There were incredible statements about how the photo was “exploitative of the innocent”, that it was “suggestive”, “child pornography” and that the magazine was “selling sex”. There was one particularly over-the-top comment made by an editor of Entertainment Weekly who remarked "…if Miley Cyrus is going to go around naked but for fabric draped over her, she's just begging us to imagine what her firm, young breasts look like, her smooth, tan skin, her tight, virgin...well, you get the idea. And I think that's shameful." WHAT? WHAT?? WHAT IS THIS GUY TALKING ABOUT?
There is nothing inherent in Annie’s photo of Miley that is shameful. What’s shameful is the values ascribed to this photo by those who desire to view it in a strictly prurient manner. These people expressing these thoughts need to understand that obscenity is generated in their own minds. The word obscene comes from the Greeks who did not like to show murder explicitly in their dramas, they chose to do it off-scene and left it to the imagination of the audience. I wasn’t invited by the photo to imagine the thoughts expressed by the editor and others like him; when I view this photo I see it clearly as a work of art. I am not titillated by it, indeed I feel a sense of melancholy when I view it; to me it’s an enigmatic vision like that of the Mona Lisa.
To demonstrate my perception of the photo as a kind of homage to the Mona Lisa, I down loaded and I compared it to the Miley Cyrus photo; one cannot help but be amazed at its similarity. Annie’s photo of Miley possesses many of the artistic qualities of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting. Take a moment compare the two, look at the mouth, the eyes, and the crossed hands, even the highlights on the skin. Then look at the folds of the clothing, the variegated background, as well as the overall near monochromatic color of the respective pictures. I would say that Annie’s photo of Miley should be considered a 21st Century Mona Lisa.
Those who rage vociferously against “obscenity” appear to observe the world through a perverted mind and wish to prescribe it to others, they perceive obscenity everywhere. The same type of perverted thinking has characterized many other pieces of art throughout the ages as obscene, including such treasures as the Venus de Milo, Botticelli's Birth of Venus and Michelangelo's David. In fact when several clerics viewed Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel for the first time, they accused him of obscenity and consequently covered his nudes.
Recently, officials in Bartholomew County Indiana notified a business that sells copies of classical art that they must be move certain statues out of view from the window, as these classic art pieces would be considered obscene under state law. The statues included copies of Michelangelo's David and the Venus de Milo. Also, a parent in Shelton Connecticut recently asked the school to change his daughter's bus route, so she could avoid seeing a 15-foot high replica of Michelangelo's ''David'' at an office park; the bus route was moved.
Those who have obscene thoughts in their heads when viewing Liebowitz’s photo of Miley, or any other piece of art for that matter, need to take responsibility for their own obscene thoughts, they need to own them and not ascribe them to the population at large. I would suggest they should commence a study of art from a rational unpolluted mindset and develop new ways of viewing the world around them. A world were art is allowed to flourish is a richer and more caring world.
Just for fun I’ve swapped the faces of Miley and Mona. What do you think? Whatever it is, own it!
Copyright © 2009 - 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment