so much of this is built on the ground that it's barely a treehouse at all. it's a house built around a tree. a pretty cool-looking one, sure, but not the greatest treehouse by far.
OH COME ON, now. annie liebowitz, which i'll probably misspell throughout, has been taking portraits since the seventies; she knows how to light and pose an individual to convey a message. the photo on Dlisted isn't sexy; it's a high-contrast low-saturation grey-backed _Commentary_ on the sexualisation of underage superstars, not any kind of glorification of it.
i am so dissapointed to hear that you're respect for such a great photographer has "gone to zero" over this image.
i think that this clip shows half of the guy's little analogy. whatever he hands kirk cameron seems like it was involved, in a part of the video not included on youtube.
mind you, i detest religions. but this seems like it was edited with bias, and i prefer to deride the faithful without (too many) cheap shots. anyone have a line on the whole clip?
this keeps getting blogged, and i've seen it in several bookstores, and every time i see it i think the same thing: great idea, BORING photographs. it drives me a little crazy. it's like he squeezed a little ducky and told them all to smile.
also, why the ridiculous wide angles? let alone the pictures where he's let the distortion stretch peoples' faces, i just don't see how anyone needs that much bland living room to dwarf the subject. i need a valium.
seems to me that the joke indicates a healthy unconcern with the man's race, like the anchor was thinking of woods as a golfer rather than a Black Golfer. as was already pointed out, it wouldn't have drawn any accusations of innapropriateness if it had been said of a mexican, spanish, east asian, west asian, polish, russian, irish, or martian golfer.
a little googling revealed old bernie to be a fiction created by the irish advertising industry to test magazine advertisements' ability to hold an audience.
i think he was trying to prove that aesthetic value is not really all that plastic. granted, he was a bit manipulative in his execution; this woman would look a lot better if they'd given her a better fit. but it seems like he's trying to show the people who complained about the skinny models that even they "should" appreciate the fact of this woman on a catwalk intellectually, and not aesthetically. because the clothes don't fit her.
i am so dissapointed to hear that you're respect for such a great photographer has "gone to zero" over this image.
mind you, i detest religions. but this seems like it was edited with bias, and i prefer to deride the faithful without (too many) cheap shots. anyone have a line on the whole clip?
also, why the ridiculous wide angles? let alone the pictures where he's let the distortion stretch peoples' faces, i just don't see how anyone needs that much bland living room to dwarf the subject. i need a valium.
which is, admittedly, kind of a let-down.