"The 58-year-old photographer allegedly owes money for unpaid taxes, an aborted book project, and outstanding equipment rental fees. She's also at least a year overdue in paying for renovations to her Greenwich Village townhouse, according to the documents.

"Leibovitz, through a Vanity Fair spokeswoman, declined to comment on the debts. 'To the best of my knowledge all of these [debts] have been resolved,' a Vanity Fair spokeswoman said." [NYP]

But perhaps this is proof that she's not as cynical as she's seemed lately, and that she truly doesn't see why her recent work offends so many people. Can't relate to normal standards, can't be bothered to keep an eye on her finances—maybe she really is an artist! Nah, she's not.

Okay, so yesterday we reported how Nadal's nonsubtle Adonisy photoshoot was actually a calculated effort on the part of his corporate overlord Nike to make him more marketable as a pitchman of clothes that are not made of space-aged lightweight wick-friendly flubber or whatever people are supposed to be "working out" in these days.** But Nike has had a lot of problems this Olympics. Namely: it does not sponsor Michael Phelps, it does not sponsor Shawn Johnson, and it does not sponsor Nastia Liukin. You are going to have to trust me when I say this FREAKS THEM THE FUCK OUT. One former Nike executive we know even blames the $19 billion athletaspirationalism peddler's relevance insecurity for its inexplicable Orwellian internet manhunt of the anonymous troll who suggested it forced underperforming runner Liu Xiang to drop out of the games:

It's like they didn't have the right athletes this time and there is always so much pent-up angst there (I would know right?) so they had to something to call attention to themselves.

They just need some attention! Negative attention works too!!*** So anyway, back to Nadal. It worked for Miley Cyrus, right? I mean, she milked the inane "scandal" of posing for those "scandalous"**** Annie Leibovitz Vanity Fair photos all the way through a ludicrous milkfest culminating in a dramatic July 21 "revisitation" (seriously!) of her "decision" and "what she had learned" on Good Morning America. Whatevs! Bottom line: like Miley Cyrus, Rafael Nadal just looked totally freaking hot in a non-trashy way, which is something no one ever regrets, even, I suspect, former CIA agent Valerie Plame, who says she regretted (and probably should regret!) posing in that glamorous Vanity Fair shoot back in the yellowcake era, but you know she actually looks at those pictures and thinks to herself, "Damn." And if she had corporate sponsors they would no doubt be thinking the same.

[MSNBC]

*The item goes on to assert that there will be "a trickle-down effect to the Nadal cover that he probably never anticipated: Other celebrity athletes are rethinking their commitments to appearing prominently in magazines outside of their niche” and cites some Roger Federer diva behavior as an example. This is bullshit.
**This makes sense as, also yesterday, some publicist sent us a picture of Maria Sharapova wearing a Cole Haan dress to some party. Sharapova of course is, like Nadal, a beautiful tennis player who is paid gazillions of dollars by Nike, and Nike owns Cole Haan.
***Um, case in point: this story.
****Dear anyone who thought those photos were inappropriate: allow me to introduce you to this thing called MySpace.

Any photograph used in a magazine, a billboard, an album cover, whatever - can only be presumed to be a photo-based illustration. The issue, which Dove's well-intentioned campaign addressed, is the effect these illustrations have on the psyche, self-esteem, and well-being of women (in particular) not to mention the unrealistic view men might have of women. It brings to mind the shock the eminent Victorian art critic John Ruskin experienced upon discovering his wife's pubic hair, after which he was unable to consummate the marriage. Divorce followed shortly.

The hypocrisy that Dove is now being accused of is understandable but perhaps not of a Spitzerian magnitude. However, it is compounded by the fact that the product their ads were pushing were skin firming, cellulite reducing creams. Oh the double standards! So perhaps we should agree that we are living in both the digital age and the age of hypocrisy.

[via Kottke]

Everyone employed by Dove "declined to elaborate on what the "color correction entailed," and declined to respond by deadline to phone calls or e-mails to a report from a person familiar with the matter that Mr. Dangin had admitted specifically to removing veins from the images of the women," reports Ad Age. Meanwhile, the New Yorker says that the only inaccurate thing in its story is that it said Dangin retouched photos of women in "undergarments," while in fact he retouched women in nude photos—which would mean he worked on Dove's celebrate-your-natural-body Pro-Age ads, shot by Annie Leibovitz.

It's apparent that the company is hoping that the whole thing will blow over with no lasting effects. And it surely may. But with the New Yorker standing firm, it's hard to take Dove at face value. Here are two of the ads in question:

Statement from Dove about The New Yorker Article

Dove's mission is to make more women feel beautiful every day by widening the definition of beauty and inspiring them to take great care of themselves. Dove strives to portray women by accurately depicting their shape, size, skin color and age.

