Spring Break at Home

Playing tourist for a day.



  • marysilverbells March 26th, 2014 3:56 PM

    Hey, while I love the photos I have to say that Converse is a subsidiary of Nike, Inc. which has not been totally ethical (,_Inc.#Human_rights_concerns)
    Beautiful photos though.

    • Anaheed March 26th, 2014 4:19 PM

      Do you mean recently? Because I read a bit before we said yes to this and it seemed to me that they were, relatively speaking (like, in the context of capitalism and mass markets etc.), making good-faith efforts in the past three years or so to change those conditions. I’m not trying to be an apologist; I genuinely want to know what you know that I don’t.

      • marysilverbells March 26th, 2014 5:27 PM

        Honesty, I am 14 and probably very naive, but, I think that by supporting a corporation you are supporting corporate capitalism, regardless of that corporations attempts to be ethical. I also think that there is not enough of a dialogue about what is behind a brand and how there are rich people making millions while people are barely making any money and suffering. I guess I just equate Nike, Inc. with unequal wealth distribution and capitalism and was surprised that Rookie, which I love, would endorsed it. Anyway, I am not trying to be a downer, just trying to understand and learn.

        • Anaheed March 26th, 2014 8:48 PM

          This corporation supported us, in this instance. We happily accepted that support, because we like Converse sneakers and the company was smart and creative enough to commission work like María Fernanda’s. There are ads on Rookie every day that are paid for by corporations that are tied up in the cycle of unequal distribution of wealth. But I don’t think giving a little bit of money to a struggling startup like Rookie is an example of kicking money upward toward the rich. Yes, people seeing this photo shoot might be like, “Oh, those are cute sneakers,” and click over and buy them. But they might do that concerning anything we ever show a picture of on Rookie. 99.999% of those things are not paid for. Our photographers LOSE money on many if not most of their photo shoots. Every once in a while we get some money for a shoot, which we are totally transparent about, and that money goes directly toward paying our contributors. I understand if you still have a problem with this, but I have to say, of all the options we have to try to stay afloat, this is one that really doesn’t bother me, personally.

        • Cerise March 26th, 2014 9:42 PM

          Hi Mary!

          I don’t think you sound naive–you’re concerned about something that really needs to be talked about, & you’re aware that you’re still learning stuff, which is great. I’m 22, & I’m still learning about this area myself! (I don’t think it ever stops.)

          Anyway. I get what you’re saying–I’m really passionate about ethical consumerism & have been trying to learn more about poverty & buying locally, etc.–BUT I think it’s a little more complicated than just not having sponsored posts from a corporation. I think it would be ideal if websites like Rookie *could* function without the need for ads/endorsements/etc, but we live in a fairly capitalist society, & funds need to come from somewhere. It’s also not as likely for smaller companies to be able to offer these kinds of sponsorships, although that would be awesome.

          You could also look at it this way: Nike is the one endorsing Rookie. I think that’s a side of capitalism we need to see more of–bigger companies deciding to support smaller-but-awesome projects like Rookie.

          One other thing I want to put forward: Rookie is focused on feminism/girls/life. If they were writing specifically about ethical consumerism, I would be more concerned, but they aren’t. And I think that’s one of the great things about Rookie–it’s a place for people who are still figuring it out (like me!) to have that dialogue you mentioned & learn from our different perspectives. We aren’t all going to agree (including with how the website is run), but we do get to talk about it, which I think is great. :)

          PS Thanks for sharing & making me think!

        • xdogbaitx March 27th, 2014 9:23 AM

          marysilverbells, I cant believe at 14 years old you articulated this as well as you did. My efforts seem lacklustre in comparison. kudos”!

  • Claire March 26th, 2014 3:58 PM

    I get why you did this, and I don’t blame you guys at all, but this just bummed me out, man.

    • DrewNotBarrymore March 26th, 2014 5:03 PM

      I don’t understand why this “bummed [you] out, man.” I think the photos are very pretty…?

  • numoon_vintage March 26th, 2014 7:11 PM

    Love it! I think #18 is my favorite.

  • Bex_cygnet March 26th, 2014 7:30 PM

    I don’t see how this is any different to articles that namedrop beauty products? To be consistent I don’t understand why similar comments aren’t made on the ‘you pretty things’ column from yesterday (for example.) Surely actively researching a company’s ethics is a good place to start and stimulates the conversation on unequal wealth distribution and capitalism? Just because rookie received sponsorship for this post? It’s openly acknowledged & allows the fantastic editors and writers who contribute to maintain the rookie that I assume people reading this love- for the very reason that it nurtures awareness of issues like the one in question. Surely even progressive institutions have to function within the framework provided guys?

  • Bex_cygnet March 26th, 2014 7:33 PM

    Ps apologies if the above reads as confrontational! The sentiment isn’t supposed to be- I just wanted to join the debate :)

  • melissay March 26th, 2014 8:16 PM

    These were nice pictures and i understand you need to make money and all but I just can’t help feeling disappointed and quite uncomfortable. It’s like you tried to dress a commercial up as art and I didn’t expect this from a place like rookie.

    • Anaheed March 26th, 2014 8:40 PM

      Help me understand your objection here. We are totally upfront about how this post (and other sponsored posts, of which there will surely be others in the future) was paid for; nothing is being disguised or “dressed up” as anything else. When we are given money to feature a product that we like in a post, we would much rather use that money to make the post our own by doing it the same way we do any other post. We would have featured these (beautiful) photos by María Fernanda whether or not her friends were wearing Converse sneakers. (And we’ve run Eye Candy and Style posts featuring Converse sneakers plenty of times without being paid for them, so this is literally something we would have done with or without the sponsorship.) How would you rather we handle something like this?

      Another point to consider, maybe: You basically cannot run a website anymore without doing sponsored posts. We don’t have qualms about doing them when we can be ourselves and be honest and use the sponsorship money to make work we are proud of and when we can work with a company that respects that and is excited to help us make something.

      • melissay March 27th, 2014 3:30 PM

        I don’t have a problem with your use of sponsors when you write about products and talk about them, as I’ve seen before. I simply don’t like how it was used in an artistic context.
        Art and advertising can’t merge. It’ll turn into one or the other.
        If product placement should be used in an artistic context, you have to make some kind of Andy Warhol-style to it (focusing on the product placement as the art’s purpose) for it to continue being art. “Slipping” in product placement into art is exactly what commercials do. From a readers point of view there’s no difference between this and an advertisment on television.

        I hope I didn’t offened anyone! I really think Maria is a great photographer. The quality of these pictures had noting to do with my criticism.

        • Tavi March 27th, 2014 4:29 PM

          Are you suggesting our next sponsored post be just a plain advertisement, with content produced by a brand instead of by our contributors? I genuinely don’t understand what you’re asking for or how we would execute an “Andy Warhol-style” sponsored post. We use Converse in shoots anyways, and I think it’s fine to be paid for it.

          • melissay March 27th, 2014 6:07 PM

            What? No! not at all! What I was trying to explain was that it becomes an commercial and not art when you do this. I think you’re being unnecessarily harsh and honestly quite mean. Your reply actually made me sad. I was trying to keep this cool and was only stating my opinion, wich I thought a site like rookie could handle?
            All I said was that you can’t mix art and product placements without it becoming an commercial. But yea, you’re the boss…

            • Tavi March 27th, 2014 6:31 PM

              I, too, was stating my opinion, and my confusion at what you are asking of us. I appreciate that people feel comfortable expressing their thoughts on this stuff on Rookie; similarly, I should be able to defend the choices I make as an editor.

  • Seoulsgalaxy March 26th, 2014 8:53 PM

    what the other people said about being unhappy about the sponsored post is messed up man, im sure you would put this up without it being sponsored, and websites need to have sponsored posts to work.

    beside that point, these pictures are beautiful. i love how real they are. i could look over these 1000 times.

