His work — packed with enough humor to soften his often mordant observations — celebrates the sickest side of pop culture. Even the titles of his books, 1996′s “LaChapelle Land” and this season’s “Hotel LaChapelle,” hint at what’s up in a typical LaChapelle picture — an alternate universe of polymorphous perversity, all bright colors, buff dudes and bodacious ta-tas.

Social satirists are rarely rewarded as richly as LaChapelle, especially by Madison Avenue. But while his advertising work does not necessarily exhibit the deviant daring of his editorial efforts, his work in both areas is remarkably consistent in tone. As visual culture has shifted from the printed page to the electronic screen in the past decade, LaChapelle’s work proves the page can still pack a punch. Bucking a design trend that’s reduced most magazine photos to Band-Aid proportions, his pictures demand to be run big.

LaChapelle, like Annie Liebovitz 20 years before, redefined the celebrity portrait. But Liebovitz colluded with her star subjects to create (with warm lighting and informal poses) a manipulative and ultimately cynical mimicry of naturalness. LaChapelle has a manifestly different agenda; nothing is natural in his pictures, least of all his celebrity sitters. His photo subjects’ artifice (and inanity) is worn as a badge of pride, and LaChapelle’s celebrity portraits venerate — rather than disguise — the manipulative nature of all images. Life is a movie, and “Anytime you aim a light,” he says, “you change reality.”

Gay and out since his teens, LaChapelle uses an iconography drawn more from the works of Paul Cadmus and William Burroughs than of Edward Weston and Edward Steichen. In a nation where the Village People’s “YMCA” has become a beloved sing-along at sporting events, the acceptance of LaChapelle’s work is another large indicator of the merging of gay cultural sensibilities with the mainstream.

Born in a picturesque corner of Connecticut, LaChapelle moved at age 12 to North Carolina. “It was a boom town,” he says. “Strip-mall culture, housing developments going up almost overnight. It introduced me to the scary and banal landscape that America is.” He has written that he was “tormented at school,” explaining in an Advocate interview, “I looked weird; I acted weird; and I wore my sexuality on my sleeve.” His parents accepted who he was and, he says, did much to protect him from the harsh Bible Belt climate.

In 1978, at 15, he moved on his own to New York and landed a job bussing tables at Studio 54, then in its hedonistic heyday.

“I loved seeing people, celebrities, behaving outrageously,” he says of that time. “I liked the colorfulness and strangeness of the ’70s.”

LaChapelle did a quick stint at art school in North Carolina in the early ’80s, but was back in New York by 1984 when, after meeting Andy Warhol at a Psychedelic Furs concert, he got his first photo job shooting pictures for Interview magazine. “The one thing I learned working at Interview — Andy would say, ‘Do whatever you want. Just make sure everybody looks good.’” Taking the wisdom to heart, LaChapelle quickly became a downtown darling, shooting for European and the smaller fashion magazines.

In an Adweek interview, he credits a 1994 Details assignment, photos of up-and-coming rock musicians with their parents, with clarifying his style. “It was a breakthrough … These pictures were the real America gone mad.”

“For years,” he says now, “all I wanted was to make enough money shooting pictures to survive in New York. I never expected this.” “This” began with the 1996 publication of “LaChapelle Land.” “It was the first time people got to see the range and scope of the work I’d been doing, finally brought together in one place.”

A gorgeous color production set in an eye-catching box, the book gave LaChapelle currency in idea-starved agency art departments everywhere. His ’96 MTV commercial depicting elderly imitators of Madonna and Courtney Love in a “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane” scenario helped turn the buzz into a roar.

“He’s the Zeitgeist photographer of the ’90s,” says American Photo editor, and LaChapelle fan, David Schonauer. “He captured the moment not only stylistically, with his color and by celebrating trash culture, but also technologically with his use of computers. It just looked right.”

