And scapegoats aside what is the real issue here?
I was blissfully unaware of what a Miley Cyrus was until the Hannah Montana movie was released, and now she has a wholesome scandal on her hands it seems she will be further thrust upon us.
The photo is whatever you make of it. Miley is seemingly nude and covered by a sheet, dishevelled and pouting. Leibovitz has always claimed that she uses nudes to create; 'an instant intimacy'While I do find it inappropriate considering Miley is only 15, but not outrageous and all else aside I think it's a good photo.
It is reported that Leibovitz snapped photos with Miley's parents onset, then more after they left.
Is this a case of obviously sinister morally bankrupt Leibovitz taking advantage of a no brain girl who's parents who named her Destiny Hope Cyrus disappear opportunely or more of a case of a curious and savvy young woman, given an opportunity now left to apologize for her coming of age and perhaps back pedal a little?
'I was so honored and thrilled to work with Annie [Leibovitz]. 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.' - No word on what the accompanying article is - don't these people get to see the spread before it goes to press?
If I were the mother of a young tween girl I probably find it difficult to deal with (and would discourage my child from watching that pap anyway) but think I'm too old to identify with Miley, and to young for a parental uprise.
"I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted," says Leibovitz in a statement.
6 memos sent:
Ooh - lots of comments.
1. The general public should stay the hell out of it. If she's happy with the photos then good for her. Public - you've made a 15year old horribly embarassed by calling her very nice pics 'child porn'. She'll probably go on to have a mental breakdown.
2. I think if it were my child I wouldn't let her have such suggestive photos taken, and if I did they certainly wouldn't be going into the public domain, nor would I leaver her at the shoot unsupervised.
3. Photographer is not at fault. At any time the subject or her mother could have said 'no I don't want you to take this photo/any more photos'. And they should have researched her and known what kind of portraits she takes.
4. I don't know who she is nor ahve I seen her film or heard her sing. So I'm not all that concerned.
The little I can bring myself to care makes me say, but she's only 15! This makes her look at least 18, isn't that sexualising her?
Doesn't that make it kiddie porn if she's underage ("technically" and literally) and they're trying to make her attractive for a wider audience?
The Myspace photos are different, she looks to have taken most of those herself, and lots of teenage girls take risque pictures of themselves not expecting them to end up on the front page of the paper.
MySpace and Facebook and created a dangerous environment that makes taking sexy pictures of yourself pouting so much more likely to be misused. Can you imagine posting photos like that online when you were 15? No! You'd expect someone to print it out and bring it to school and humiliate you.
I agree that the photos of a 15 year old make her look older and are sexualising her - but 15 year olds are pretty aware - not like a 7 year old. And it seems like she had her parents permission. I don't think these are any worse than modelling or acting at that age.
All valid points!
At 15 she is still a child (much to a 15 year olds distress) and her parents should still be filter this for her if they deem it as outrageously inappropriate.
At 15 the images may be too provocative, but I am not offended by them SHE'S NOT ACTUALLY NAKED in them.
I don't believe a word of it.
In my opinion it is much more likely that Disney decided that Cirus could expand her marketing base from pre-teen bubble gum and cereal to lip gloss and cell phones by sexing it up a bit. She, or her father, were probably unwilling to flash some skin so they settled on declaring an otherwise tame photo to be "scandalous". Without so much as flashing a nipple, the controversy itself takes a tasteful photo in a top fashion magazine and sexualizes it before it is ever seen.
Why are we so gullible?
Hmm I agree with Mia's point from her post on this issue
http://mamamia.com.au/weblog/2008/04/trying-to-care.html
in that the smudged lippy and bedsheet are meant to look like she's post-coital. She's 15 for chrissakes.
In response to who will be the scapegoat, I think it may fall to the parents with the info that they were there, and then they left.
If anyone but Leibovitz had been the photographer I would say thephotog, but Leibovitz will pull through on the strength of her reputation.
Post a Comment