We’re kicking off this week’s pics with the magazine cover of Tom Cruise we can’t stop looking at. He is pictured on W Magazine (in eyeliner, nail polish and is covered in tattoos) to promote his new movie, Rock of Ages. Also in this week’s gallery is the make-up free photo of Hilary Clinton that’s gone viral, the painting Amy Winehouse created with her own blood and the newest face of Chanel No 5. You’ll never guess who it is…
Tom Cruise covered W Magazine with Edita Vilkeviciute and Abby Lee Kershaw. (Photoshopped image)
Following on from the week in pics, we have the best images from the MET Ball, which is something like the Oscars of the fashion industry, and was held at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York this week. The big names in fashion – from Sarah Jessica Parker, Beyonce to Anna Wintour were there – and the sequins, sparkles and shoulder details were a plenty.
Beyonce Knowles
Comments
56 Comments so far
I can’t help but think that Beyonce looks horrible. Can anyone say swimsuit with peacock tail. Proof that money can’t buy class.
loading...
why marc jacobs WHYYYYYYYY
loading...
Is it just me or is there an exceptionally high number of eye-bleedingly awful dresses in the MET Ball photos?
loading...
Please Mamamia, my eyes are bleeding. Put that photo of Tom Cruise away. It is so creepy
loading...
I was at the movies tonight and saw an ad for a movie Tom cruise is in about a rock star, ?inspired by 80s glam rock. Forgotten the name, but I wouldn’t be surprised if its for promos for this movie.
loading...
Tom Cruise would be a babe if he wasnt such a nutjob.
loading...
I can’t look at that photo of Tom Cruise without seeing his face badly stuck on to someone else’s neck and body. Is it just me or does the oval that is his face (eyeliner aside) look like it’s just been pasted on?
loading...
That photo of Tom Cruise is so photoshopped I originally didn’t realise it was him. Thought it was a 20 something model!
loading...
Is that Abbey-Lee Kershaw on the right with Tom Cruise? Go Aussies
loading...
I went off Tom Cruise a long time ago, but that picture… I love it! Grrrr!
loading...
I thought it was Christian Bale when I first saw the pic of Tom. I know it’s heavily ps, but he looks pretty fine.
loading...
Ewww, Tom Cruise….my skin just crawled.
The MET ball is very….sparkly isn’t it? But Marc Jacobs – YUCKKKKK.
Hmmm $85mil for an orange canvas. That could buy a hospital wing.
loading...
In-grown hair removal is steamy? Right-o, I guess it’s creative …
loading...
I saw that ad and thought ‘gross!!!!!!!!!!!’
loading...
It’s the tattoo of his mum on his right arm that really does it. “Hi mum, hope you’re proud!”
loading...
Couldn’t. Stop. Laughing.
loading...
140 pics is way too much to have in one gallery. I got about 3 into it and thought “Can’t be bothered”.
loading...
I used to love these posts but they’re starting to get a bit tedious. I got to the one about The Voice still holding our attention (is that *really* worthy?) And called it quits
loading...
anyone else worried that Nicole Kidman’s kid must be cold?
loading...
I’m confident that she can manage her own child’s temperature without me worrying about it.
loading...
Is anyone else thinking he looks like Adam Lambert from American Idol a few years ago?
loading...
I have only glanced at first few pics this week – on holidays in Spain and just cruised into Madrid tonight (and still 32degrees at 5pm so I had to start the experience with a few sangrias…) – but just need to say that Hilary looks great.
Adios!
loading...
HATE Beyonce’s dress!! Way too fussy and see through??? Seriously????
Yuck!
loading...
Oh my god! I find that picture of Tom Cruise disturbingly attractive. I did NOT recognize him at all. But then I think of him jumping on that couch and I come to my senses. There is something weird about that photo.. some kind of voodoo..
How did that cat get so fat?
Orange? Are we serious? That’s all I have to do to get 86 million dollars? I don’t get art.
loading...
