Jennifer Garner Late Show with David Letterman OK Magazine
May 27, 2009 | Filed Under Female, Movie Star | Comments Off
Gisele Bundchen Tom Brady Visit OB/GYN Park Avenue Doctor New York City Daily News Pregnant
May 27, 2009 | Filed Under Blonde, Female, Male, New York, Supermodel | Comments Off
Whitney Port Eric Lucas Olivia Palermo The City In Touch Weekly
May 27, 2009 | Filed Under Female, TV Star | Comments Off
Michelle Williams Matilda Ledger People Magazine
May 27, 2009 | Filed Under Uncategorized | Comments Off
Fame and Photography The Getty Museum March 9 – May 23, 1993
May 27, 2009 | Filed Under Celebrity | Comments Off
John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette Cumberland Island Georgia Wedding Videotape
May 27, 2009 | Filed Under Activist, Celebrity | Comments Off
John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette Cumberland Island Georgia Wedding Videotape
The New York Post reported that “mickeythemonkey2″ was peddling a homemade videotape of JFK and Carolyn Bessette’s wedding on Cumberland Island, Georgia, so I googled the keyword and found the tape. It shows a short clip of them cutting their wedding cake.
The fact that the tape exists seems fine to me. I mean, who doesn’t go to someone’s wedding and document their presence there. Just because someone is famous shouldn’t prevent you from an obvious inclination. It’s the cashing in on the footage that makes it ethically complicated. Let’s be honest, though: if this footage was released into the public domain, then it would be instantly seen around the world on every major broadcast network. And as we all know, broadcast networks are based on a business model that demands advertising money in exchange for appearing between entertainment or news material.
Is the monetization of this rare footage an ethical violation of the owner’s relationship to the deceased couple? Probably. Is it any more foul than all the networks and magazines that played out this story and made money from advertisers in the process? No.
It’s really the Zapruder film of our time. We live in a culture that hustles everything on a daily basis. I mean if corporations can sell you junk food that slowly destroys your health and no one seems to shame them into ceasing and desisting, then what’s wrong with a person who possesses video footage they can charge $9.95 to peek at? Is it wrong to place value on a material object and throw it into the capitalistic ring for profit? Sorry, it’s done every day.
If the person peddling the product can live with his or her ethical stance, AND it does no tangible harm to the rest of us on the planet, then, my friends, it might be best to practice some acceptance. After all, California has no problem banning gay marriage, coal mining operations have no problem dumping toxic chemicals into our aquifers, and banks have no trouble charging 29% interest rates. Don’t these behaviors seem like a greater injustice against humanity than someone offering up a glimpse of a celebrity couple’s wedding day?
Bessette Kennedy Wedding Videotape
Canon Panders to Paparazzi of the World
May 26, 2009 | Filed Under Equipment | Comments Off
I’m about to upgrade cameras. I’m trying to decide between the Canon 5D II or the Canon 1D Mark III. I hate buying old technology. The Digic IV processor in the 5D seems far superior to the Mark III’s Digic III. Yet the Mark III shoots 10 fps…even Canon touts this feature as the ideal paparazzi camera!! Speed over quality. Miss the one frame that matters or go for quality.
The dual processors make themselves known, too, in the burst performance of the EOS-1D Mark III. Large size JPEGs at compression level 8 (of 10) can be fired in barrages of 110 frames (at 10 frames per second with 10.1-megapixel files). RAW images can be shot in bursts of 30. Paparazzi of the world, your new camera has arrived.
Actress Ginger Rogers Wears White Sunglasses to Le Cirque
May 24, 2009 | Filed Under Celebrity, Movie Star | Comments Off
I recently bought a paperback copy of Charlotte Chandler’s biography “Nobody’s Perfect, Billy Wilder, A Personal Biography.” As I was flipping through it, I stumbled onto her story of how actress Ginger Rogers liked to wear “dark sunglasses with white frames at night” while dining at Le Cirque restaurant in New York City. Why?
“When the owner, Sirio Maccione, came by to make certain the souffle was perfect, she explained to him that while people might assume she wore the dark glasses in order to not be recognized, she really wore them so she wouldn’t see the other diners, to put distance between herself and them. The glasses prevented her from seeing anyone except those with whom she was actually having dinner. There were times when she was in the mood to be a celebrity. There were other times she wasn’t in the mood, and at those times, she wore the sunglasses.”
