david cameron made me hate GQ but i did find this great image (mens mag rant Pt.1)

GQ reaffirming their status as premium men's fashion and lifestyle magazine -and not monthly rag thrown together to tongue the anus of which ever celebrity/politician/twat they can get a half decent picture of- has rated the sartorial genius and all round excellently down to earth guy David "Dave" Cameron as #08 in their Best Dressed List 2010. And why not? Who says the same two ubiquitous black or navy suits day in, day out can't be cool? Not me, because when Dave is hitting up some down time with The Fam he is well known to bust out a pair of sweet board shorts, OMG! or what?

I actually haemorrhage when I try think of the honest reasons David Cameron could be considered the 8th best dressed man over the last year... really I can come up with nothing. I can't think of anything that Dave is 8th best of at anything, over any time period, ever. Even in the Conservative Leadership stakes he would be far from my first choice. This is an embarrassing and obvious political arse licking, especially when you consider that Gordon Brown has been ranked at #01 in GQ's worst dressed men side bar- wowzer. Not that Gordo is well dressed but he certainly isn't bad, he kind of bumbles around under the sartorial radar for good or bad, in the same way your dad does.

This sort of big-boys-clubbery really annoys me, not because it's a big boys club that I'm not invited to but because it highlights the fact that these lists are no more thought about than a shopping list. Who do we have pictures of? Who do we want to align ourselves with? Done. Take GQ's hottest girls of 2009; Ann Widdecombe was at #04 or something. Compared to the relative complexity of an actual shopping list, GQ's best dressed/best looking/most influential lists could be and most probably are, compiled by a 7 year old (or a half wit intern who's daddy once went shooting with David Furnish). This is the sad fact of a lot of men's lifestyle magazines; they have best of's or guide to's that are compiled with the level of care an ape renders to cracking a shell with a small boulder, and people lap it up as if it's gospel. The articles are little better, not badly written but lacking in any real conviction or interest in the topic and interviews with people who are just slightly left field but not far enough so that we can't identify them from the leading image. Unfortunately the only alternative is the painfully pretentious arts and media magazines that have lists like the top ten best designed airline interiors (true fact).

The problem is systemic throughout all the major and most of the specialist magazines right now, there seems to be a lack of lustre and a lack of cash to buy in lustre. Which is fair enough I guess as people are asked to do more with less, something has to give- for some it's page count, for others it's the panache. The trouble is without the panache the subtle advertising and product or person placement becomes all the more obvious and you begin to ask why you put down £3.95 for 200 pages of adverts.

Rant to be continued...