W November 2008 : Angelina Jolie by Brad Pitt

[tigerrouge]

I didn't buy the 'happy family' W issue that they did a few years back, and I regret it now. At the time, I remember being unimpressed by seeing them invade yet another publication, but looking back, that shoot now seems an amusing commentary on what the couple went on to be (a celebrity family).

And similarly, I think this issue could be the same. At the moment, it looks nice but insubstantial, but in five years' time, when Angelina's left Brad and has moved in with Ashton Kutcher, we might look back at this issue, and reappraise it as really capturing the madness of when they were a super-couple (and super-indulged as such). Vanity Fair does this so much better, because it thrives on hubris, but W has its moments.

I totally agree with Harumi's point about us forgetting that W was built on a tradition of social coverage. All those pages with names in black type - lists of obscure European royalty, and rich American women whose vocation was to keep on buying couture 'til they died.

[Les_Sucettes]

Originally Posted by Harumi

No I don't. That was a genuine question and I don't understand why the statement: 'Brad is and actor not an artist' went unchallenged for so long.

Just because he's an actor and artist in that area, does that mean that he can become a painter, a photographe? He's not that Kind of artist, and everyone understood that,it would be mighty boring to explain in every single post what area of art we were talking about ,no one challenged that because there is nothing to challenge. Doing that it's just being precious.

[masquerade]

Originally Posted by kroqjock

^^Well, I can't really review all the articles because they're all so boring as hell. This issue is strictly Art-based, so don't expect anything flashy. There's very little fashion talk and ZERO fashion editorials with any models.


Unless you happen to know about any of the artists/painters/designers/sculptors that are featured in the issue, then there is absolutely NO other reason to buy this issue other than the Angelina edit.


Once I'm done scanning Angelina's edit, this issue is going straight into the Recycle Bin. To nicely sum it up: THIS ISSUE BLOWS.

well, if you look at the thread, quite a few of us do care about the art. Personally, I am glad if besides the awful angelina ed there is substantive stuff on art.

[Harumi]

Originally Posted by Les_Sucettes

Just because he's an actor and artist in that area, does that mean that he can become a painter, a photographe?

Where did I imply this? Did you even read my post? I have made my views on the artistic value of these shots crystal clear. As I have of Brad's arty pretentions.

He's not that Kind of artist

To many poster is is no kind of artist at all. I quote the Brad remark because it stood out but I could have quote the many people who asked what an actress was doing on the art issue, clearly implying that actors are not artists. I was responding to these specific comments. Angelina isn't taking the pictures so the remark wasn't directed at the pictures themselves, but their subject.

and everyone understood that

Well, I didn't, and still don't believe we're talking about the same thing.

,it would be mighty boring to explain in every single post what area of art we were talking about ,no one challenged that because there is nothing to challenge. Doing that it's just being precious.

Please next time I would appreciate if you pose a bit before twisting my argument, putting words in my mouth and then calling me precious on top of that.

[Bahiyya]

Harumi, you have a good point (people do tend to dismiss actors' value) but I don't think it applies to W's product. W magazine is not focusing on Brad's artistic skills as an actor it is focusing on his questionable skills as a photographer, which is why no one is bringing up Brad's film work as a defence. And Angelina Jolie is not being presented as an artist but as a celebrity whose private life the public finds intriguing.

I am not one to limit creative persons to a single field -- it's possible to be multi-talented. But I think there have been enough "reality-star-turn-singer/songwriter-turn-actor-turn abstract artist" cases to justify the public's general scepticism. So many celebs these days are prone to thinking that once they are somewhat successful in one area, all their other creative pursuits, regardless of how they compare to the work of actual practitioners in that field, are worthy of public consumption; *and* they use whatever fame they have to bypass the usual filters to get it out there.

I'm pretty sure that if a general survey was done on whether most people consider the work of those German artists you mentioned as actually "art" most would say no. That kind of post-post modern...or whatever the heck that is stuff is only popular with a minor sub-set of the population so I think it would *definitely* be questioned. And people are less likely to be sceptical when a Tilda Swinton might lay claim to the title "artist" because she doesn't do stuff like this W editorial (and she certainly has a far more prestigious and respectable film record).

Maybe there is some bias against Brad because of his "pretty boy" image but he really hasn't proven himself in any area outside of acting to public knowledge. Look at Viggo Mortensen who is into writing and photography. After Fellowship of the Ring went big he could have totally shoved all that stuff into the mainstream and gotten a nice W cover in the arts issue before the December release of the two LOTR films when they were current (for example). But in interviews he does nothing beyond mentioning his publishing house (he doesn't even pimp his own titles) and otherwise sends books to review venues and does exhibitions in galleries like any other kind of working artist.

[lucy92]

^i think you are correct in your assesment of viggo mortensen.

i guess at this point i dont see angelina and brad as real people anymore.
they certainly dont interact with real people anymore.

so i see exactly where people's cynicism is coming from.

[McClaire]

I second that. good point.

[peachescream]

Originally Posted by McClaire

whats artistic about blurry black pictures? it's the equivalent of the Paris Hilton sex tape in night vision.i mean the second to last one? pointless. i'm sorry but this is so stupid. Brad is not a photography. i'm suprised his thumb isnt in the photos.

oh brad. you tried, i'll give you that.

[softgrey]

Originally Posted by richardedmond

Agh. All that crap about the film he used is so fabricated. Any flavour-of-the-year celebrity couple can submit some family pictures, but W is one of, I thought, the magazines that leant towards the more edgy side of the spectrum as fashion magazines go. Like Vogue, is W becoming a high style trashy celeb rag?

i am sorry- but this statement is completely absurd...
...

W isn't making stuff up...
this are the exact facts as they happened... it is all too true...

including the fact that the film had to be hand carried in order to arrive on time...if it had been sent by post it would have gotten there too late...
because brad decided he wanted it at the last minute
(you know...diva actors and all that..not so hard to believe is it?)
period...end of story...


what i think is more of a surprise is that W chose to share his little diva demands with the general public...
my guess is that if he weren't just a hobbyist...he might have had the foresight to order the film earlier...
so this sort of shows that he was really winging it all...
but at least it means he was trying to take it seriously at least
...

[hfgl]

KROQJOCK,thank you.Looking forward to the rest

[tigerrouge]

Originally Posted by softgrey

what i think is more of a surprise is that W chose to share his little diva demands with the general public...

Yes, it's a deliberately annoying description. When I first read it, I figured W's prime motive is to provide controversial material to provoke interest and sales, and are even happy to undermine their 'star photographer' to do so - as if they themselves feel the absurdity about Brad-the-artist, so they're not really going to try to defend the claim much, and if they can milk another story out of the issue - Brad-the-diva - then all the better for sales.

Do you remember when Brad complained about being on the front cover of a Vanity Fair art issue, I think because no-one had consulted him about what shot was going to be used, and it ended up being one of him looking supremely fit and handsome, and for some reason, he wasn't happy with that at all.

[lucy92]

i think W need to get rid of the "countess" column and stop having so many pages of expensive jewels...bling is over...

too much of the magazine is geared towards rich airheads.

i guess this includes brad.

[softgrey]

jewelry companies spend a LOT on advertising...
so...
expect those bling things to continue indefinitely...
whether it is trendy or not..

[surrealseven]

I can't believe this thread can be so long without any fashion eds being posted

[Gaultier_Bandit]

^^^ Ooooh I know.