Let's Discuss: Is All This Prada Coverage Good Or Bad For Fashion?

There's a mesmerizing article on Fashionista wherein they count all the magazine covers that featured the undoubtedly beautiful, boldly colorful Spring 2011 rugby striped potassium-packed bananas Prada collection. They painstakingly compile a gallery of 48 (with a couple of additions from keen-eyed commenters) and while it's endlessly entertaining to play "Where's Waldo?" and pluck out all the instances and pick our favorites we realized we had a big, itchy question on our brains. If a massive brand like Prada is getting all this shine--even on relatively esoteric boutique titles--and magazine cover real estate is finite, when do we get to see supernew-experimental-crazy stuff? Also, why does this keep happening? Like, why such a long tail on the story? I see the inherent challenge in making YOUR PRADA cover mind-bogglingly different as to be neat because you used all the same tools for SUCH a WILDLY divergent result but what's the impetus beyond that? I realize asking whether something is "good" or "bad" for fashion can be argued to death with hairs split ad infinitum along zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz grains since it's all very subjective but WHAT SAY YOU? Do you think it's cool to see so many interpretations on he same designs? Or are your eyeballs bored out of their sockets? Tell us in the comments!

Anna Wintour on the cover of WSJ. Magazine, and Amanda Seyfried on the cover of Marie Claire.
Photo: Courtesy of WSJ. Magazine/Marie Claire

Heavy hitters on mainstream books. It's notable how versatile the collection is given how age appropriate it is across different decades. Amanda Seyfried is in her 20s and Anna Wintour is not.

The covers of Avenuel and 160g.
Photo: Courtesy of Avenuel/160g

The dazzling effect of geometric lines is undeniable in both images but did these both have to solely employ Prada stripes?