Sekula said that photos act both “honorifically and repressively.” But, can a photo be both? In April of 2008 “role model” Miley Cyrus posed in a rather racy ad, flesh exposed and wrapped in the arms of an older man. That man? Her father.

            The repressive side is clear. Many were outraged at the sexuality, which was seemingly embedded into the Vanity Fair spread. Apparently incest is not on the top ten most moral things a Disney Star could represent, as critics opposed the clear sexual connotations of the photo. Sexualizing a current child star, appealing to children, seems like a sure way to end ones career. No?

In an age where infamy is celebrated (case in point, the notoriety of OJ Simpson after his arrest, Brittney Spears after her mental breakdown, and Lindsay Lohan after her “exhaustion”), Miley did not lose any sleep over the spread. Though at first outrage filled the streets, Miley only received more publicity after the scandalous photos were released, and followed suit with paparazzi shots of her nearly naked with older boys. Again, to much honorary acclaim.

With Sekula in mind, I think modernizing his statement would be to conclude that photos can now be, in fact, both honorary and repressive. If a photo says a thousand words, then Mileys says both disgrace and commodity.