she is suffering from emphysema? Or must you drop this fact because it would hurt her claim to plenitude thru Yoga?
All the quotes about Turlington are from friends and associates. The quotes from Turlington herself are somewhat embarassing. What are you supposed to think about her claim she can explain the tragedy of 9/11 can be dealt by yoga and the concept of "the continuous cycle of life and death"? And could pranayama (the limb of yoga dedicated to breathing) really save her father from lung cancer?
More interesting was the paragraph about her love life. As posted here earlier, Turlington reveals she broke up with fiance Ed Burns only weeks before the wedding because of constant rows. There's a strange story about how she decides she can't marry him because his family would rather have the wedding in America and not in Europe because of 9/11 fears of flying.
Turlington herself doesn't speak about her love life now. Her sister, Kelly, says: "She hasn't met the right person. She's had three very long-term relationships (Roger Wilson, Jason Patrick and Burns) that ended for the right reasons. Now she's leading a much quieter life, so maybe it will happen for her."
And photographer Arthur Elgort is quoted - this being Vogue, have no doubt the quote was approved by Turlington herself - saying: "Just because you're ready doesn't mean somebody else is ready to have the husband job".
Christy, just drop me a line.
Related links:
---> a Christy Turlington Gallery
---> Christy Turlington in The House of Zob

Time Magazine, the most popular newsmagazine in the world, has a "Special Fashion" issue this week, and it's really bad. You could tell so even without seeing it, since it is edited by the European bureau and published only in the European edition. Still, there was no way to guess it will be such a disaster.
The main project, online on their site, is a list of "the 25 most influential people in fashion". Boy, are we tired of this old trick. Two months ago, The Face had exactly the same headline. The editor writes in the leader: "Influence is indirect. It is an intangible force with tangible results. To categorize today who will determine the trends of tomorrow is a daunting task". The truth is exactly the contrary. It is a very easy task, and not very journalistic, too. To determine who is bigger, or richer, or better, or popular - that is a dauting task, because you have to collect the data, to double-check the numbers, to reveal deals and contracts.
But "influence"? You can print whatever you want. Here, I'll prove it: The most influencial person in fashion is Suzy Menkes from the International Herald Tribune. Sue me!
So establish a list of Influence (of course, "with help from industry insiders") is one of the oldest tricks of the trade. But no magazine, including the defunct Blitz, has ever publish a so careless influence list.
Clare Kent, for example. An analyst??! The most despised job in financial circles? And precisely the analyst who presided over the Burberry debacle last july, when shares went down on the very first day of its public offering?
Or Nick Knight. He's a great photographer, but is he more influencial then Meisel?
Or LVMH - 3 execs and board members on the list??? Or Karl Lagerfeld - influential?? Today???
But the really ridiculous piece is on Anne Wintour. She killed off Grunge single-handedly (yeah, sure)! She made Galliano (oops, wasn't it Menkes?) ! She doesn't bow to advertisers (ha-ha-ha-ha, excuse me, this is really too funny).