The "real women" ad referenced in recent media coverage was created and produced entirely by Ogilvy, the Dove brand's advertising agency, from start to finish and the women's bodies were not digitally altered.

Pascal Dangin worked with photographer Annie Leibovitz (Ogilvy has never employed Mr. Dangin on the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty), who did the photography for the launch of the Dove ProAge campaign, a new campaign within the Campaign for Real Beauty. There was an understanding between Dove and Ms. Leibovitz that the photos would not be retouched - the only actions taken were the removal of dust from the film and minor color correction.

"Let's be perfectly clear - Pascal does all kinds of work - but he is primarily a printer - and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching and there was not," confirmed Annie Leibovitz, commenting on the ProAge campaign.

Mr. Dangin responded, "The recent article published by The New Yorker incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the Dove "real women" ad. I only worked on the Dove ProAge campaign taken by Annie Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do color correction - both the integrity of the photographs and the women's natural beauty were maintained."

###

The Daily News' Richard Huff points out that ratings for the previous episode, which aired before the photo controversy broke, were also down:

Compared to the first original show of the year, which aired in January, viewership for Sunday's show was down 33%.

That suggests the hubbub over series star Miley Cyrus' questionable photos in Vanity Fair neither helped nor hurt with viewership. Rather, "Hannah" was on a decline before the photo dustup.

Disney CEO Bob Iger has the obligatory quote about how the Miley "franchise" is "incredibly robust." But Huff suggest that she could already be on an inevitable downward slide, at least among young fans. Which would certainly cause her advisers to tell her to grow up, quick.

Experience shows that kid franchises such as "Hannah" that hit the rare white-hot phase are good for roughly 18 months, then start to fade.

"Hannah Montana" had been the top-rated show with young viewers the past two seasons, but because of the slow rollout this year, the heat has moved to the "Wizards of Waverly Place," starring Selena Gomez (who has appeared on "Hannah"), which now holds the slot as Disney's top show.

• Andrea Peyser: It was Billy Ray Cyrus' fault, the unskilled, no good father.
• Bonnie Fuller: These Miley pictures were comparable to the statutory rape and impregnation of teenagers by a polygamist cult. That means bad.
• Rosie O'Donnell: These pictures were beautiful. Plus Annie Liebovitz is a scary photographer who intimidates me. Get off her back, bitches.
• Tila Tequila: OMG she is so sexy! I was like that at 15, except more of a whore.
• Assorted Random Celebrities: Uh, you know, different people do different stuff, and stuff. I wouldn't want to judge a fellow vapid celebrity.
• Germaine Greer: All teenagers are sluts, in reality, and Miley is no different. Leibovitz is cynical, for good reason. "It is the tragedy of Cyrus's life that she has nothing to sell but herself and she is fast approaching her sell-by date. From this time forward her price can only go down."
• Michael Roberts: Stupid Americans can't appreciate beautiful little girls.
• Stephen Colbert: Oh no! (sarcastically)
• Gawker: Annie Leibovitz, you cur! [With an alternate opinion from Ryan Tate: This is nothing new]
• Annie Leibovitz: What? I thought it was pretty.

[pic via Vanity Fair]

We're hardly the type to play scolds for risque media attention-getting stunts. But there is such a thing as a bright line that you simply don't cross. Consider this quote in the NYT from a Vanity Fair spokesperson:

"Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley."

Is that so? Here's a radical notion: stop bullshitting us. Everybody recognizes sex when they see it. Humans are hardwired for it, and media outlets are experts at pushing our buttons in that particular arena. Does anyone—at Vanity Fair, among its readers, or even Annie Leibovitz herself—believe that the master photographer didn't give any thought to sexing up the 15 year-old pop star in those photos? That the bedsheet was totally innocuous?

Another radical notion: the media and its proxies bear some responsibility for what is published. There are rare times when it falls to the photographer, or the publisher, to save someone from their own bad judgment. We live in a highly sexualized culture as it is; the least we can do is keep kids out of its spotlight until they're of age. Cyrus and her parents are either poor judges of PR, or were ignorant as to how the shoot would end up looking. Either way, VF and Leibovitz owed them the courtesy of not letting this happen in the first place.

Yes, a free press extends into the celebrity arena, and yes, we're all for openness in reporting, obviously. But Leibovitz, who has earned over the course of her career the right to call the shots on the photos that fill our country's glossiest magazine pages, has lost her perspective. It's a matter of very simple decency, and one doesn't have to be a prude, or a conservative, or even someone frustrated with the sheer vapid nature of these things, to steer clear of sexualizing children for the sake of selling more magazines.

