Discuss: Are the Vanity Fair Miley Cyrus Photos Inappropriate?
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Images, Fan Rant
Oh my, oh Miley. Blogs around the internet are buzzing over these photos of 15-year-old Hannah Montana star Miley Cyrus, taken by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair. Movie City News' David Poland, writing about the pics on his Hot Blog, said, "People do know that 15-year-old breasts, while they really have no business being shown in public, do exist, whether covered in a sheet or a t-shirt, right?" (Poland has the full picture up on his website, I'm not going to put it up here. You can see it there or on Vanity Fair.)
Well, yes, we know that 15-year-old girls have 15-year-old breasts, but that does that make it appropriate for a magazine to publish photos of a half-naked teenager? Whether because the folks over at Disney, where Cyrus's show Hannah Montana is one of its biggest properties, pitched a bitch about the photos, or because she's genuinely mortified by the photos in retrospect, Cyrus issued a statement to fans that said, in part, "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed."
The most controversial photo shows Cyrus, who appears to be naked beneath a sheet, posing with her bare back and side exposed, her arms holding up a satiny sheet and covering her front. The first question that popped into my mind when I saw the pic was, "Holy hell, what on earth were her parents thinking?" It's one thing for a parent to take pics of, say, a baby's cute little naked tushie lying on a changing table, or a kid taking a bubble bath. It's another thing entirely for a parent to allow photos of their half-naked teenaged daughter to be taken by a photographer for publication in a major magazine. And I suspect, if they hadn't been blinded by who the photographer was, and having Miley's photos in Vanity Fair, they perhaps would have thought twice about it.
Liebovitz says that both Miley and her "minders" (I really hate that word, by the way) knew what the concept of the shoot was, and defends the pics as "simple" and "beautiful." I'm not arguing that they aren't artsy, but they look like the teenager just tumbled out of bed after a night of ... whatever ... and is it appropriate for any teenager, much less one who's a role model for pre-teen girls everywhere, to be depicted like that? I have 11 and six-year-old daughters who are huge fans of Hannah Montana, and I'm far from being a prude myself, but I don't want my girls seeing that picture of a teenager they admire.
Poland goes on to say in his write-up that Cyrus's "urges to go more 'adult' have been signaled endlessly, especially in her concert tour." I have to beg to differ. I took my kids to see the concert tour at the movie theater, and the costumes she wore in that show were nothing close to what's revealed in this photo spread. Her concert attire is funky, cute, and perhaps pop-star edgy, but hardly inappropriately revealing. Her skirts are no shorter that those worn by high school cheerleaders across the country, her teeny-bopper cleavage is covered, and she just looks like what she is -- a teen pop star.
The Vanity Fair pic, on the other hand, makes her look like she's auditioning for a remake of Lolita. I can't fault Cyrus for any of this -- she's a kid, she can't legally sign an agreement for herself to do anything. But her parents, who are adults, did sign off on these pics, and Leibovitz, who is also an adult, took them, and I can't help but feel that Leibovitz, who doesn't shy away from controversy, had more than a little ulterior motive here in taking pictures that she had to know would be seen by many as exploiting a young girl.
What do you think about these photos? Is it appropriate for a teenage girl, no matter how famous, to be depicted this way? And how about those of you who, like me, have young daughters who are fans of Cyrus and her show? Is this the way you want them to see a teenager they look up to?
Is the 'Avatar' Budget Approaching $500 Million?_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive: Poster Premiere for 'Extraordinary Measures'
Quick List: Five Of The Scariest Stares
Jake Gyllenhaal Joins Duncan Jones for 'Source Code'
'Ridgemont High' Inspirations Are Now Protective Parents
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
4-29-2008 @ 9:11PM
Gina said...
Good piece. Even though it's not explicit, it's still inappropriate.
I'm glad -- for Miley's sake as much as anyone's -- that there's been an uproar over this. I hope it signals her and other young girls like her -- and their parents -- that we've had enough of the idea that a teen starlet needs to flaunt her sexuality to prove she's growing up. It's degrading, and it sure didn't do Britney et al. any good. Miley's young and she has time to change direction. I hope she does.
Reply
5-01-2008 @ 3:35AM
Crimsonmoon said...