LaChapelle’s pronounced use of special digitized effects caused a stir two years ago when actress Mira Sorvino took public exception to the way he morphed her image, photographed for an Allure magazine spread, into a simulacrum of Joan Crawford (adding period clothing, makeup and a young Christina stand-in.) The dust-up prompted yet another media debate over the “reality” of photography and caused LaChapelle to hire a publicist to counter what he considered cheap shots, which began appearing in the New York tabloids. “It was all very Joan Crawford,” he says now of the incident, which faded away without the threatened lawsuit. (The photo in question is not in the new book.)

LaChapelle says that if there is one misconception about what he does it is how much his pictures depend on computerized special effects. Certainly the work’s strongest virtues — set designs, locations, lighting, clothing, make-up and casting — all come from the fervid brain and considerable skills of the photographer and his associates. (LaChapelle is exceptional for the public credit he gives his production team, a group that has worked with him for years.) And the pictures that work best in “Hotel LaChapelle” have the tang of real life included in the mix. Even so, with his every photo buffed to a bright candy-colored gloss, LaChapelle’s current work would not be possible without the computer-enhanced color of the modern printing process.

Hot magazine photographers now become art stars with little fuss, and LaChapelle is no exception, having mounted shows at New York’s Staley-Wise and Tony Shafrazi Galleries. The favored critical term given his work is “surrealist,” an obvious tag that he, rightfully, rejects. Asked if he is a satirist, LaChapelle says he prefers to think of himself as a documentarian. “Not in the traditional sense, in that I’m creating these things. But I do feel these are [portraits of] people making up our world today.” If his favorite subjects — Madonna, Leonardo DiCaprio, Marilyn Manson, Devon Aoki, Mark Wahlberg — lack a certain cultural gravitas, his work is not confined by their pop parameters. LaChapelle’s photography is all flesh and blood; extravagantly immediate. His photos connect more to
the visceral pleasures and terrors of the theater, and its origins in ancient religious sacrifice, than to the rather abstracted cerebral feelings usually aroused by film.

LaChapelle’s portraits do not celebrate celebrity so much as devour it. Of course, celebrity consumed returns as an indelible imago - a god ready to be eaten again and again. LaChapelle is clearly in touch with how this active process of deification works today. “Pictures are an escape. They should be bigger than life. In the same way, celebrities provide an escape from the mundane. They are photographed so we can worship them — so they are worthy of our worship.” He speaks the last sentence in a camp-reverent tone which does not undercut its essential truth. No photographer’s work has better exposed that orgiastic extremity of fame.

Granted, Ms. Love has never been the traditional SUV-driving, cookie-baking kind of mom who posts incredibly detailed stuff about her baby’s poops.  But her recent slew of attention-getting Twitter insanity — and her 19-year-old daughter Frances Bean’s mortified response – suggests we are entering a new era of fail, one in which a parent’s awkward behavior isn’t of the adorable “What’s this button do?” variety. Instead, it may be more like “S#&% My Dad Said At Burning Man.”

Love, always a reliable train wreck and nowhere more in her wheelhouse of crazy than on Twitter, ramped it up last week when she accused Dave Grohl of hitting on her daughter in a lengthy series of tweets on her private account. She ranted freely about how angry she’d be “if frances slept with” him, going on about whether “the actual sex” was a rumor and adding that “dave tried to fuck me alot.” It was a display that Grohl’s publicist described as “Crazy Woman Says Insane Shit No One In Their Right Mind Would Believe.” And the young Miss Cobain, unsurprisingly, felt compelled to retort with her own variation on the classic, “Stop it, Mom, you’re embarrassing me.” Cobain issued a tart statement about “my biological mother,” saying that “her recent tirade has taken a gross turn” and adding, “Twitter should ban my mother.” She may be the most high-profile person to say it, but I’d wager Cobain is far from the only teenager who wishes Twitter could block her parents.