Who knew such a simple prop could make all those fans disappear before her very eyes…
Mary-Kate Olsen The Misanthrope of Tribeca New York City
May 16, 2009 | Filed Under TV Star | Comments Off
Mary-Kate Olsen and her sister Ashley Olsen hate being photographed in public. They will go to great lengths to cover their faces or hide behind their security to “protect” their private life from being consumed by the mass public in popular entertainment magazines. And yet…in Mary-Kate’s case, she is dating artist Nate Lowman who has no problem appropriating imagery that subsequently gets incorporated into his artwork for public sale that sustains his livelihood. He has gone on record saying:
“A lot of the images I use are already out there in the public or in the news. I just steal them or photograph them or repaint them, so they’ve already been talked about, already been consumed. I’m just reopening them to get at their second, third, or fourth meanings. It really comes down to language. I feel like the biggest failure of humans is miscommunication.”
So if Nate Lowman has no problem “using,” “stealing” or “photographing” other people’s images, why should he (or his girlfriend) have a problem with others who create those images, even if he happens to be the subject of them? If Nate can appropriate the “smiley face” for his artwork, then, uh, why can’t I appropriate him or Mary-Kate for my expedient purposes.
Here’s a weird thought: Is Nate’s attraction to Mary-Kate Olsen an extension of his artistic fascination with images “already out there in the public” and whether he realizes it or not his relationship with her is really a metaphor for recycling her image in order to recontextualize her so he (we) can get at the “second, third or fourth meanings” of Mary-Kate Olsen…where’s Mr. Freud when you need a good opinion!
But forget that. I’m more fascinated by the Olsen Twins’ obsession with hiding in public. They are public figures. They are famous. Recognition is one of the essential elements that allows them to monetize their past success in all forms of ancillary revenue channels like lunch boxes, perfume, clothing, etc. Yet if they spot a camera, they immediately dive for cover behind their security, turn their heads, or block their faces with whatever objects may be at hand, including a hand (as seen here).
This turning away is odd for the simple reason that it denies the emotional attachment people have to stars that BEGINS with their work and naturally extends into their personal life. If you like the person on the big or small screen, then it’s only human nature to take an interest in the person in general. You admire your heroes and look to them to play a mentoring role in your own life.
Mary-Kate should understand this better than most, because she and her sister wrote a book called “Influence” that examines this primordial need in their own lives. Taking on the mantle of mentor is not for the shy and reclusive though. It requires being a role model in public AND private life. Call it what you like — ying/yang, ego/superego — the duality of the internal versus the external demands honesty and integrity…and openness.
Think about the list of people you interviewed in your book:
Peter Beard
Alexandre de Betak
Bob Colacello
David Collins
George Condo
Francisco Costa
Diane von Furstenberg
John Galliano
Lauren Hutton
Karl Lagerfeld
Peter Lindbergh
Christian Louboutin
Jack McCollough & Lazaro Hernandez
Margherita Missoni
Robert Lee Morris
Jack Pierson
Richard Prince
Terry Richardson
Giambattista Valli
Evan Yurman
Now imagine merely relating to their work without ever seeing the personality behind the work. I mean, honestly, isn’t it more fun knowing the personality behind the work. People who form attachments to objects alone are lacking in emotional development. If you’re left alone as a child, guess what, you start to treat the objects around you as friends and invest your emotional energy into them as substitutes for the missing parents.
One explanation for why the rich spend so much at auction houses is because they covet objects that cannot be taken from them, unlike the whimsical presence of their absent parents. Those who covet end up living in William Randoph Hearst mansions (be careful Oprah, that Montecito property is pretty big for one person!) surrounded by endless rooms of objects.
“I totally went internal,” she says. “I want to be behind the scenes and I don’t want people to know anything about my personal life. I don’t blog. I don’t read any of that.” — Ashley Olsen
Hiding as a metaphor does not bode well for the true nature of a person’s identity. A nifty schizophrenia of pay attention to me here, but not there, makes for an inconsistent form of nurturing that, as any rhesus monkey will tell you, has fateful consequences in the proper growth and development of empathy.
If Nate’s right, and the biggest “failure of human beings is miscommunication,” then Mary-Kate, what exactly are you communicating then by using your hand to protect your face? What are you protecting in the end? The Row and Elizabeth and James clothing lines are worthy brand name ventures, but in the end, is it really just about the clothes?
Not for me…
Actress Jennifer Aniston The Baster Set Brooklyn New York
May 14, 2009 | Filed Under Female, Film, Movie Star, New York, Published, TV Star | Comments Off