Jeez,
Americans are way too uptight. The picture is BEAUTIFUL! She is in no way naked, you cannot see ANYTHING inapropriate!!! For goodness sake, there are tops that hide less than the sheet she is holding. Get your heads out of your arses and start worrying about climate change or anything else of importance and leave the girl alone.
4-29-2008 @ 9:32PM
Matthew said...
It's only inappropriate in the sense that she is indeed fifteen years-old. Yet, when agreeing to a contract that specifically outlines the details of the photography session, it is injudicious to take back what you provincially agreed upon.
The reason Cirus, and most likely her father, now disfavor what was done, is the honest assessment that her core fan-base is comprised of individuals who do not favor the, to be blunt, artistic compromise of photography. These tend to be individuals who are more religion (assumption) oriented and are generally much younger than a normal demographic of music fans.
To assume that the general consensus of Americans accept nude, or partially-nude artwork, is incorrect. In an ironic correlation with early American art, people still are resistant to nude works, such as they were two-hundred or so years ago. And her fan base fits that medium perfectly.
It is frustrating to see this recurrance when discussing alternative works of art, that people generally contain the same ideology that others had centuries prior. Are her photos "racy"? No. No in the sense towards a community that has abandoned these anti-sex idealogies of early history.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 10:24PM
dopiestghost said...
Dude, really? This isn't about nudity. She could be wearing a bikini which would expose more skin and it would be more appropriate. This picture is oozing sex. And selling a 15 year-old as a sex object is just wrong. You can spout your pretentious artsy lingo all you want but you'll find it hard to convince even non-religious, left wing, coast-dwellers like me that this is ok under any circumstances.
4-30-2008 @ 7:35AM
WillTheSecond said...
The fact remains that 15-year-olds are sexual beings are to pretend otherwise is a lie. When Boticelli paints pictures of completely nude teenage girls, oh, that's fine, but this picture where there is not actually nudity, completely wrong.
The picture is indeed about sex... but it is OPENLY about sex while her actually performances for Disney, and the way she is sold to teenage girls are also somewhat sexual but it makes the audience accept that underpinning tacitly instead of actively. The fact that the subtext of the photo is obvious is an advantage because it allows us to choose whether we think 'eww, naked underage!' or 'that's an interesting portrayal of teenage sexuality'.
This image was not meant to be seen by young girls, anyway, it's in Vanity Fair not some tween magazine.
In the UK (where I am), where the legal age of consent is 16, this is perhaps not a big deal. In the US I believe it is 18? Which may make this more controversial I suppose. The fact remains that Hannah Montana is a vehicle to sell mini-skirts 10-year-olds.
5-04-2008 @ 2:31AM
dopiestghost said...
There's a difference between teenagers fooling around with each other and learning about sexuality -- something I think US culture needs to embrace, because that's only natural -- and teenagers being laid out as sex objects for the entire world. In fact, that's exactly the kind of thing that's going to harm their sexual maturity.
And, again, nudity and sexualized commerce are two different things. Now, don't take this to mean I think the photography is porn but as the old saying goes "I can't define porn but I know it when I see it." Well, I can't articulate the difference been artistic nude and sexualized commerce but I know it when I see it. This is it.
4-29-2008 @ 9:31PM
Philip said...
She's 15 years old and someone thinks this is up for debate?
What in hell are we coming to.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 10:14PM
dopiestghost said...
I blame her parents. I don't care than Leibovitz and/or Vanity Fair may have ulterior motives. It's your job as a parent to protect your children from those who would hurt or exploit them. If a parent is, as you suggested, "blinded by who the photographer was, and having Miley's photos in Vanity Fair," then that's a poor parenting job. Although I find it hard to believe that when your father is Billy Ray Cyrus he doesn't know better about dealing with media.
I'm not trying to say Mr. Cyrus and his wife are bad parents. Far from it. Everyone, even parents, make mistakes. And, really, on a scale of parental mistakes this is not huge. But I do believe this was their mistake.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 10:27PM
Astin said...
Bit of a stretch to have this on Cinematical. Isn't it more of a TV Squad thing? She's had a bit part in one released movie so far, and been in some TV shows and TV movies. Just sayin'.
