Miley Cyrus... why?

[LotsOfQuestions]

I'm just tired of living in a time that sexualizes our children. I think 15 is too young to be acting so sexy in public. She has her whole life ahead of her, to be and act like an adult. I wish our children would hang onto their childhoods a bit longer is all.

Join the ranks of the 40's parents, the 50's parents, the 60's parents, the 70's parents, the 80's parents, etc.

Parents before have been outraged at skirts showing ankles, then knees, then butts, one piece bathing suits, bikinis, capris, shorts, daisy dukes, short sleeve shirts, midriffs.

There is not an era in history where you can't find parents lamenting about the oversexualization of the teenager of that era.

However, clothes are getting skimpier and skimpier over the ages. I can't imagine what my grandchildren are going to fret over

 

[bicker]

And every time adults go overboard with useless and damaging over-reactions like this, they feed the fire. They are rewarding those who they're condemning, communicating that this is the RIGHT thing to do.

 

[kirbsam]

The problem I have with this photo is the same problem I have with all the movies that have been brought up, the A&F ads, Hooters, etc. It's the sexualization of young women and girls for profit.

right on! and then becomes the normalization of it and pretty soon, we go to the next step, and then we debate that. and so on, and so on.

 

[robinb]

I see nothing "sultry" in the photo, so your premise is wrong.

Just because one person doesn't see "sultry" doesn't mean the whole premise is wrong.

I look at the photo and see a girl with no clothes on and a satin sheet wrapped around her. I see a girl with tousled "bed head" hair, light make up and washed-out pre-dawn lighting. All of that adds up to an impression of a girl just waking up in bed. The visual code that has been used time and time again with that pose, the hair, the makeup and the lighting is that she just woke up after a night of s-e-x.

 

[damo]

As I've already made clear, I don't see the sexuality in the photo that others claim to. However, having said that, if there must be blame for this, then that blame rests squarely and completely with the parents and the parents alone. The photographer is an artist, doing her job, better than most anyone else. The magazine is working hard to sell subscriptions and copies of a magazine. The only people who are responsible for making decisions with respect to Miley's morality are her parents.

I don't know about that. It sounds like the photographer used her position and fame to get out of Miley exactly what she wanted. If so many people here have had the reaction they did, and this is a very famous and experienced photographer, she knew exactly what the public response would be.

 

[LotsOfQuestions]

Thats okay...as a mother it's a battle I'm willing to fight. I'm the parent - I'll win. She might get mad at me - but she'll get over it.

You might or might not win. You might think you are winning in the house. But I have seen too many of my teen's friends with very strict parents change in the car, at school, on the way to the prom.

I think there is a character on one of the Disney shows that does this? She is a foreign girl whose parents insist she wear her country's clothes - clothes that are completely not cool. Then she changes as soon as she gets to school.

Just be careful. The "I Will Win" attitude with a teen will usually guarantee rebellion.

 

[deekaypee]

I haven't read all the responses, so this is just my take on things:

The pics Leibovitz took of Miley Cyris are artistic, beautiful, and deliberately controversial. The images are consistent with Leibovitz's aesthetics and her ability to generate buzz. They come as no surprise to me, nor should they be particularly surprising to anyone who is aware of Leibovitz's or of Vanity Fair's work. Leibovitz is well-known for pictures that confront our notions of what is beautiful, what is sensual, what is sexual, what is intimacy, and what is fantasy. (For instance, she took the picture of the beautiful, pregnant, naked Demi Moore for Vanity Fair. And she was hired by Disney for its Year of a Million Dreams campaign to recreate images from "children's films" with adult celebs.)

I also think that neither Miley nor her parents or her agents were or are unaware of the cultural capital of having a picture taken by Leibovitz, or of the types of pictures Leibovitz takes. (Let alone the type of photos Vanity Fair publishes.) She is well known for her work with celebrities and her ability to create striking images is valued by both celebrities and companies alike. I can only imagine that the apologies & explanations are more about the response to the images than about the images themselves. I, for one, think no apologies or explanations are necessary and only serve to focus more attention on the pics.