  • ameliamad March 26th, 2014 8:56 PM

    Museums, Hula hooping, pizza, and finding panoramic views? Omg i think all i need is the perfect playlist and my spring break will be more excellent than bill and teds adventures. This is mos def one of my favorite rookie editorials. The clothes are amazing and everything looks so fun and free and real. God bless converse and Rookie . (lol “Rookverse”)

    ok I’m done and thank you :)

  • lizabeth March 26th, 2014 9:13 PM

    I love these photos, especially the pizza in the empty parking lot ones :)

    Is there somewhere I can buy that Alberto Perera dress (photo 12/13)? I clicked on the link under the photo but it only took me to a Pintrest page

  • Laia March 26th, 2014 9:32 PM

    Love this! <3

  • eva-stark March 27th, 2014 5:58 AM

    I love 8 & 9! Looks really fun :)

  • pizzaface March 27th, 2014 6:22 AM

    I think the photos are super pretty and I don’t care if it’s sponsored or not, who cares about that when the photos are awesome? :D

  • xdogbaitx March 27th, 2014 9:22 AM

    I felt really uncomfortable with this, as some other people did. I think its because I’ve always seen rookie as quite independent, and a “sponsored post” makes me feel like Rookie is becoming part of the womens magazine world of advertising. Its one thing to feature products in a post that you enjoy, but when its sponsored, it begins to feel like opinions are being brought, rather than being from a place of individual preference.

    This is badly worded but I guess I don’t want rookie to end up feeling like every other damn magazine and media outlet available.

  • -liberty- March 27th, 2014 9:33 AM

    i was also pretty bummed out? i get that y’all need money or whatever, but converse has always seemed to me like a company that capitalizes on a ‘subculture’ look to drum up business. i’m just as bummed with this as i was when you guys sided up with doc martens, who stopped making things in england and moved their companies to china, and are now making lower-quality shoes for higher prices. like someone else who commented on this, i’m fourteen as well and probably pretty naive. it’s just kind of disappointing to see an article like this where every single picture has converse in it, and the focus is more on trying to sell a product than illustrate an aesthetic or something. again, i’m probably naive.

    • Tavi March 27th, 2014 10:14 AM

      Ten of these photos do not feature Converse. That’s almost half of the entire editorial. I don’t think Converse capitalizes on a subculture to drum up business; they’ve been around for almost 100 years and have actually shaped and informed many subcultures.

      “i get that y’all need money or whatever”
      Yeah, we do. Sorry. You read this website for free. Most of our events (except when they have been in collaboration with libraries, galleries, or festivals that need to charge $) are free. We would never want to charge anyone for reading Rookie, or have to ask teenagers to donate. Aside from that, I LOVED this post, and the Doc Martens one, and the Warby Parker one. In fact, many of these “sponsored” photos will end up in Yearbook Three, not because capitalism is evil, but because our photographers did such an amazing job. Find me another website whose sponsored posts are this carefully considered and crafted.

      I know it sucks to realize that we live in a capitalist society. Please do not project that disappointment on us, as if partnering with a company we like=endorsing everything wrong with the world. Read Anaheed’s comments above and look at the post for what it is instead of assigning it all this symbolic weight.

  • maris March 27th, 2014 11:42 AM

    Just to throw my two cents in:

    Being 14 doesn’t mean you can’t comment on ethics, and I think every young adult here commenting is what Rookie strives for: articulate, independent youth that aren’t afraid to speak up!

    That being said, I’m echoing what Tavi said earlier in that living in a corporate capitalist society sucks. It does. While awesome at pursuing submissions from all over the world, Rookie is U.S.-based and therefore has to deal with the restrictions of capitalism, meaning that posting and generating as much content as they do as often as they do can be quite costly, and will need sponsorship in order to maintain its status of free for readers. However, they do so with a policy of honesty and creativity, which we don’t get from a majority of other outlets. While a lot of other websites or sources of information work to hide those sponsorships, Rookie is very open about it, which I would prefer to the status quo deceit.