Vanity Fair, sadly, would probably never deign to turn down a photo spread like this. But Leibovitz should know better. As technically skilled as she is (and there is no denying that), she has become primarily a machine for generating ginned-up controversy. And not always controversy that is provocative in the service of a larger ideal, or that seeks to shock us out of old and tired conventions. Just controversy, set up artificially, for the sake of itself.

A parallel to the current uproar is the outrage that ensued over Leibovitz's recent Vogue cover featuring Lebron James in a King Kong-like pose, holding supermodel Gisele Bundchen. Leave aside, for a moment, the argument over whether she was consciously using the shot to position the basketball star as King Kong redux. What's certain is that she's far too experienced not to recognize the images such a photo would call to mind, and the controversy that would ensue. And did her work accomplish anything? Was it a great stride towards racial equality in the elite fashion media? No, it was essentially a "Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Which is what Leibovitz excels at. And which is what she and Vanity Fair were going for with the Miley Cyrus shoot.

Leibovitz just released this statement:

"I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted," she said in a statement. "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together, and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it.

"The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."

Debatable. But even if such a photo would be considered beautiful hanging on the wall of her parents' den, a huge photo spread in Vanity Fair is quite a different story, and requires a bit more careful thought. Somebody has to be the adult. Furthermore, the celeb-shocker bit is no longer shocking. It's just wearying. Leibovitz is now firmly entrenched in the establishment, and it's time for some new blood to rush in. It is possible to say something interesting and useful about the celebrity machine. We believe!

We don't want to railroad Annie Leibovitz out of her profession based on one mistake. We just want some new ideas—for the sake of everyone. It's a safe bet that she doesn't want to be remembered as a child-exploiting one trick pony, either.

Veteran Leibovitz, the go-to photographer at Conde Nast titles such as Vanity Fair and Vogue, has still not acknowledged her inspiration. (Portfolio's Jeff Bercovici, in an inspired journalistic move, actually thinks to put in a call.) But Leibowitz is known for borrowing iconic imagery from old movies.

Let's assume the Vogue cover was indeed an homage to the xenophobic wartime poster. There's nothing so reprehensible about that: it's a photographic commentary on the ancestral American fear of black men, an interesting and provocative idea.

But here's the real question. Had the magazine knowingly intended to begin a debate about racial imagery, it would have at least devoted some text to the issue, and demonstrated awareness of the controversy it was inviting. Instead, Vogue seems to have been caught unawares. Did Annie Leibovitz gloss over her cover concept in order to get it past the generally conservative Vogue editors? If so, they're going to blame her for the mess in which the Conde Nast magazine finds itself.

Leibovitz, a frequent Vanity Fair contributor, has many pieces in the magazine's exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery in London. It's her second major exhibit since her Brooklyn Museum show in the fall of 2006. And the critical response is the same. She might be great with color, but much like a Vanity Fair profile, her photos are so staged that they don't really capture anything in her subjects.

But who am I? I only take pictures so my happy times can make my Facebook frienemies jealous. Real critics agree!

From the National Portrait Gallery Show:

The atmosphere on the shoots featured in Annie Leibovitz: Life Through a Lens bears this out. They have become more elaborate and less fun, one imagines, for the participants. Standing for hours in itchy 18th-century wigs while this self-confessed aesthete finds the right configuration for your limbs must be a bore but none of the young actors would dream of complaining. The promise of immortality gives Leibovitz a godlike power. She can be as terse-lipped as she likes, as long as she retains the power to redeem the chosen from the thing they fear most.

From the Brooklyn Museum show:

The museum, desirous of a big-name exhibition, seems to have ceded too much control to its subject, and as a result, the show is an unconscious exercise in ego gratification that serves no one well. Leaking vanity and ambition, at once yearning for greatness and blithely assuming that greatness has been achieved, the works on view are like a high-brow, static form of reality television. It is fueled by an obsession with celebrity and accented with the trappings of first-class travel, serious real estate and privilege. Its revelations are mostly inadvertent.

Annie Leibovitz is sort of like American Idol this season. The buzz is pretty much dead, but she's still around and still profitable. And that still counts for something. It's just not high art.

BBC apologises for 'misrepresenting' Queen [Guardian]

Subscribe to Vanity Fair! [VF]

Earlier: Dancing Around the Issue: Annie Leibovitz

Total no. of words: 1803
Mentions of Sontag: 15
No. of times words appear:
Partner - 0
Lover - 0
Gay - 0
Lesbian - 0
Sappho - 0
Pile driver - 0

Annie Leibovitz's 'Amazing Life in Pictures' [Newsweek]

Thanks to Elijah Williams for the photos from AL Studio's Christmas party. Send in any other good digital party snaps to snaps@gawker.com.