What's more, I think the general negative response to the pictures is disproportionate to images themselves and their impact on Miley's perceived child & adoloscent audience base. My reasoning is based on where they're published (these images are not at all out of place in Vanity Fair), who the intended audience is for that peridocal (as opposed to the general Miley Cyrus audience base), and the type of pictures these are intended to be (fashion, celebrity photography).

What I find most interesting in this whole discussion is that there appears to be more consistently negative public & media outcry regarding these pictures then there have concerning other recent Leibovitz photos. There seemed to be very little furor about Leibovitz's Vanity Fair cover depicting a clothed Tom Ford and naked Scarlet Johannson and Keira Knightly; it was, if I remember correctly, only briefly critiqued for its gendered/sexist implications. And the discussion about Leibovitz's Vogue cover with LeBron James & Gisele Bunchen, which spurred conversations about its possible invocations of racist imagery, was largely dismissed in many public circles (including this board).

So I guess where I stand is that I see all these pictures as artistic, but found the latter two examples even more disturbing for their implications. Yet he opposite seems to be true as I read articles, new reports, and online discussion. So I think that's suggestive of where we as a culture are--we're more discomfited by images--as I read these photos--of adolescent sexuality than we are with images of gender stereotypes, sexism and racism. And I'm more interested in why THAT is than in the photos themselves.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

In the photos, she is not naked.
But the photo wants to make you think she is.

And thats where the problem lies.

Art is art, and I'll defend artistic nudity till the sun goes down.

But homegirl is 15. Artistic nudity should not involve children.

ITA!

Are we so hardened in this society that something is only wrong if "parts" are hanging out? I have seen completely nude photos (of adults) that don't bother me at all as they were in good taste and artistic. I have seen photos of adults that had the "parts" covered, but were more raunchy in what they implied and I wouldn't let my kids see them. While this photo would not make me bat an eye if the girl was 5 years older, at 15 it is wrong. There is not a line drawn in the sand that clothes =good and parts out=bad. It is the total package. This package is a 15 year old in a seductive pose with a bedsheet. Wrong.

Exactly.

OK...

I havent read all of this thread, and the Cyrus(s) all have baggage on this one, and the spin control IS being handled correctly (prompt, clear remorse, apologies, etc, etc...)..

BUT..

Why is noone taking Annie Leibowitz to task for creating the comfort level with this young girl (i.e. making her feel like... its OK, its just ....art....)

The pedigree that Annie Leib has is pretty persuasive to a young, ambitious (rising) media star...

jus' wondering...

I agree. Annie Liebowitz should be ashamed of herself for asking a 15 year old to strip to the waist, cover the essentials in a sheet and give a seductive look.

 

[Charade]

Disney doesn't speak for the photographer. Disney is looking out for their interests, and they (should) see profit in participating in the over-the-top reaction to the photo shoot.

I didn't say they were.

I see nothing "sultry" in the photo, so your premise is wrong.

OK, that's subjective. So what, since we're talking about the photogs intentions, is "natural" about the picture were she's posed partial covered in sheet, most of her bare back exposed and her head turned to the camera? What is she (Miley) "saying" to the camera? IOW, what's your interpretation of that particular photo (and I'm not too comfortable with the one where she's lying in her Dad's crotch either.)

It sure ain't the kind of picture one snaps at a backyard barbecue.

There is nothing obvious here. The Cyrus family perhaps played a very risky game, and perhaps everything has gone according to their plan and therefore they have "won".

If you're right, that's even more concerning. It means it was entirely on purpose.

 

[bicker]

I don't know about that. It sounds like the photographer used her position and fame to get out of Miley exactly what she wanted. If so many people here have had the reaction they did, and this is a very famous and experienced photographer, she knew exactly what the public response would be.

Her job is to capture what she believes are excellent portraits of her subjects. There is no culpability in that. Sorry, but your points here don't deflect one bit of responsibility off the parents onto the photographer.

 

[Charade]

And every time adults go overboard with useless and damaging over-reactions like this, they feed the fire. They are rewarding those who they're condemning, communicating that this is the RIGHT thing to do.

I'm gonna call Baloney Sandwich on this.

Every so often, society needs to apply the brakes to slow itself down. It's not "useless".

 

[damo]

Her job is to capture what she believes are excellent portraits of her subjects. There is no culpability in that. Sorry, but your points here don't deflect one bit of responsibility off the parents onto the photographer.

Excellent portraits? I think she failed miserably if that is what her job is. Even without the sheet, it is a terrible photo that makes Miley look creepy. She did a terrible job all around. That's not the parents' fault. The photos should never have been released -- that's the parents' fault.

 

[bicker]

I didn't say they were.

In response to what the photographer's intentions were, it was a rather strange way of expressing your own perspective. Someone could have been easily misled into thinking that that quote had some relevance other than being your own perspective, stated by Disney.

OK, that's subjective. So what, since we're talking about the photogs intentions

And so grant the photographer the right to have her own "subjective" perspective, rather than ascribing to her intentions that are not her own.

IOW, what's your interpretation of that particular photo

That it wasn't a very good shot of her. That's all.

It sure ain't the kind of picture one snaps at a backyard barbecue.

We generally take our own photos at backyard barbecues. We don't get invited by a famous and renowned photo artist to take our photos as backyard barbecues.

 

[bicker]

I'm gonna call Baloney Sandwich on this. Every so often, society needs to apply the brakes to slow itself down. It's not "useless".

You can call whatever sandwich you want. The fact of the matter is that there was nothing so important to be concerned about here, except the over-reaction. That's what society needs to apply the brakes to.

 

[bicker]

Excellent portraits? I think she failed miserably if that is what her job is.

I don't disagree. She normally produces MUCH better work. The question was what was her motivation and what was her intention, not what the end result was.

Even without the sheet, it is a terrible photo

Without the sheet, it perhaps would have been what many people in this thread are saying it was WITH the sheet.

With the sheet, it isn't the best photo Leibovitz has taken.

 

[lilyv]

You might or might not win. You might think you are winning in the house. But I have seen too many of my teen's friends with very strict parents change in the car, at school, on the way to the prom.

I think there is a character on one of the Disney shows that does this? She is a foreign girl whose parents insist she wear her country's clothes - clothes that are completely not cool. Then she changes as soon as she gets to school.

Just be careful. The "I Will Win" attitude with a teen will usually guarantee rebellion.

You are so right!!! Mine are 23 and 25 now, and I've seen it all with their friends. Some are doing terrific, some pretty good, and then there are a few that have made rebelling their #1 goal. Extremely strict rules don't really do much except encourage simmering anger.
Parents need to pick their battles. Reasonable boundaries are one thing. On the other hand, the parent who's goal is always "winning" may be dealing with serious repercussions for years to come.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I haven't read all the responses, so this is just my take on things:

The pics Leibovitz took of Miley Cyris are artistic, beautiful, and deliberately controversial. The images are consistent with Leibovitz's aesthetics and her ability to generate buzz. They come as no surprise to me, nor should they be particularly surprising to anyone who is aware of Leibovitz's or of Vanity Fair's work. Leibovitz is well-known for pictures that confront our notions of what is beautiful, what is sensual, what is sexual, what is intimacy, and what is fantasy. (For instance, she took the picture of the beautiful, pregnant, naked Demi Moore for Vanity Fair. And she was hired by Disney for its Year of a Million Dreams campaign to recreate images from "children's films" with adult celebs.)

I also think that neither Miley nor her parents or her agents were or are unaware of the cultural capital of having a picture taken by Leibovitz, or of the types of pictures Leibovitz takes. (Let alone the type of photos Vanity Fair publishes.) She is well known for her work with celebrities and her ability to create striking images is valued by both celebrities and companies alike. I can only imagine that the apologies & explanations are more about the response to the images than about the images themselves. I, for one, think no apologies or explanations are necessary and only serve to focus more attention on the pics.

