Look dude it's pretty clear you have a very limited understanding of what her domain is which is being an entertainer/pop star. The fact that you compare her intelligence to the that of a scientist shows that you didn't really read my post very clearly and instead decided to come at me from your pre decided position instead of actually considering what I said.

Your view of intelligence is incredibly narrow. I explained in the very first paragraph of the post you commented on that "smartest person in the room" the room refers to ENTERTAINERS NOT SCIENTISTS. The intelligence required to be a captivating, successful pop entertainer is NOT the same as the intelligence required to be an "average scientist." Apples and oranges dude. They aren't comparable. The average scientist does not have the intelligence/skill/talent required to put on a show that captivates millions just as Miley probably can't draw a simple lewis dot structure.

When referring to Miley as the smartest person in the room we mean she is brilliant at positioning and commoditizing herself in the media. If you deny this, you either don't really understand the world she operates in and what she is going for or you have an incredibly compelling argument that I'd love to hear. But based on your reactionary comment i'm guessing it's the former.

Yes I am intellectualizing her VMA performance and calling what she does art. I am very confused how you could possible deny this. I think you might be confusing "art" with "art that appeals to my sensibilities, tastes, and generally falls under things I like." You can't deny what she does is art simply bc you don't like it. Not really valid grounds. You can certainly argue it's bad art. But it's still art.

The only way you can convincingly argue that what she does isn't art is if you can show it's mindless and without thought, but if you go back and rewatch her VMA performance, this clearly isn't the case. Take a look at all the choices that had to be made - the wardrobe, the aesthetics of the teddy bears, the lighting, her hair/makeup. Do you think she and her team just threw that shit together with no forethought and planning for a desired effect to illicit in her audience watching?

Again this comes back to the fact that I don't think you understand how to explicate a performance. Don't worry - most people don't as evidenced by the world at large's reaction. No one commented on the fact that Miley's nude outfit is clearly meant to to reflect the nude women in the Blurred Lines Video. Thicke is wearing is outfit from the music video of the other song her performs which has a high school/football vibe. The foam finger is also part of tying the aesthetic of that other Robin Thicke song.

My point in talking about he wardrobe is that the whole point of the performance was not just to make a spectacle of herself - there is a lot more going into it. I think their main point was to tie all three video styles together into a live performance. Don't get me wrong - spectacle is a hugely important part of any VMA performance - and she and Robin Thicke fucking nailed it. Seriously go back an rewatch all those music videos and please come back to me and tell me how you would tie the three styles of those music videos together into a live performance.

Lastly - yes I think she either came up with the plan or she is very involved in the process of the plan. Do you have any particular evidence to contradict this notion or are you blindly operating off of your assumptions of Miley Cyrus as a manufactured Disney pop princess?