Regardless... it's a Liebowitz photo for Vanity Fair. She posed for the picture. Her parents were there. Her manager. Dozens of other people. Now the media makes it a "thing" and she pretends like she's shocked? Give me a break.
Shall I point to the hundreds of paintings, pictures, movies, and books that exist of underage girls in semi-provocative poses that are considered art? This is no different. Liebowitz has long been considered an artist, and one of the greatest living photographers. Now she's practically being called a pornographer. It's sad, because it's not even erotic, let alone pornographic.
But the real winners will be Vanity Fair and Miley Cyrus. Tons of issues sold, and she's an even more known name now. Good move on everyone's part for the publicity. If this was ignored, it wouldn't be a blip.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 10:55AM
Kim Voynar said...
Bit of a stretch? I don't think so, obviously, or I wouldn't have posted about it.
Miley Cyrus's Hannah Montana Concert Tour played in movie theaters and grossed over $65 million domestically. She has two movies coming out, including the Hannah Montana Movie in May 2009. While the show that got her started is on TV, she's been heading for a while now toward transitioning into being a big-screen player.
4-29-2008 @ 10:29PM
Gary said...
It is inappropriate for any young girl to be involved in the entertainment industry full stop. It ceased being about talent long ago, it is all about celebrity now and any parent who puts their children in that place needs to really have a long hard look at themselves.
To clarify where I am coming from, I am a male in my mid 30's, I am not religious and I am European. I have no issue whatsoever will the naked female and have grown up with the idea of porn, strip bars etc.. being the norm (i shall stop there! ;-)
I felt I had to point out this is not any moral standpoint I am taking with regards to women.
But, this whole idea now that we have young girls on the catwalk, Britney Spears dressed like a schoolgirl asking to be "hit one more time", young actresses and singers dressed in a sexually provocative way when many of them are not even 16 is just vile. They are being used and abused by this celebrity industry to sell records, films, make-up and magazines. If the parents cannot see this or choose to ignore it then they are just as bad as the idiots who pay for the goods these girls are selling.
There is something very wrong with this celebrity obsessed culture we have become and this issue certainly highlights the low end of it.
You could say that if a kid is extremely talented then there is nothing wrong with them using that talent while they are still young. I would love to agree but it does not work like that anymore. There is no such thing as an entertainment industry anymore, it is all about image, sex-appeal, money and fame.
How can a magazine really justify publishing a photograph of a 15 year old girl in an adult pose? She is a child for gods sake, how could a parent allow the photograph to be taken? The mind boggles, it really does. I despair sometimes for what our world is becoming.
And we have the nerve to say that people in the Middle East are uncivilized? Does anyone ever wonder what the Western culture must look like to other nations? Can nobody understand the great fear they might have of being Americanized if this is what is considered normal?
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 10:32PM
Philip said...
Cinematical is all about TV, unless its about covering Leno breaking the guild rules by writing his own stuff. Then, TV isn't Cinematical stuff.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 10:51AM
Kim Voynar said...
Phillip, you must not read Cinematical very much.
4-30-2008 @ 6:53PM
Matthew said...
Understood.
But to detract to my first point in the argument, my first problem with the issue was that the family initially agreed to do the photo-shoot, but then resented what they did, not forseeing that their fan-base would not like this sort of thing.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:48PM
Mr. R said...
booooring, talk about The Dark Knight or something...
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:55PM
J Bryant said...
Inappropriate? Yes. Sign that she's one of the devil's daughter? Possibly. Don't believe me? Check out this comparison of the Vanity Fair photo and Damien from the recent remake of THE OMEN.
http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n282/hieronymousstone/?action=view¤t=Miley-Damien.jpg
Other than the whole topless-except-for-a-sheet bit, her expression, face, turn, and everything is a dead ringer for little Damien. I had a feeling this kid was pure evil. haha.
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 11:57PM
Mr. R said...
I bet if you play Achy Breaky Heart backwards, more will be revealed, you are on to something, sir.
4-30-2008 @ 12:24AM
PST said...
I think of it more or less like this:
Leibovitz definitely had an ulterior motive, but I don't think it's the one you're assigning her. It seems to be a comment on selling teenage girls as sex objects in the anesthetized way we find appropriate. Think of the end of Little Miss Sunshine, but instead of being a member of the film's audience, you're a member of the beauty show's. Art as defamiliarization/reintroduction, reminding us of the fact that being a pop star and being a sexualized commodity are inseparable, although we've found a way to ignore it.