“that’s all I have to do to get $86 million”
With all respect this is an extremely ignorant comment. It’s a Rothko, for god’s sake!
Go ahead, do it! Become one of the most influential and important artists of the 20th century. Easy peasy.
*rolls eyes*
loading...
*rolls eyes*
I definitely could paint that! Some people have way too ,much money.
Was thumbing through a decorator type magazine at the hairdressers the other day and couldn’t believe the cushions and lamps featured cost hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars. Seriously? It’s a lump of foam with a bit of material over it. 30 cm x 30 cm…go to spotlight and buy some pretty fabric…
loading...
Then go for it, M & Guest.
There’s a reason why he’s being paid $86 million for “orange”, and you’re doing your day job.
loading...
No guest, I’m sorry, but you definitely couldn’t paint that.
loading...
I am an artist. A painter. Definitely not my day job but certainly a passion. I dream of being able to make a few spare dollars from my art.
I can tell you now that paintings that look deceptively simple are usually not. A lot of care and effort goes into to mixing the colours (of which there are a multitude in that gorgeous painting) and to the artist each hue or shade represents something different, another piece of the artistic puzzle. Plus it is impossible to get the full effect of a painting from a photo – paint is an organic thing… you need to be in front of it to fully take it in.
I have a canvas that is different shades of red. It represents the rush of blood through the veins that accompanies passion. Sounds wanky perhaps but I (and other people) look at it and feel that emotion. It took probably more effort to mix those particular shades of red than it took me to complete some of my more traditional landscapes yet on the surface it looks like anyone could have painted it.
I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Paint. Put it up here on the site.
loading...
I’m a fashion designer, and I get the debate, having worked the scale from couture to mass market. I can produce an immaculate piece of clothing but just because it doesn’t have a Chanel label on it, even though it may be of a similar quality, it is a fraction of the cost. Why? Because of the label. Same with artists. Yes sure, he may have spent time mxing the colours… but 86 million? I bet he’s laughing about it!
loading...
However influential the man was, however much skill/genius/insight went in to the rendering of this artwork, $86 million is an obscene amount to pay for paint on canvas.
Mind you, I feel the same about similarly huge amounts being paid to sports people etc. To me it’s a prime example of the first world needing to get a grip, and a bit of perspective.
loading...
I don’t know why I’m even going to bother getting into the high-brow, low-brow argument.. BUT..
No that’s not all you have to do to get $86 million.
You have to spend a few decades painting, set yourself up as an internationally renowned painter (probably not that simple I would imagine), and then die (paintings tend to be more expensive after the artist has died).
You could look at it as Orange paint on a canvas, or you could look at it as the culmination of years and years of Rothko exploring themes and subjects through the medium of painting.
You don’t have to ‘get’ art to realise that value is often based not just on the individual pieces, but the artist’s reputation etc.
And if you do want to try and ‘get’ art, don’t look at just the visual, but what it’s talking about, what it represents. Sometimes an artist’s paintings are like a book, each painting a new page. It can make more sense when you look through the whole book, that just a page.. And then sometimes, as an art lover, I just HATE a particular artist or painting. That’s just my taste, which everyone has their own of. Doesn’t mean that artist or painting is any less valuable or worthy.
loading...
Yeah… What she said!!
loading...
I take it I’m part of the low-brow end of this conversation? Ta. *lifts hairy knuckles from ground and sticks fresh piece of straw between teeth*
Because my beef isn’t with the artistic ‘worth’ of Rothko’s works, but with the very separate issue of the commercial value they are considered to have now. As you pointed out very few artists enjoy this level of financial success during their lifetime. (In Rothko’s case not even his estate, nor the foundation he wished to establish, benefited). So these huge sums of money don’t usually benefit the artist directly. And even if the work had sold for $8.6 million, or $86, its ‘worth’ or importance would not be lessened.
