Problems with criticism of artform with artform.

Steven Meisel: We already began to explore some of the issues with his 'work.' It may be necessary to reiterate some of these:
First and foremost we have the problem of context and contextualizing. When Meisel's work is hung in a gallery, it appears to state the problem with surgery and surface. When the same work is shown in Vogue magazine, it appears vapidly shocking. That is to say, it simply utilizes the imagery of brutalized beauty to sell. It's hard to believe that in this context there is any overt message. That is not to say that magazine cannot speak like galleries. If, for instance, Meisel's spread were to be found in Adbusters, the message would be thoroughly different.
-> http://adbusters.org/home/
They send a quite different message than Vogue. Perhaps the inclusion of the price of the models' worn items is enough to differ the message. Perhaps this alone can construe an entirely different view.
Before we go on, we must first presume that Meisel's 'message' is essentially, at its core, empty. That is to say that there is no inherent voice to it. When Meisel photographed his models, it was in an entirely controlled environment. This means that (presupposing that photography is not always inherently a lie), there is the possibility for meaning in 'real' circumstances. Were Meisel to have photographed models as they actually underwent surgery, he might have captured some inherent meaning. Of course we mean here metaphor, not truth.
So, assuming that this is not the case, Meisel's work is essentially, metaphorically, vapid. We can now allow it to take on meaning according only to context. Lucky break for the photographer not to have a message. It allows us to analyze the work as a cultural anomaly.
I'm inclined to think that it waters down the message and makes it only for the viewer, and less for the think. Perhaps a more acute criticism can be found in Gilliam's Brazil.
Because I couldn't show it in class, here's a wonderful clip from the film: