Vogue’s March 2017 Cover: Diversity, Debate, and the Fashion World’s Reckoning
Vogue’s groundbreaking March 2017 cover aimed for inclusivity, but soon ignited heated debate about true diversity, representation, and beauty standards.
Vogue’s March 2017 Cover: Aiming for Diversity Amid Controversy
When Vogue unveiled its March 2017 issue, touting it as a celebration of the ‘Modern American Woman,’ the cover’s ambition was clear. Featuring seven high-profile models—Liu Wen, Ashley Graham, Kendall Jenner, Gigi Hadid, Imaan Hammam, Adwoa Aboah, and Vittoria Ceretti—the magazine staked its 125th anniversary on a powerful visual statement intended to reflect modern inclusivity, different body types, and multicultural backgrounds. Yet, within hours, the image was at the center of a social media firestorm, accused of selective representation, questionable photo manipulation, and perpetuating narrow ideals of beauty.
The Cover and Its Message
The visually striking cover cast the models on the beach, each dressed in coordinated Prada outfits. Vogue positioned the image and accompanying story as a bold step forward for the fashion industry—a showcase of racial and body diversity, unity, and an embrace of modern femininity. For Aboah, Hammam, Graham, Wen, and Ceretti, it marked a significant career milestone as their first American Vogue cover. The magazine’s story by Maya Singer centered on inclusivity and rejecting ‘society’s arbitrary beauty ideals’.
- Adwoa Aboah: British-Ghanaian model; advocate for mental health and diversity
- Liu Wen: First Chinese model to walk Victoria’s Secret and a global icon
- Ashley Graham: One of the most prominent plus-size models
- Kendall Jenner, Gigi Hadid, Vittoria Ceretti, Imaan Hammam: Renowned for broad international appeal and varied backgrounds
The Backlash: Representation and Inclusion Debated
Despite Vogue’s celebratory tone, social media commentary quickly pointed out what critics saw as glaring shortcomings in the magazine’s vision of inclusivity. The phrase “Modern American Woman” prompted especially sharp reactions from readers, ranging from disappointment to outright anger.
Key Criticisms Raised
- Selective Body Diversity: While Ashley Graham’s presence was lauded—she’s a size-16 and long-time advocate for body acceptance—commenters argued that positioning a single plus-size model amid six tall, slim counterparts fell short of genuine diversity.
- Spectrum of Skin Tones: The cover was criticized for not including models with darker skin tones. None of the featured women, critics said, were “darker than a paper bag,” highlighting the ongoing lack of representation for women of deeper complexions.
- Questionable Photo Editing: Fans scrutinized the placement of models and apparent use of Photoshop. Graham’s hand, resting on her thigh, appeared to conceal her stomach, while Gigi Hadid’s arm seemed to be intentionally elongated to cover more of Graham’s body. The subtle body positioning led to speculation about whether Graham’s figure was deliberately minimized to align more closely with traditional high-fashion standards.
Critics took to Vogue’s Instagram and Twitter feeds to voice concern, using hashtags such as #Vogue125 and #BodyDiversity to demand genuine inclusivity in both representation and editorial practice.
Models Respond: Defending the Cover and the Message
With the conversation intensifying, Ashley Graham addressed the accusations directly. On her Instagram, she responded to a commenter asking about her pose by insisting, “I chose to pose like that. No one told me to do anything.” She also posted additional images from the story, expressing gratitude for being on the cover: “Dream. Come. True!” and thanked Vogue for the opportunity.
Liu Wen joined the conversation in support of the cover, echoing the hope that such moments would inspire more women around the world. Despite the backlash, both Wen and Graham underscored the importance of seizing these opportunities as steps toward broader industry change.
What others are reading
Photo Manipulation and Bodily Representation in Fashion
This incident reignited a conversation that has simmered for years in the fashion world: how much Photoshop is too much? And whose bodies are being altered, concealed, or misrepresented?
- Posing and Concealment: Multiple users flagged the choice to rest Graham’s hand on her thigh—something no other model in the shot did—as a subtle but telling method of redirecting attention and shaping perceptions of her body type.
- Network of Comparisons: The combination of strategic arm placement, thigh coverage, and Graham’s relative position in the group image amplified viewer impressions that her presence, while celebrated, was being simultaneously minimized.
- Debate Over Intention: Was the posing an act of editorial control, or simple coincidence? The debate over intention versus perception remains a core issue in decoding fashion imagery.
Broader Cultural Sensitivities: Karlie Kloss and ‘Spirited Away’
In a parallel controversy, the same Vogue issue featured a fashion editorial starring Karlie Kloss shot in Japan, titled “Spirited Away.” Kloss, a white American model, was styled in traditional Japanese garb, accompanied by symbolic settings like tea houses and sumo wrestlers. This editorial was swiftly condemned online for cultural insensitivity and for perpetuating orientalist stereotypes, especially problematic in a purportedly ‘diverse’ issue.
- Tone-Deaf Choices: Many pointed out the longstanding problem of casting non-Asian models in roles representing Asian culture, and the failure to use Japanese models in authentic representation.
- Stereotype Perpetuation: Critics drew connections between the editorial and previous instances of cultural appropriation in fashion media, from the 2015 Met Gala’s ‘China: Through the Looking Glass’ to European magazines’ historical use of blackface.
Kloss responded to criticism on Twitter, expressing regret for taking part in the shoot: “I am truly sorry for participating in a shoot that was not culturally sensitive.” The apology was widely circulated but the episode highlighted ongoing failure within the industry to recognize and prevent such missteps.
Defining Diversity: The Fashion World’s Ongoing Struggle
The uproar around Vogue’s March 2017 cover and accompanying editorials points to a deeper crisis within the fashion industry: the gulf between aspiring to diversity and realizing it in meaningful, intersectional ways.
| Aspect | Critique | Industry Response |
|---|---|---|
| Body Diversity | Rare to see more than one plus-size model on major covers | Minor incremental changes; ongoing pressure for better representation |
| Racial Representation | Lighter skin tones and Eurocentric features disproportionately featured | More models of color being cast, but gaps remain (especially for darker skin) |
| Cultural Authenticity | Criticisms over cultural appropriation and lack of consultation | Occasional apologies; advocacy for using models from featured cultures |
Shifting Industry Norms
- No ‘One-Size-Fits-All’ Diversity: Representation today is being shaped by intersectionality, encompassing body size, race, disability, gender, and sexuality.
- Social Media Accountability: Twitter and Instagram amplify consumer voice, holding editors and brands responsible for the messages they send.
- Increased Visibility, Incomplete Progress: While cast diversity is improving, decisions around posing, editing, and editorial curation often fall short of authentic inclusion.
Positive Steps and Looking Ahead
Despite justified frustration, the increased backlash signals heightened cultural awareness and consumer demand for change. Many in the industry acknowledge that mere ‘visual diversity’ is not enough: authentic inclusion requires meaningful consultation, equal treatment, and space for all bodies, backgrounds, and identities.
Vogue’s March 2017 issue, while flawed, helped spotlight the ongoing dialogue necessary to move fashion toward a truly representative future. Models like Ashley Graham and Adwoa Aboah use their platforms to champion visibility not only for themselves but for broader communities—and to make room for more voices over time.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What was the main controversy surrounding Vogue’s March 2017 cover?
A: The cover, intended to depict inclusivity and diversity, was criticized for featuring only one plus-size model and lacking models with darker skin tones. Many felt it failed to represent real diversity.
Q: Was the image of Ashley Graham photoshopped?
A: Observers speculated that Ashley Graham’s pose and the positioning of other models may have been manipulated to minimize her body, though Graham herself stated she chose her pose and was not instructed to hide her figure.
Q: How did the models react to the backlash?
A: Ashley Graham and Liu Wen publicly supported the cover, with Graham emphasizing her autonomy in posing and expressing gratitude for being featured on Vogue.
Q: What other controversies were linked to this issue?
A: A featured editorial with Karlie Kloss in traditional Japanese dress was condemned for cultural appropriation and lack of authentic representation, intensifying debates about inclusivity and sensitivity in fashion.
Q: Has Vogue or the fashion industry made progress on diversity since?
A: There have been positive steps in casting and conversation, but critics argue substantive, intersectional inclusion remains a work in progress, with consumers scrutinizing not just who appears on covers, but how they are represented.
Conclusion: The Lasting Impact
The Vogue March 2017 controversy stands as a reminder that the images fashion publishes carry immense cultural weight. Public backlash signals society’s growing insistence that representation must be deep, nuanced, and respectful—far beyond the superficial inclusion of a single face or body type. As the fashion world continues to grapple with these issues, every image, editorial, and response contributes to the broader movement toward authentic visibility and equity for all.
References
Similar Articles
Read full bio of Sneha Tete
