Miley Cyrus: The photos may be art, but they aren't worth defending
I always thought I was pretty open minded about things, and I still think I am, but seeing Tom Barlow's recent post on WalletPop about Miley Cyrus' much ballyhooed photos in the latest issue of Vanity Fair made me think, "Huh?"
I like Tom too much to be angry at him for calling the photos "art," but "art" was the last word I thought of when I saw the picture on various newscasts.
I should ask him if he's a parent, particularly if he's the father of a daughter. (I have his email. I could have asked or written him my opinion directly or simply put my thoughts down in the comments section. But it's much more fun to rake him over the coals over WalletPop.) As the father of two young daughters, who are four and six, I can completely understand what all the fuss has been over the photos.
The Miley Cyrus photos are not art. Actually, forget that point. Maybe they are art, and maybe they aren't. Art is in the eye of the beholder, really, and I don't really want to try to win that argument. But the photos are also commerce and being used to sell magazines. (I'm sure I'm helping to sell some issues right now.) And I'm tempted to even go all 1950s on everyone and call the picture of Ms. Cyrus giving that come hither look, in the buff under a blanket, smut.