Now, in the theater of my mind, I have Leibovitz coming up with this as a concept, realizing that nobody sane would allow their daughter to be used in this way (and few sane teenagers, especially those supposedly conscious of their being a role model, would agree to pose in this way for photographs), and going ahead with it anyway, figuring that allowing it to happen reflects more poorly on the Cyrus family than taking the photographs does on her. And it does.
So do I think this is an appropriate image? In the sense that it's a sexually provocative shot of a 15-year old girl, no I do not - which is to say I don't think the photo shoot should have occurred, the image been made available, or that we should be posting it everywhere and looking at it (and you're kidding yourself if you think that it's okay to the piece you've shown but not the uncovered back). But I think it's a useful image in that it might help remind us that we've otherwise been fairly blaise about sexualizing underage girls under the pretense of pop stardom, and also in showing that there's something wrong with the Cyrus family, even if it's just simple blind greed.
Now, I don't think it's doing a very good job at this, mostly because it's much easier to blame Leibovitz than rethink who your child's role model is and what you consider to be acceptable in terms of how childhood beauty is fetishized. But if it were really making us aware of a cultural cognitive dissonance, it would for that reason be acceptable to me.
Reply
5-01-2008 @ 5:34PM
Tom Sutherland said...
Give me a break. It's no wonder that Europeans are constantly laughing at the uptight North American views on sexuality. Stroll the beaches in Europe and you'll find that it's usually the Americans with jaws dropped gawking at the topless teenagers. Europeans have more sense then to get all hot and bothered over a bare Back!
Leave Miley alone!
http://www.sutherlandphoto.com
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 3:27AM
Angelo said...
Why is everyone sexualizing the photo?
Oh right, her hair is disheveled and she's covering her nude body with a white sheet. That type of imagery does tend to suggest sex to a lot of people. In movies that kind of image usually means the character just had sex.
All I'm seeing is a beautiful shot of a young girl. And beautiful doesn't mean sexually gratifying. It's not alluring or erotic. We've all seen plenty of museum hung paintings of nude women barely covered, if at all, by sheets/robes/togas. Were those ever classified as "inappropriate"?
True, Miley is 15, and suggesting nudity (or sex) is a taboo act for minors.
It's art and age is irrelevant. And it's not like she's in a Playboy-esque pose. If you thought sexually suggestive when you saw the photo, well that's your interpretation of the artwork (probably influenced by what you see in movies and other media).
I thought it was more like a painting than child erotica, but that's just my interpretation.
And I'm thinking the photographer's (Annie Leibovitz) intent was art, not exploitation. What reason would she have to exploit a 15-year-old girl? She's a respected artist and has three children of her own.
I doubt Leibovitz would release the photos just to gain publicity for herself.
Even if she knew the photos would cause an uproar, she wouldn't have thought twice about her art or about releasing it. Since when did an artist care about the thoughts of mainstream society?
The main focal point of the photo is Miley's face, not her body. While your eye may migrate to her back next, it doesn't make it erotic. The bare back is only one aspect of the piece, which represents beauty not sex appeal. She's sitting on a stool not a bed. The brain only associates white sheets with a bed. Let's pretend she is on bed. All that says is that she sleeps naked. I've slept naked since I was in high school and more have slept naked all their lives. Is sleeping naked wrong? But she's not on a bed meaning the focus is not on her actions or the setting; it's on the neutral subject, Miley.
How is the photo not appropriate?
As for this photo being damaging to the fans (the children):
The "adults" are the ones who are causing harm by labeling such a photo as inappropriate and sexually suggestive and bringing the matter into the spotlight for everyone to notice. If the media hadn't created this controversy little attention would've been brought to the picture, and the "young" fans probably would have never known the photo existed. And if they did come across the photo they'd just see it as nice photo (that hardly even resembles Hannah Montana), maybe wonder why she was naked for a second, and move on and forget it. But now when they see it they'll say, "oh check it out thats that one photo that everyone's talking about, where Miley is all naked and sexy." They'll be left with a negative impressions of nudity and photography.
Great.
Reply