    Additionally, consider that Converse could be putting their money towards companies that enforce the ruling demographics of society (white, straight, adult, wealthy MEN) instead of helping fund a platform for young women, women of color, etc. like Rookie. Those platforms, while we would love to imagine could be heard and run without money or powerful backers, cannot realistically function without such. At least it’s going to a positive cause that can contribute to changing the capitalist patriarchy we exist in! :) That’s something I wholeheartedly support.

  • speakeasied March 27th, 2014 1:59 PM

    Man, who knew a Rookie photoset could cause so much controversy?

    Seriously guys, before you comment, read Tavi and Anaheed’s responses to everyone else and realize that you need to get over the fact that this post is sponsored by Converse.

    Regardless of the sponsorship, Maria Fernanda’s pictures are gorgeous. That’s all that needs to matter.

  • amelia3 March 27th, 2014 2:02 PM

    I think these are lovely photos. On the subject of sponsored posts, I really feel that it’s more important for Rookie- a magazine that we all clearly love and appreciate for its content/insight/originality/etc- to have enough money to run itself and allow us to enjoy it than it is for us to hold them to an impossible standard (or expect them to singlehandedly dismantle the unequal distribution of wealth). I’m pretty sure Rookie editors aren’t lording over their writers with top hats and crystal monocles like industrial tycoons… as far as I know. :)

  • lexilikes March 27th, 2014 2:26 PM

    Love all these photos. Some really good ideas too. I’m not going anywhere for Spring so definitely going to give some of these a go. I love that the sponsorship still fits in with the style and tone of Rookie. <3

  • sashafayesquash March 27th, 2014 5:05 PM

    It’s really interesting to hear everybody’s opinion – every perspective that I’ve read seems to present a valid argument so I don’t think that sharing a personal POV should be misconstrued as criticism or generate any kind of antsy response.

    I wish I lived somewhere that had touristy areas, Maria’s hometown looks like a beautiful place!

  • María Fernanda March 27th, 2014 11:00 PM

    To all of you: THANK YOU ♡♡

    btw: I’m wearing converse right now, my mom gave me those on my last birthday and my dad gave me the other pair I own 4 years ago..
    I guess I GENUINELY like converse.

  • Nomali March 28th, 2014 9:11 AM

    I love 18 so much. I think I’m a little obsessed w those goggle shades.

  • tturnthenoiseon March 28th, 2014 10:19 AM

    I appreciate and admire the straightforward and artful ways in which you all present your sponsored post. I genuinely and truly enjoyed this and of course Converse is a brand I like a lot. María is one of my favorite photographers in the universe <3

  • Estelle March 28th, 2014 10:37 AM

    #13 actually made my heart HURT

  • Me March 28th, 2014 12:22 PM

    Where can I get some rad goggles like those?!

  • alisatimi March 28th, 2014 2:26 PM

    These are lovely photos. I’m just a bit confused by the response – it seems like a lot of people assume that capitalism = evil and are projecting this onto Rookie. It’s a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it though – sure, capitalism has its problems but it’s not inherently evil (and, coming from a country which has tried an alternative I’d say overall capitalism is pretty great). Even if you don’t agree with that though, like I said, every system has its advantages and disadvantages, and, living in a capitalist society, I think a company like Nike showing some social responsibility in supporting a small business like Rookie is definitely something that should be promoted!

  • freepenny March 29th, 2014 11:39 AM

    I looove the photos Maria! May I ask what camera you use?

  • mangointhesky March 29th, 2014 3:06 PM

    Personally, I think this is perfectly fine. Lots of fashion bloggers get paid to wear and promote certain items of clothing, yet they disguise it as a personal choice. Rookie was totally upfront about it, and anyways, what really matters are the pictures and photography, and I thought they were AMAZING!