Well, I admit, she is beautiful. But why her? I'm supposing it's "edgy" to have someone a little controversial. Not that she's infamous for anything interesting, just flashing her ladybits with alarming regularity. Put them away luv.

Posted by: FiFi | January 17, 2007 6:47 PM

Well she looks completely different in the photo before the jump. Unfortunately for FiFi, it seems you can glam up the girl but you can't stop her from flashing her bum in the second picture!

Posted by: Juji | January 17, 2007 7:18 PM

i love when photographers/artists make people look NOTHING (and i do mean nothing) like themselves and still market on that person's name. Brilliant. Hate her- love the ads.

Posted by: Melissa | January 17, 2007 7:31 PM

The ads are VERY Miu Miu, aren't they! I'm with Melissa - I love that they've done her up in an almost unrecogniseable way... using her like a model instead of a name :)

Very cool.

Posted by: Erin Le Clerc | January 18, 2007 2:42 AM

I like the ads well enough but it's so hard to tell that it's actually her....

Posted by: Mary | January 18, 2007 5:31 AM

I think the the ads are beautiful, though they look nothing like LiLo. But I must say, if she's going to be the face of such an Iconic fashon label, she should definatly wear her undies.

Posted by: Antoinette | January 18, 2007 6:59 PM

I like them, but they could've chosen anyone since Lindsay is completely unrecognisable in that shoot. If they were using a celebrity to try and attract people, it backfired. They might as well have gone for a model.

Posted by: Katherine | January 18, 2007 10:06 PM

if they'd chosen anyone would we be commenting?

Posted by: shoemissy.com | January 21, 2007 12:38 PM

Cool site. Thanks!

Posted by: cheapest dospan tenuate | May 18, 2007 5:27 PM