In Response...

In response to padre's blog, the entry about Annie Leibovitz' photograph of Miley Cryus. I know it's months after the post. But it's not so much political as it is about the photography itself:



I won't disagree that the style she used, seeing how Miley is 15, was pushing it. I would have to say there are other creative ways to express what she had wanted to - "beauty". But I wouldn't just flat out call her a pornographer. I don't think the picture was that controversial.

If you really want to read into it, having a 15 year old-children's pop icon (nothing exposed, mind you), in a sheet, with the smeared lipstick, suggesting something of a sexual nature, is purely, directly symbolizing what the media and society has done to itself. It corrupts the innocent and it destroys morals and priorities. You have children mindlessly falling in love with and idolizing someone who revolves their career around fraud. Now, I don't think that's what Leibovitz had that expression or idea in mind (exposing the downfall of humanity), but art - including photography - means something different and expressing something different to every pair of eyes. Some saw that photo as disgusting and pornographic while I see it as an accurate representation of the media and what this country supports and produces.

Putting that aside, so many harsh words were said to or against Leibovitz and I don't think it's exactly fair, not only for what I just wrote, but because people seemed to disregard all of her past work.

Dad, do me a favor: Put the Miley Cyrus photo aside and look at these...

http://www.nytimes.com/library/photos/leibovitz/bourgeois.html

Also, for those who argue that a bare back is pornographic: Even in classic/modern art nudity was used as a way to express natural beauty. Now because we flash forward years later that is no longer acceptable? (Of course, obviously, context is a HUGE part of it... keeping it strictly art-related here.)


-The Ali