There's a huge typo on the following magazine cover. See if you can find it:
I'm pretty sure they meant to take out the "private" before they printed the cover. How embarrassing for everyone involved! Unless "private" now means "widely broadcast to the general population of the world" and/or "commissioned by a magazine as part of a promo deal for an upcoming movie." True, these photos of Mother Angelina With Child taken by Brad Pitt may have started out private, but the second all parties involved (except the kids, of course, but exploited people don't usually have a hand in their own exploitation) agreed to sell them for public use, the photos became very much post-private, highly public artifacts.
And this cover image is just part of the exceedingly "private" stash of photos Jolie and Pitt sold to the magazine:
Inside the magazine, there are another 21 candid shots of the movie star. As well as more breastfeeding shots, Pitt also shows off a series of tasteful, near-nude portraits as well as playful ones of Jolie playing with their children and pulling faces for the camera.
The breastfeeding shots aren't the problem, of course, and neither are Jolie's ho-hum near-nudes. The problem is Jolie and Pitt's eagerness to use their many, many children for both money and PR gain. Not only is that kind of exploitation rather gross, but it also effectively makes their children public figures, fueling unwanted (by the kids at least) attention, and encouraging outsiders like the paparazzi to exploit the kids as well. But, you know, this is the "Art Issue" of W., and Brad Pitt's "private" pics of his wife & kids are presumably art, so maybe he's making a comment about the nature of exploitation and public/private domains through his work. Either that, or Angelina's got a movie to promote and just look at how darling those kids of hers are!
One of the arguments often made when Jolie & Pitt do something like this, or when they sell their baby photos for millions, is that it's okay because the money goes to charity. They're using their kids for a good cause! Isn't that sweet? While it's nice that they give some of their ill-gotten monetary gains away, it certainly doesn't excuse what they did to get it. And what about the gains to their public images, the very things that help them win roles in movies, and more fame, and endorsement deals? Did they give away their great PR to charity too?
But the biggest question about this cover is obviously: How is poor, beige Jennifer Aniston holding up?!?