Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by MissMagAddict, Apr 2, 2009.
source | nytimes
I would of preferred a full face. But the 'muscle tissue side' gives it a lot more edge.
That's not a new shot, is it? I think that's a shot from an old W editorial.
this is amazing, thank you so much
This is really an eye-catching image. You can't miss it, even if you don't know that it's Kate the picture just calls to you.
I like this, it looks cool and yeah, very eye-catching.
Looks like it. And if we're talking about the same thing, it was the cover and she either had yellow or gold on with bright pink letters...
Thats not the point. Even the publisher himself says that the magazine is not a fashion magazine. In the article, they discuss the use of retouching and how it makes women unrecognizable. By using a photo that has been shot for the purpose of being in a magazine and being retouched, they are illuminating the artifice of those very images.
^It wasn't a criticism just a genuine question.
Yup, it's actually Kate Moss on the cover of W March 2005 by Mert Alas & Marcus Piggott.
Wow I love this! Do you guys think it'll be available at Borders?
i love this cover.
we are all the same underneath out skin.
it's an artwork by Damien Hirst ...
It's eyecatching but I prefer the original one.
what's so strange about Manuva's comment? Damien Hirst coulde have shot Kate herself for his artwork... ( in this case he didn't obviously)
nothing is wrong about her comment. ppl are just quick to reply and miss her point.
Kate Moss... Damien Hirst... Moss as artist's muse... Hirst reprising something about flesh that simply calls on our instinctive reaction to the sight of such things, then people adding a layer of pseudo-intellectualism on the lazy process in order to be part of the art club.
IS THERE NOTHING NEW IN THIS WORLD?
Pieces of 'art' in museums and magazines that have riffed on the image of Ms Moss are numerous, and this is the worst I've seen so far. And I also can't look at the cover shot without recalling W and thinking fondly of that issue.
Weirdest cover reprint ever, I'll give it that.
Thank you for seeing that Manuva The image is from March 2005 by Inez van Lamsweerde & Vinoodh Matadin. Damien Hirst used the image to make his painting.
source | wmagazine
wow, and they picked the best example, Kate Moss! the most airbrushed woman in history.
The "what you see is what you DON'T get" at its best!
I don't mean to be so hard on the magazine - it has to sell itself somehow - and why not combine the populism of Kate Moss with their own arty agenda, but reading that press release...