What's more, I think the general negative response to the pictures is disproportionate to images themselves and their impact on Miley's perceived child & adoloscent audience base. My reasoning is based on where they're published (these images are not at all out of place in Vanity Fair), who the intended audience is for that peridocal (as opposed to the general Miley Cyrus audience base), and the type of pictures these are intended to be (fashion, celebrity photography).

What I find most interesting in this whole discussion is that there appears to be more consistently negative public & media outcry regarding these pictures then there have concerning other recent Leibovitz photos. There seemed to be very little furor about Leibovitz's Vanity Fair cover depicting a clothed Tom Ford and naked Scarlet Johannson and Keira Knightly; it was, if I remember correctly, only briefly critiqued for its gendered/sexist implications. And the discussion about Leibovitz's Vogue cover with LeBron James & Gisele Bunchen, which spurred conversations about its possible invocations of racist imagery, was largely dismissed in many public circles (including this board).

So I guess where I stand is that I see all these pictures as artistic, but found the latter two examples even more disturbing for their implications. Yet he opposite seems to be true as I read articles, new reports, and online discussion. So I think that's suggestive of where we as a culture are--we're more discomfited by images--as I read these photos--of adolescent sexuality than we are with images of gender stereotypes, sexism and racism. And I'm more interested in why THAT is than in the photos themselves.

ITA!!: Liebovitz was simply doing what she does best: produce artistic photos for publication in a specific venue...while at the same time giving the Cyrus' exactly what they were looking for!!!!

there is a concerted effort to portray Miley as older and with more of an edge - while at the same time creating buzz and hype. There is little doubt in my mind that this was discussed going into the shoot and Liebovitz gave them exactly what they were after.

..and it has worked......

 

[Charade]

In response to what the photographer's intentions were, it was a rather strange way of expressing your own perspective. Someone could have been easily misled into thinking that that quote had some relevance other than being your own perspective, stated by Disney.

It was to provide context. Disney thought of it as a "situation" (so did a vocal portion of the public) while the people at the magazine, the parents, the subject and photographer thought the photograph was "cool".

And so grant the photographer the right to have her own "subjective" perspective, rather than ascribing to her intentions that are not her own.

I'm not ascribing anything with my comment. Those are the details of the photograph. The photographer stated they thought it was a good and natural photo of Miley. I asked, what's natural about it?

That it wasn't a very good shot of her. That's all.

I wasn't asking about the technical aspects of the photograph. That's a whole different discussion. I asked you what the photo "says" to you. Aren't most artistic photos meant to convey a message? You can agree with that message or come up with your own. Your choice.

We generally take our own photos at backyard barbecues. We don't get invited by a famous and renowned photo artist to take our photos as backyard barbecues.

You missed the point. Most backyard barbecue photos are usually just snap shots. Most are technically terrible and they quite often lack "artistic" qualities. But often than not, they satisfy capturing the moment.

What was the "moment" in the sheet photo?

 

[Charade]

ITA!!: Liebovitz was simply doing what she does best: produce artistic photos for publication in a specific venue...while at the same time giving the Cyrus' exactly what they were looking for!!!!

there is a concerted effort to portray Miley as older and with more of an edge - while at the same time creating buzz and hype. There is little doubt in my mind that this was discussed going into the shoot and Liebovitz gave them exactly what they were after.

..and it has worked......

Even the "damage control"?

So they deceived the public for publicity.

 

[bicker]

Disney thought of it as a "situation"

As far as we know, Disney was just thinking of their own asset.

I'm not ascribing anything with my comment. Those are the details of the photograph.

Only as you see them.

The photographer stated they thought it was a good and natural photo of Miley. I asked, what's natural about it?

And she alluded to that in her statement. You're welcome to ask her for more details, personally. Regardless, there is no reason not to take her at her word. She's a professional.

I wasn't asking about the technical aspects of the photograph. That's a whole different discussion. I asked you what the photo "says" to you.

It says what I said it says. I suppose, then, the only thing the photograph says to me are technical aspects. That, itself, is probably as good of an explanation of why I feel the photograph isn't very good.

You missed the point.

I doubt that. I think we just disagree about the point.