If you’ve never Tweeted your conviction that one of the Foo Fighters banged your teenager, congratulations, you’re not Courtney Love. But her tirade does represent an emerging dynamic that plays out in subtler ways across social media platforms. I’ve seen it with my own wincing eyes from parents who include their teenagers among their Facebook friends – and who post freely of their hangovers, their dating disasters, and their overall rock ‘n’ roll excesses. Those incriminating, spring break-like photos of the half-drunk lady from the party? Yeah, college kid, that’s YOUR MOM. It’s not that children are likely to be blithely unaware of their hipster parents’ lifestyles. But there’s a new blurring of the once easy-to-maintain tactful distance between parents and their young adult offspring, one complicated by the fact that many of us are cavorting on the road of excess a mere few steps ahead of our children.

Love has, in her typical fashion, attempted to kiss and make up with her daughter in the same format in which she originally speculated about her sex life – on Twitter. On Saturday, she posted, “Bean, sorry I believed the gossip. Mommy loves you.”

Mommy no doubt does. But the Gen-X parents who never quite settled down, who grapple with their own varying levels of maturity, now share the Internet with their teenagers. And the children whose shaky first steps and lost teeth have been documented all over Flickr and Twitter and Facebook are now turning into grown-ups themselves, with their own online lives. And while it’s our right as adults to party and to have sex and enjoy life, it’s also our job as parents to not be stupid. If your kid is old enough to read, your kid is old enough to be embarrassed by your Twitter stream. That’s why Love’s meltdown is a cautionary – if extreme – reminder that a typical Old Person Fail may no longer be an adorable “reply all” goof. Instead, it’s something that involves more ranting and thoughtlessness and way too much information. In other words, it looks an awful lot like a Young Person Fail.

just like to come here, my checks are on a wierd sahcedule so bear with, per paypal plus my paypal account has had wierd stuff happen eg salaries and theft, so im very persnickity about it, but if i really like it youll get paid , my cpa hates the word”etsy: ” but theres vendors on here i adore nd i al;ways discover new inspiring stuff.

Well, that doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in a seller, does it? Nor should it: Courtney was already sued by Etsy user Dawn Simorangkir, an Austin, Texas, resident who runs a fashion line called Boudoir Queen. In 2009, Dawn sued Courtney after the singer went on a smear campaign, attacking the designer on Twitter, MySpace and the Etsy forums. The lawsuit filed by Simorangkir claimed that Love went into a rage when she was sent a $4K bill for a dress designed for her by the Boudoir label. Among other choice phrases Courtney employed in her Internet rant, “nasty lying hosebag thief,” and “cocaine dealer, thief, embezzler, racist and a homophobe,” were enough to warrant a libel suit. Of course, there was a ton more that Courtney said, but as you might expect, it’s pretty incoherent. From a MySpace post in 2009:

my aassnt cals me cos etsy vendors have called her cryong fpr usingthe owrd “flapper” sje says its everyday and i dont like a BULLY and noone else in the fashion industry does either shes a geniunly nasty person so i dont kow what makinh her “fakous ” willactuaLLY DO FOR HER AT SOME POINT SHELL HAVE TO SHOW SHER FACT AND THAT BLACK CLPUD OF VAMPITIC ENERGY THAT IS AROUND PEOPLE WHO SOLD DRUGS OR WERE MOLESTED OR its that grey and biyts of black in the aura, im toomuch of aa apussy about people withthis enercy nd the thing i have GIT to learnis this UNLESS THY A HAVE SOME INSANELY BRILLIANT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEY DONT EVER SOEAK EVER. those people NEVER MAKE IT IN THEREAL WORLD EVER>

ive beeen assured from etsy she’ll be removed and banished but its not enough , we had a dal i gave her a VAST amount of money

clothes id been collecting for 8 years and 40,000$

Now, it would be one thing if Courtney’s recently discovered profile had been on Etsy since before the lawsuit (there’s no news of her ever being specifically banned from the site), but her account says she’s only been a member since 2010. The case was only settled out of court in February of this year (which is probably why Courtney says her cpa “hates the word ‘etsy:”).

But I wonder: Has anyone verified the account to make sure it’s not a fake? And if it is Courtney, why hasn’t Etsy taken down her profile? She has clearly violated the site’s terms of service, which states that a user can be terminated or suspended for actions including:

Be(ing) defamatory, trade libelous, unlawfully threatening, unlawfully harassing, impersonate or intimidate any person (including Etsy staff or other users), or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with any person, through for example, the use of similar email address, nicknames, or creation of false account(s) or any other method or device

Real or fake, that account needs to be taken down by Etsy mods ASAP.

