On 28 Jul 2010 13:59:22 -0700, Twitchell
wrote:
>http://gawker.com/5598850/here-come-angelina-jolies-nipple+taped-dog-leash-nudie-pics
><---pics
>
>The one photo shown on Star's new cover is awfully glamorous—will these be
>professional-looking photos from Angelina's high-fashion party days? Or will she
>be a rock-bottom mess "during a 14-hour heroin-smoking bender"? (Is she even
>capable of looking like a mess?) Before or after her nose job? The photos are
>paired with an interview with biographer Andrew Morton, who just finished
>Angelina: An Unauthorized Biography, and whose previous hits include Tom Cruise:
>An Unauthorized Biography and Diana: Her True Story. (He likes colons almost as
>much as he likes celebrity scandal.) We may just have to run to the newsstand
>and pick up a copy. [Star]
>
>Update: Here are some of the photos. They're from 1999, apparently:
Just saw the photo, and I think she looked like crap. Maybe
high crap, but crap... I mean "high" in the sense of supposedly "high
fashion". And she didn't pull it off well either.
Why are photographers who photograph people in B & W
automatically considered more "artsy" than ones who don't just because
it's gimmicky? |
