W November 2008 : Angelina Jolie by Brad Pitt

[Style-Addict]

I quite like the editorial...what we've seen so far. I don't know if it's art or not, but I do like the images.

[Les_Sucettes]

Originally Posted by smartarse

so you mean to tell me the W issue of Steven Klein with Brad and Angelina isn't or is it art? - It was shown in the art gallery, and it was magnificent.

What does Steve Klein has to do with Brad Pitt, Brad Pitt is taking a picture of his wife, like most husbands do in this situation and like Berlin Rocks said, ,He's not an artist, Steve Klein in the other hand is a professional photographer that had to work hard to get where he is, to prove his value he had to create millions of beautiful images for people to recognize that what he does is artistic. When he photographs someone like Brad and Angelina he's making an interpretation of a subject, creating a new idea, how does that compare with Brad, an actor, taking pictures of his wife breastfeeding. A big element of what is considered Art is like Tiger Rouge said context, the artistic value of something it's not intrinsic to the object, and is dependant of a lot of considerations, this Brad pic is far from anything that can be remotely considered artistic, even if they are well executed or have an "arty feel".

I actually saw Those Angelina and Brad Pitt photos in a Gallery, it was a Fashion Photography exposition, they were not there by themselfs as works of Art, I do not Know if those particular pictures were art, being in a Gallery does not mean nothing, it's a curator's choise,another curator like always happens is sure to disagree , but I do Know that ever single person that had pictures in there was an artist, and their value is measured by all the work they did through the years, they chose the pictures were most representative of their vision or that were important in a particular time, like those pics that Corinne took of Kate for Vogue that they were also there.

And W is certainly not deciding for me what is art or not,First a studied the subject too many years to care what a fashion mag has to say about art and second a magazine like W exists to make profit, if I was their editor i would probably have sold my soul to the devil to have intimate pics of Brad and Angelina and I would even say they were masterpices if they asked me to. I cannot even begin to imagine how much W is going to earn with this, and is hard for everyone out there.

But since I'm not the editor I can complain that it's cheap and looks like something OK magazine does with minor celebrities. How about Peter Andre taking pics Of Jordan?

[LUXXX]

Is she holding a cig in one the pics? It looks like it...

[adorefaith]

i really think this whole what is/isn't art debate needs to go HERE...
http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums...uss-62448.html

"Art is cool...discuss..." - perfect place for it all !

[MissMagAddict]

^I don't see why the discussion needs to be moved. This is the W Art Issue & it is perfectly fine to discuss it here... since that is the topic of this particular issue.

[adorefaith]

no worries MMA .... it wasn't a request for anything to be moved, just a selfish suggestion that further discussion about what is and isn't art could be conducted there because i personally am just hanging out for these pictures !

[smartarse]

in my opinion it is Art and Commerce...

i'm starting to think those that criticizes Brad being the photographer, Angelina in it whether W is or isn't an ART ISSUE as they say... is all about hating the Brangelinas.

I remember when Dennis Hopper showed his work in an Art Magazine, granted he didn't paint his family but of himself and other landscapes and stuff ... i wonder if this site will criticize that too. Or the name Brad, Angelina or Brangelina triggers such desdain to some that harsh opinions arises. Gah!

[MissMagAddict]

Originally Posted by adorefaith

no worries MMA .... it wasn't a request for anything to be moved, just a selfish suggestion that further discussion about what is and isn't art could be conducted there because i personally am just hanging out for these pictures !

OK... thanks for clarifying your stance on the matter I have seen enough of the Angelina & kids images on television to know I'm really not that interested. I am interested in the rest of the content though... although I have a sinking feeling there isn't going to be much more in the way of editorials... judging from how thin the October issue was

[kimair]

i think it's fine to have the art vs. not art discussion here, since this is the art issue...
i didn't think the covers from last year's issue represented art, but we're all open to having an interpretation of what art means to us...

i just want to remind everyone that this thread isn't about angelina's acting abilities, or brad's midwest background, or attacking other members' personal opinions on whether or not they like or don't like them...
it's about this particular issue of this particular magazine and what w is trying to achieve with it...

