By now everyone has probably heard of the Miley Cyrus scandal involving a semi-nude photo of the fifteen -year-old shot for Vanity Fair's June 2008 edition. Although all the talk has been about "should she have or shouldn't she have," what I find most intriguing is why she did. In a statement issued by her publicist, Miley explained that she "took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic'." Or in other words, semi-nudity seemed to be OK because it was done in the name of art.
The only problem, though, was that when Miley saw the finished product, she was very embarrassed because art or no art, there she was on a bed, draped in a sheet, revealing a very private, sexual side of herself to the world.
For some reason nudity, when presented as art, seems to get a free pass, even for wholesome young girls like Miley Cyrus. The argument, I believe, goes "art is 'cultured' and how could anything 'cultured' be bad?" Be even the most artistic, tastefully done nude photograph, while surely a step up from overtly trashy pornography, is still publicized nudity and therefore problematic in my mind.
Like the artists of the world, I believe that the human body is a beautiful thing. However, just because something is beautiful doesn't mean it needs to be shared with everyone. Under the guise of art, we've been led to believe that you can separate a body from a person. That you can appreciate the form itself while ignoring the essence contained within it. But body and soul are inseparable. And when a body is revealed in such a complete way, not everyone will cherish the soul that comes with it.
What is your opinion of the shoot and the resulting controversy?