Babies, go back to your mothers

There's an old lady that lives in my apt. complex that looks like Jon Voight.

For about 2 seconds, I thought I had missed mothers day. Then I remembered it was like 2 weeks ago and I called her.

...Two weeks ago?

She must be a handsome woman.

Sometimes, women are handsome. Yes? No? Is that akin to saying they look manly? Is there any way that can be taken as a compliment?

i like nick's new avatar. and this thread. Although I did think it would be another state of the cult thread for some reason.

It was akin to saying she looks manly when he said she looks like Jon Voight.

maybe if they're dykes.

I took my mom out to dinner at Skyline Chili tonight.

Calling women "handsome" is totally legit. Marcia Gay Harden is handsome.

Point: Don't say your mom looks like Jon Voight.

Double Point: Don't tell Jon Voight he looks like your mom.

Is Jon Voight handsome? If he is, does that affect the acceptability of calling a woman handsome? Can calling a woman handsome be a compliment if Jon Voight is handsome? If a woman is stately, is it likely that she is also handsome? Can a woman be stately and hot, or is stately and handsome the best she can hope for?

I have so many questions.

You cannot tell a w--Actually, Tom, go tell a woman she looks like Jon Voight and report back to us. No, just do it. Random stranger on the bus or something. No it'll be fine. Go ahead.

So are Kate Winslet, Chloe Sevigny, Uma Thurman, Katharine Hepburn, etc.

But it's still really just a nice way of saying she's mannish/not conventionally good-looking enough to be 'pretty' or 'beautiful' and yet not conventionally bad-looking enough to be 'ugly'. I don't know that many women would appreciate being called 'handsome' - it implies a certain hardness or ruggedness of features or even a certain horsiness. Kind of a back-handed compliment, imo.

The woman I'm referring to is anything but handsome. She even has the same hair as Voight.

Yeah that's just scary.

speaking of scary, has anyone seen Meg Ryan lately?

i think she's evolving into judi dench, which explains why she never ages any more than she has.

Nah-uh. You cannot call Kate Winslet "handsome". Poor woman! She's gorgeous!

pound the dirt off that cat!

I'm not saying she's unattractive, but if you look at her face she has very broad features - large wide jawline, big chin and a prominent nose - both of which are not considered typically, historically to be indicators of feminine beauty

"Handsome" is the standard complement I get. I take it as a complement, but I suppose that might be because I am not beautiful by any means. I have always taken it to mean attractive looking, but rather masculine. You take what you can get, I suppose.

Sorry she may not wear a lot of makeup and be natural most of the time, and sometimes she wears ugly clothes... but I just think she is hott.

Look at those legs! Ooooooooooooweeeeeee

Chloe Sevigny has one of those "mystery angle faces", like, I see one picture of her and think...meh, not so attractive (though not ugly) and then another and I'm like "who's that? She's hot! Chloe...whaaa?!"

I think she's hot. One of my favourite actresses too.

I yell at my boyfriend when he does this, but when Chloe does it, I'mma like, "Oh Chloe, you're so cool and carefree!"

yeah, i love her too.

she is ALWAYS with terry richardson on his blog at parties and stuff.

I don't have a problem with her, I was just using her as an example. If she wore a lot of makeup it would make her look like a drag queen. At least she realises this, a lot of women don't.

the media and fashion world obsession with terry richardson needs to stop. regardless of whether or not he actually did the things he's been accused of by various models, he's just not a very good photographer.

this is interesting to me, because I sort of agree, but disagree at the same time. i visit his blog everyday. He takes pictures of mundane stupid things. Signs in new york city that say FREE MASSAGE PAY NOW. and his caption for the picture will be FREE MASSAGE PAY NOW. I don't like that sort of stuff. But like, I think that he has a style that is sort of supposed to be crappy, or simplistic or 'amateur' if you like, and it's sort of a statement on the things or people he's taking a photo of. It humanizes them in a way. it's not an overblown Vogue photoshoot with annie leibovitz. it's a little more humble. I still think he's vaild even though he's not technically a brilliant photographer.

Look at Mondrian paintings. you can say, I could do that. but there is a lot more thought put into it than people may realize. I have come to the conclusion that people can dislike art for personal reasons, and not understand art because it's just 'out there' but I don't ever think there's any 'bad' art.

whoa whoa. those are not capris. they are shorts. These are capris

i'm enjoying that doggy in the background.

See, I agree with you that there is definitely a thought process to art like Mondrian's, or other artists that people often rail against like Donald Judd, Jackson Pollock, Dan Flavin, Rothko etc.

But with Richardson, I just don't see that there's any real intent behind it, and that is the problem I have with people making a big deal about him. I'm not saying there has to be a big concept either - it's not like his photographs are hanging in MoMA or the Tate or anything. He's a commercial photographer, and there's obviously a market for what he does, that sort of DIY/Cobra Snake/Nylon/American Apparel aesthetic. I just wish people wouldn't make him out as some kind of genius.

For the record, I've got even less time for Leibovitz than I do for Richardson. At least there is some humour in his photos, and after reading about her tax/money issues I'm not sure why anyone still agrees to work with her.

gosh you are so right. She is screwed. She's gonna lose all the rights to her portfolio and published work to pay off all these crazy taxes. Maybe that refurbished french farmhouse in the countryside will have to go.

I think she was interesting, and she has taken some really great and iconic photos, but anything in Vogue or other fashiony magazines look like her work now. Probably a lot of it still is.

i know what you mean about the american apparel aesthetic. It's sort of hipster thing, like the not polished photography, the simplicity of it. then again, american apparel is really hipster too.

I like doing non-polished simplistic photography myself as a hobby. I take pictures of things I think are interesting or evoke something in me. I have a friend who is a photographer and she just seems to photo-shop the shit out of stuff and sometimes I'm like, "thats way too much". Plus she likes to copy David La Chappelle a lot. But she can make ugly girls look like fashion models. Maybe I should read up more on this guy.

he's terribly boring usually, yet I find myself looking through all his photos to see something interesting. I rarely find anything. http://www.terrysdiary.com/

to be fair I am sure Terry Richardson is at least party responsible for the American Apparel aesthetic, he's not just fitting in with the hipster crowd

Yuck @ American Apparel

well yeah. goes without saying.

Chloe Sevigny and her "acting" give me rage.

I think Angelina Jolie looks like a skinny Jon Voight with giant boobs and long hair.

When did AA stop advertising here? I miss my daily dose of people with inappropriate-for-spandex body types lounging and looking slutty.

I don't see it, but I'll assume there is a family resemblance there somewhere.

Ooops!

should be sig'ed but I don't do text sigs.

When I first walked into an American Apparel store I felt like I had waltzed into some weird 80's flashdance cult.