“She may be doing fine at the moment, but I’m worried about her future. She’s very young, and she’s very talented, but she doesn’t seem to have any female friends. Or any straight guy friends for that matter. Instead, she surrounds herself with this coterie of gay stylists and advisors who’ve turned her into this weird, sexless Barbie doll. I was raised by gay guys myself, and I turned out all right in the end. But you know, you can only pull off this meat-dress act for so long. If she doesn’t watch out she’ll turn into a lonely drag queen. Straight guys just aren’t in to that kind of thing. “

It’s true that Gaga’s main difference from Madonna is her desexualization; she does resemble a drag queen onstage more than a female pop star. And that’s a large part of her appeal among her young gay fan base, who look to her as a sign that anyone can be “born this way” and still loved for who they are.

But anyone who knows Gaga’s history also knows she’s admitted to being bisexual and was, up until recently, dating a bartender/diet book author named Luc Carl. She’s admitted to working out her issues with her relationship through song, and there is a rejection of our culturally accepted ideas of femininity in that. But she’s in no way “sexless,” and as was evidenced in last week’s “Saturday Night Live” short “3-Way,” Gaga has no problem taking off the makeup and being a girl.

I doubt she’ll end up a “lonely drag queen” just because she’s a gay male icon. What do you think?

See, celebrities have a difficult time with Twitter. On the one hand, it gives them direct access to their fans in a way that was previously impossible, allowing them to promote the very best version of themselves while giving the illusion that they are letting people into their private thoughts and lives. On the other hand, sometimes famous people — like the rest of us — forget that there is a difference between thinking something and tweeting it, and end up oversharing some thought or private picture.

Since celebrities for the most part chose this profession because they wanted people to pay attention to them, they are caught at odds with revealing too much and revealing nothing at all. On the one end of the spectrum you have people like Tori Spelling and Snooki, who takes pictures of their family and friends and update every two seconds, and on the other you have people like Charlie Sheen and (previously) 50 Cent, who don’t actually reveal anything about themselves because they have someone managing their account for them. Franco fell more in the middle, and was actually pretty good at using the service to show people some new and interesting things instead of writing about what he ate that day or how his fans can get a 15 percent discount off Armani Exchange by clicking a link.

I have hope that James Franco isn’t off Twitter for good. After all, there is already a set precedent for the “I wish I could quit you” celebrity tweeter, wherein a short hiatus is taken from the micro-blogging service before fans revolt (or lose interest), causing the person to sign up again and announce their triumphant return against all the “haters.” Here are just five examples of this behavior, which I call “The Twit it and Quit it effect”:

1. Courtney Love

How long she quit for: Who can keep count? She’s quit three times.

Why she quit: To reform her image after posting racy pics, and also because she lost a lawsuit for $430,000 for writing mean things about a designer.

Why she rejoined: To post more racy pics (and then quit again).

2. Miley Cyrus

How long she quit for: A year and a half.

Why she quit: Her “Last Song” co-star for Liam Hemsworth convinced her it was a good idea. Then she rapped about it.

Why she rejoined: Technically she hasn’t, but as of last week she’s been posting under her producer Rock Mafia’s page http://twitter.com/#!/rock_mafia, saying ” When I need to speak out I will tweet from @Rock_Mafia ROCK MAFIA FOREVER xMC.” She’s already started posting sexy photos from the account. 

3. LeAnn Rimes

How long she quit for: Six days.

Why she quit: Didn’t like the haters who talked smack after she started seeing Eddie Cibrian while they were both married to other people.  “It’s unhealthy for me and my family to have to read negative comments from people [whose] opinions have no bearing on my life,” said Rimes.

