Achy Breaky Skanky

I started this post on Thursday, planning on making a few mullet jokes. After some research and exploration, I changed my mind.

Statement regarding creepy photo before people started freaking out:

"Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie . . . I think it’s really artsy. It wasn’t in a skanky way."
-- Miley Cyrus

And statement regarding creepy photo after people started freaking out:

"I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed."
-- Miley Cyrus

Ole Miley doesn't get it: the portrait is artistic. Furthermore, this picture might be the most important statement Annie Leibovitz ever makes about our culture.

Look a little closer. The picture is basically in the style of a turn of the century European nudie postcard, typically featuring a child prostitute, one might pick up on the streets of Paris during that same time period.

Can you say IRONY?

Annie Leibovitz just made a statement about our culture, its infatuation with youth and celebrity and the willingness of some to sell their children for money. You might not like it, as it's an uncomfortable sight, but important messages are sometimes disconcerting.

Suddenly, Disney is making me nauseous in a way I would never expect.

Nothing good comes of selling your children for money. A myriad of what should be cautionary tales parade across our television sets hour after hour. But still, some of us aren't listening.

Disney, who produces Cyrus' television show, had a different take altogether:

"Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."

Disney is whining about exploiting a child for money. Disney created many 21st century cautionary tales, in a complicated exploitation, all in the name of money.

I saw the picture. I've heard the arguments about art and subjects and sexuality and all that jazz. But I still think it comes down this:

Where the hell were her parents and why are they agreeing to photo shoots with Annie Leibovitz?

Granted, Leibovitz is a very relevant artists/ photographer. Her portraits hang in gallery exhibitions all over the world and are displayed as cover art on and in such magazines as Rolling Stone, Vogue, and Vanity Fair. Her recent photographs of the Queen of England were said to create a "regality no other recent royal portraitist has achieved".

But just as I wouldn't allow my child to be photographed by Robert Maplethorpe (if he were still alive) or painted by Lucian Freud unsupervised (if at all), under no circumstance would I agree to such with Leibovitz, who has also exploited Cyrus for her own agenda.

By the way, I am in no way comparing the works of Leibovitz to Maplethorpe or Freud for any other purpose other than to say she is a controversial artist as are they.

But what about the rest of us? I have five references alone to Britney Spears and a couple more to Lindsay Lohan. Am I adding fuel to the fire by freely and openly mocking them? What about those parents who cough up $500 bucks a pop for Hannah Montana tickets? "The Man" can't exploit these kids if we don't allow kids to be exploited.

Something to consider . . .