frankensteinin' people

a video, called "sex lies & photoshop" on the nytimes website addresses the vast extent that magazines photoshop pics and how in france right now, there is a law trying to be passed where the magazines have to disclose the amount of photoshopping done. yah fuckin right.

of course I think magazines/posters overphotoshop the SHIT out of pics, and I would loveeee if no pics were photoshopped b/c then you could see the reality of what a supermodel/actor looks like (even though they would be wearing tons of makeup), but the truth is, that shit won't happen.

like anybody (besides me) wants to see this in a magazine,

compared to this:


here is another prime example (I still like the one on the right):

pierre et gilles

i was in the bookstore yesterday and i saw a book by and about the romantic/ artistic french couple; pierre and gilles. i wasn't familiar with their work, but they've done loads of celebrity portraits, including dita von teese, and porn star portraits as well. they remind me of jean paul gaultier + glitter + david la chapelle. but maybe that is a really ignorant comparison... their pictures have a very theatrical feel to them; they make most of their sets and costumes, and most feature homosexual/ religious/ pop culture/ sailor themes. the other really interesting thing about their work is that they retouch a lot of their photos to give them the feel of a black and white photo that has been painted (my great aunt had a job doing this) or a posterized, pop art type look, which i think adds to fantastical nature of each piece.

the pictures of their home in the book remind me of pee wee's play house.