Muse #20 : Lindsay Lohan by Yu Tsai, Abbey Lee by Kadel & Claudia S by Jonas Bresnan

[candlebougie]

It was a mistake by the people in charge to link this shoot to Kate Moss and Johnny Depp, and an even bigger one to say this will "help with her movie comeback" and it will be "iconic". It's impossible for the editorial to live up to these expectations.

They should have just said that it will be a dark, raw and intense look at Lindsay - chances are it wouldn't have received such a negative reception.

[scratchBOOK]

petey! I was rooting for you! We were all rooting for you!!

but if those papz pics of him and lilo together just because of this eds, im fine. he wont get the herpes

also ive never found any "johnny depp" in his face

[gossiping]

i actually like lilo's pics

[candlebougie]

entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com

[candlebougie]

eonline.com/uberblog

[Thefrenchy]

That first picture made me so uncomfortable.

[Manuva]

This is just...vile.

[helmut.newton]

It's just sad that Lohan would agree to be part of this 'concept'. Clearly, she has no sense of dignity.

At least in Terry Richardsons pictures, the women are objectified but are portrayed as powerful and in control. This editorial however fails to pull this Richardson tongue-in-cheek aesthetic off and Lohan is left objectified and humiliated (at least from my own point of view).

What do you think? Does this shoot work in Lohan's favour or does it objectify her?

[tigerrouge]

Well, a few pages back, it was apparently "art" supported by someone quoting something from the Bible - which is always a good sign when it comes to a magazine editorial, I think.

[TheCheekyCritic]

Originally Posted by helmut.newton

At least in Terry Richardsons pictures, the women are objectified but are portrayed as powerful and in control.

That's actually a good point you make there. I've never really given Terry's photos much further thought since I don't particularly like the "thematic references" in many of his shoots, but now that you mention it, you're absolutely right.

This ed, however, is not only vulgar, it is pointlessly vulgar, save as a tragic reflection of Lohan as the person she is (which I'm not sure was the point they wanted to make). The fact that she signed on to do this already speaks volumes, imho, and it feels like a shameless exploitation of her "promiscuous" character, really. Actually, this ed says just as much about Lohan as it does of the future of Muse (if there is such -- I could see this ed ruining the magazine for a lot of people, as it has for myself).

Am I the only one more than a little discomforted by what's going on in the photo in #79? This does not belong in a fashion magazine.

"Fashionart?" Psh. "Fashiontrash" more like it.

[SyphaBelnades]

Originally Posted by helmut.newton

It's just sad that Lohan would agree to be part of this 'concept'. Clearly, she has no sense of dignity.

At least in Terry Richardsons pictures, the women are objectified but are portrayed as powerful and in control. This editorial however fails to pull this Richardson tongue-in-cheek aesthetic off and Lohan is left objectified and humiliated (at least from my own point of view).

What do you think? Does this shoot work in Lohan's favour or does it objectify her?

I don't think terry richardson's work is above this pictures, Lindsay is a woman and she seems to be very much in control of the images, it's a bit like Madonna in her SEX photos, she seems in control in the photos, whereas terry richardson is just a pervert. His pictures are lascivious and pornographic and it shocks me that he is celebrated. To me his work is just shock for shock's sake, at least there is LIGHTING TECHNIQUE in Lindsay's spread as opposed to a flat in your face, unregulated light like in terry's.

I don't think it objectifies her, I personally love the shoot.

[KateIsGr8]

LINDSAY IS A GODDAMN GENIUS! I love this. I don't care what anyone else says about how it's gross and nasty because if it were a model they would think it's ok and "powerful." I cannot wait to buy this and I can't wait to see her in or on the cover of Purple. Such an upgrade from the last issue!!

[lunabella]

1. kate moss never did a threesome photoshoot. when she shot with johnny depp on the bed (by annie liebovitz) she was naked and he was fully clothed. it looked gorgeous, not trashy.
2. lindsay's ed looks a lot like ana claudia michels' photo shoot as savannah, the porn star. if i remember correctly, michels career stalled for about 7 years after that.
3. conclusion: we will never see lindsay again. thank you jebus.

[Captain_Lydia]

^

I admit it got me interested in her again for about as long as it took to view the pictures, but I don't think it's going to help her movie career any. Unless she's looking to move into porn anyway.

I liked the shoot Johnny & Kate did back in the day. I do not like this.

[Bert Berlin]

Originally Posted by lunabella

1. kate moss never did a threesome photoshoot. when she shot with johnny depp on the bed (by annie liebovitz) she was naked and he was fully clothed. it looked gorgeous, not trashy.

The magazine or photographer never mentioned them recreating that shoot. So I don't know why you're even comparing the two shoots

Originally Posted by lunabella

3. conclusion: we will never see lindsay again. thank you jebus.

I think this issue just proves her relevancy and how we're going to see A LOT more of her