Why she rejoined: Apparently out of boredom. She managed to take a break for almost a week, before signing on and writing to her fans ” “Hi twitter land! Miss u all and thought I’d just say hello! I have so many darling fans and want you all to know how much u r appreciated… Hugs to all! Can’t stay away for too long.” That’s how you know you’re dealing with a true addict.

4. Trent Reznor

How long he quit for: Unclear, but announced change in Twitter account in July, 2009.

Why he quit: Fed up with lack of privacy, and the trolls. Promised to only tweet about band stuff until Twitter gets better at blocking.

Why he rejoined: It’s unclear if Trent ever officially made a change back over, since he definitely is more reserved on Twitter than he used to be. Still, he’s been using the account to post pics of himself and Christian Bale, so that’s better than nothing.

5. Amanda Bynes

How long she quit for: Four months

Why she quit: No explanation given, she just shut down her account.

Why she rejoined: Apparently the hiatus was to build buzz for her new and improved Twitter account that she started four months later. It was kind of like when she “retired” from acting and then “unretired” a month later. Who knows.

Corgan vs. Love round 859 started Monday, when the Great Pumpkin (whose Twitter contributions usually have more to do with praising God and capitalizing words like “star” and “sky,” Emily Dickinson-style) tweeted a six-point list of his “thoughts” about the Hole singer. Making reference to her recent custody troubles, Corgan wrote, “the world is aware of your lack of responsibility, as seen in the gov’t taking away your parental right … Only u could abandon such a beautiful, incredible child who is smarter than u, cooler than u, and better than u. Oops, did I say too much?” He also suggested that he deserved more credit than he was given for co-writing songs on Hole’s new album, “Nobody’s Daughter,” twisting the knife with a particularly cruel jab: “maybe you should go someone [sic] nice+live off your husband’s money, u know the money he made for writing all those great songs.” In conclusion, Corgan opined (in words that wouldn’t be out of place in a Smashing Pumpkins song), “so have your moment, burn up in the sun that laughs at u as equally as it appears to celebrate u+sleep knowing u have no honor.”

Corgan, it seems, was responding not only to Love’s chat with Howard Stern Monday (in which she may have made some disparaging comments about Corgan’s sexual prowess) but also to a public apology she offered him last month on Facebook. (Sample sentence: “We have again created beauty from the agony between us, all the buried and unburied anguish, all that is true, that is gold, that is meant to be is within this endless and somehow eternal cycle of Billy & Courtney.”) So, shouldn’t Courtney — who, God bless her, has never been known for her Twitter restraint — be responding with some kind of angry/sad/insane meltdown about now?

As it turns out, Ms. Love may really be making a sincere effort to get a handle on the “Courtney monster” Amy Benfer describes in her review of “Nobody’s Daughter.” She isn’t ignoring Corgan’s comments or keeping mum about a supposed affair with former Bush frontman/current Gwen Stefani husband Gavin Rossdale (and I, for one, am glad she hasn’t changed that much), but she is certainly doing some self-policing. On Twitter Tuesday afternoon, Love fired off a few quips wondering why Corgan was so obsessed with her daughter, Frances Bean Cobain, and agreeing that she really is an awesome kid. Then there was the following laugh-out-loud funny tweet: ”@Billy you remind me of Bette Davis in ‘Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.’” Minutes after her initial messages, she started retweeting fans’ suggestions that she ignore Billy or that they take their argument out of the public eye. (Let it never be said that Love doesn’t interact with or appreciate her fans.) Soon after, she reeled herself in and addressed her followers: ”thank you so much for the support and my apologies for even responding a little bit i deleted most of it but the kid? my kid? really? creepy.”

I don’t want to debate Love’s parenting ability or who actually wrote most of “Nobody’s Daughter.” Perhaps Corgan really does have a reasonable complaint (although I have to wonder: If he can write a great album for Hole, why haven’t we seen any compelling Smashing Pumpkins material since the mid-’90s?). But for now, I just want to celebrate Love’s newfound self-control and retain my hope — for her and her fans alike — that it lasts long enough for her to give some career-defining performances and promote the hell out of the hard-won success that is “Nobody’s Daughter.”