[Luxx]

Originally Posted by smartarse

in my opinion it is Art and Commerce...

i'm starting to think those that criticizes Brad being the photographer, Angelina in it whether W is or isn't an ART ISSUE as they say... is all about hating the Brangelinas.

I remember when Dennis Hopper showed his work in an Art Magazine, granted he didn't paint his family but of himself and other landscapes and stuff ... i wonder if this site will criticize that too. Or the name Brad, Angelina or Brangelina triggers such desdain to some that harsh opinions arises. Gah!

This entire debate is starting to boggle my mind. To quote Mugatu, I feel like I'm on crazy pills.

Disliking these pictures =/= hating Brad and Angie. I feel as though the meaning of critique is being lost, you can say something isn't good or say that you dislike something without hating the people responsible for it. End of story. You can say something isn't art without having a personal issue with the people in it. Brad and Angelina are just cultural avatars for a considerably larger debate.

As for Dennis Hopper, he has been taking pictures for the last 40 or so years, he's photographed Dr. Martin Luther King, Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein he has had his work exhibited in major galleries. As much as he is an actor and a celebrity he is also a photographer and has made efforts to present himself as a photographer and worked as such for several decades. Considering that he has attempted to present himself as an artist I doubt there would be much debate over his work being included under that category.

Also, thank you Kimair for saying what I wanted to say in a considerably more eloquent fashion. You hit the nail on the head.

[electricladyland]

At first, I was afraid to come to this thread because I thought the photo was going to look like someone was really trying to make a "statement" by having a breast feeding celeb on a cover. But I love this pic. I think it's gorgeous! I hated the Demi Moore on Vanity Fair cover because it was so self-consciously trying to be something huge, hence a huge photo of a huge pregnant belly on a huge actress (figuratively and literally) and on top of it all nude. The deliberate starkness and lighting and the "and yeah so what?" gaze made it all so distasteful to me and not really as feminist as some tried to make of it.

But this pic is lovely, and, in fact, even more feminist because it doesn't feel garishly voyeuristic even though we are looking in at an intimate moment in a bed between mother and child. Her gaze is soft and loving probably one that could only be captured by a husband, her hair tousled, gown drawn down but again, not to show a great big huge in your face "Hey look at me I'm breast feeding!!" boob, but just enough to evoke and idea of what is going on. The picture tells a story as opposed to the Leibovitz pic which was devoid of context. It's definitely not a snap shot by some random husband, but it is also not too self-consciously concerned with being ART (which for me makes it all the more artsy but I guess that's more my aesthetic).

Not trying to make a case here for it being art or not or enter into any debate. I just think it's gorgeous.

[Les_Sucettes]

Originally Posted by smartarse

in my opinion it is Art and Commerce...

i'm starting to think those that criticizes Brad being the photographer, Angelina in it whether W is or isn't an ART ISSUE as they say... is all about hating the Brangelinas.

I remember when Dennis Hopper showed his work in an Art Magazine, granted he didn't paint his family but of himself and other landscapes and stuff ... i wonder if this site will criticize that too. Or the name Brad, Angelina or Brangelina triggers such desdain to some that harsh opinions arises. Gah!

Who do you think people would approve in this situation?

I think Luxx already everything that needs to be said about Dennis Hopper, Brad Pitt and him are poles apart, and by the way, no one said an actor could not be photographer or a plastic artist, what was said was that just because Brad Pitt can have his family pictures published in a mag,because he's a famous actor, does not mean they become art or he becomes an artist. And we do not even Know if he considers this pics art.

[cato.]

This issue is causing so much controversy.. That's probably what W & Brangelina wanted.

[Les_Sucettes]

Originally Posted by electricladyland

A It's definitely not a snap shot by some random husband

How do you know that? Why are other people's husband's random and why is Brad Pitt special when he takes pics? I actually prefer my husband and his photographs to any Brad Pitt's of this world.

[electricladyland]

I'm sure they'd be great.