@Tea I agree that art is hugely important to society, but how does someone paying $86 million for ‘Orange’ or over $150 million for a Klimt, a Pollack or a Van Gogh or $250 million for a Cezanne benefit artists or art today? If this were about supporting the art world then $86 million could provide an incredible amount of (practical) support to artists. But it’s not about that. Art dealing on this scale is about big business, not art.
loading...
Oops sorry didn’t mean to offend anyone. Like I said.. I don’t get art. Personally I think they’re paying for the ‘brand’ of the artist, not for that individual painting.
I’m sure it is a lot more impressive in person, but I can’t understand why someone would pay 86 million dollars for it.
But each to their own, I’m sure he is very talented if people are paying that much for his stuff. They must get something out of it that goes over my head.
loading...
I kind of agree with you about paying for the ‘brand’ of the artist.
I’m sure it’s an amazing painting that’s more intricate than you can tell from the picture, but is it really worth $86 million?
loading...
I don’t doubt that there are times when people pay more for art because of the name attached without really appreciating it- kind of like buying a prada bag because it’s prada. But Rothko’s work is truly spectacular in the flesh. The Tate modern has a room of his works and sitting in there surrounded by them was one of the most beautiful experiences of my life. It’s true that $85 M could buy a hospital wing etc but art and support of it is fundamental to our culture – it shouldnt be entirely abandoned at the expense of more practical uses.
loading...
Just for the record, Rothko is dead. He died in 1970, according to Wikipedia. I do believe this adds to the value of the work, it would be very unusual for any living artists to get paid this much for one artwork, although Damien Hurst probably gets close(ish). It’s also highly likely that the value of the artwork will increase, much like Pollack’s Blue Poles (which caused a massive stir when purchased by the NGA, and is now estimated at a much higher value than it’s purchase price). 86mil is an obscene amount of money, but for the art collector it is probably seen as an excellent investment.
His works (Rothko’s) are extraordinarilly beautiful when seen in real life. They look simple, but are the result of a lifetime’s worth of work.
loading...
It’s getting to the point where covers are so photoshopped they look like bad airbrushed 80s -90s posters for Iron Maiden or something. Basically the photo is just there so the artist doesn’t have to do a preliminary sketch.
loading...
C’mon mamamia! You go to all this trouble to source the photos and they really suck to look at in this type of gallery, they are soo slow, the captions never match up and it’s even worse (if you can get it to work) on an iphone.
loading...
Tom Cruise @ EEEEWWWW !!!!
loading...
I’m sorry, but he is seriously creepy
loading...
Suri does not approve . . .
http://surisburnbook.tumblr.com/
loading...
Jesus. Yes. This is great.
loading...
Suri’s Burn Book is The Greatest.
loading...
I still think Tom has lost the plot!
loading...
ewww Tom Cruise is so creepy
loading...
Tom. Cruise.
He looks oddly feminine.
loading...
The longer you look at him, the more his face looks like Kristen Stewart.
loading...
That pic of Tom is mesmerising….like a train wreck. You know you should look away because it’s so awful but you can’t.
loading...
How long is the model on the right’s neck? Seriously…do they even check these images before publishing. Don’t even get me started on the rest…
loading...
Indeed this picture is irritating .
loading...
Am I the only one who tried to stretch out my neck that much after reading Hazelsmum’s comment?
loading...
It’s Abbey Lee Kershaw and she has a ridiculously long neck. She is 5’11″. Might be photoshopped slightly – but probably isn’t as ridiculous as you think.
loading...
Yes – I can’t figure out why though… his eye liner, the way his head is tossed back, his weird limp hands… ?
loading...
I was thinking it’s mostly (well for me anyway) the way they’re airbrushed (or he’s botoxed) his face to the point where it looks like a death mask or wax figure….
That and the fact it’s him trying so hard (again) to pretend he’s actually interested in women as more than just a beard (poor Katie lol).
loading...