Robin Thicke’s and Miley Cyrus’ performance at the Aug. 25, 2013 MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) exhibited a problematic example of musical art.
The VMAs have always been an event in which controversial performances are held. The first VMAs ceremony in 1984 featured the superstar Madonna performing “Like a Virgin” in a spectacularly provocative fashion. Madonna’s performance paved the road for new artists to use the VMAs as an opportunity to make an artistic splash.
Nirvana smashed their instruments (and a few faces) on stage in 1992. Britney Spears performed with an 11-foot python in 2001. Lady Gaga wore a dress made out of meat in 2010. Cyrus, just a few short weeks ago, came onto stage and wagged her tongue while grinding against Robin Thicke in a manner that is perhaps best described as disturbing.
Cyrus, wearing nothing but a few bits of fabric on the top and on the bottom, was clearly trying to make a splash.
“Madonna’s done it. Britney’s done it. Every VMAs performance, that’s what you’re looking for; you’re wanting to make history,” stated Cyrus in an interview about her act released a few days after the performance.
While it cannot be argued that she made history, it can be argued whether or not she made history as an icon or as a farce.
Cyrus’ social media cache rose exponentially after the VMAs performance, though it should be noted that most reactions from the event were negative. Clearly, Cyrus wished to make an impression with her performance during the award show. She wanted attention. She wanted buzz. She wanted notoriety.
While she achieved those goals, she missed the mark on achieving the type of performance to ensure that she would be held in the same regard as performers such as Madonna and Nirvana. Why does any of this matter, however? Why should we care that a young adult performer, who wished to make a spectacle of herself, made a mockery of the artistic process?
We should care because Cyrus is representative of the cultural machine that spat her out. Who oils that machine? We do. We are the mechanics to the engine of popular culture in America. We, the college-aged demographic, are personally responsible for a portion of the products that exist in society. Cyrus, the performer, is a product.
Her performance on stage, if viewed as a product based on the desires of society, then, becomes a chilling display of what the public desires from its so-called “icons” in order to be satisfied. Do we require twerking in front of stuffed animal analogues in order to be entertained? While it is worthy of attention, it is not worthy of admiration or respect.
Her performance was not one that featured artistic integrity or controversy. Quite the contrary: Cyrus took part in a farce—a mockery of the brilliant types of performance that can occur given the right location at the right time.
I do not believe her to be capable of creating a product that exists for the sake of the art itself, but instead as a creation based on the perceived wants of society along with her fanbase. I declare her performance to be a reflection of societal desires.
Her performance was a mirror; we have been found wanting.
Leave a Reply