I read the article and I got out of it that praise was heaped on her because celebrities buy her overpriced work. No different than praising Peter Lik. There; it's not a gender thing because I lumper her in with Peter Lik, (and I love nature photography.)

Perhaps it's because I'm a guy, but her photography doesn't communicate to me as well as it does to women... Or is it the fame and success that women pick up on rather than something special in the photography? Women photographers hold her in higher regard. I do wish women fame and success as there are probably more women doing quality photography than men right now.

Her provocative stuff is another thing I don't understand as a guy. I'm thinking the extra bushy sculpture looking photos you'll see interspersed among google image search results of her name, assuming you have the safe browsing turned off. The trashiness overwhelms other description to me.

I understand that film stills are a valid form of excellent photography. However, people pretending to be in film stills which are based on actors/actresses pretending to be fictional people in fictional accounts is a little too far removed from reality for me to appreciate. Most photography, even non straight stuff or collages has meaning that correlates to some sort of reality. This solid connection to reality is why journalism/documentary/nature styles of photography succeed, and why reality TV succeeds (despite it's overwhelming faults). It's a superior source of inspiration and connection with the viewer.