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?
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. Well, kids like what kids like. Back in the day, I was crazy for "Speed Buggy," "Grape Ape," and "The Brady Bunch" -- none of which I'd exactly consider high art now. :-)
Posted at 1:58PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Kim Voynar
23. willthesecond,
You said:
"This image was not meant to be seen by young girls, anyway, it's in Vanity Fair not some tween magazine."
That might be true were this not the age of the internet, but unfortunately, that's just not reality anymore. Google "Miley Cyrus" and see how long it takes you to stumble upon that picture. It's not on porn sites that parents are likely to have restricted, it's freely out there where Miley's fan base if very likely to stumble upon it.
As for all this talk of "high art" and nudes and such, I think that's just comparing apples to oranges. The classic artists may very well have used teenage models, but that was also in a time when young girls Miley's age would have been just as likely to be married off to some old fart and already produced one or two children. And yes, it's true that this photo only shows her back, and that a bikini reveals more skin, but this is about the context of the photo and what it implies, not the square inches of skin revealed.
Parents of young daughters already fight against the media pressures for young girls to grow up too soon. I see the public-schooled girls the same age as my 11YO, and I'm shocked at how old they look, at the outfits they wear, the amount of makeup they paint on themselves. It's sad. When I was 11, I was still playing with Barbies. Thankfully, my own 11YO is still more interested in her American Girl dolls, Barbies, and books than in boys and making herself up.
I just don't think that most parents of young girls want their daughters seeing a teen they look up to portrayed in this way, and I think it's a shame for Miley that her parents allowed these photos to be taken. Presumably, someone of legal age had to sign off on them.
Posted at 11:07AM on Apr 30th 2008 by Kim Voynar
24. Fair point on the image, that that is true, it is available if one searches 'miley cyrus' on google (first page, alas).
I believe the photo in its context is not that bad: take a look at the google images and you see pics of her in 1. low-cut tops 2. very short skirts 3. loads of makeup. Not necessarily all 3 at the same time, but often. I'm betting her songs sometimes if not often have a boyfriends/relationship vibe to them.
All that stuff targeted at an audience of 15-year-olds would be fine, but I dislike this being targeted at 8-12-year-olds because it produces exactly what you are talking about. This one photo has basically no impact compared to a plethora of concerted marketing tools under the parent/family friendly apparently-safe label of Disney.
I actually don't think young girls would understand the supposed subtext of this: they'd see damp hair and partially clothed and maybe think 'oh, she's just had a shower' rather than 'she's just done it with a guy'. If they think the latter it is because society has allowed them and taught them to, which is a wider problem.
Posted at 5:38PM on Apr 30th 2008 by WillTheSecond
25. The exploitation of Miley goes beyond whether these images are inappropriately sexual. VF is exploiting her, Disney is exploiting her and, most disturbingly, her parents are exploiting her. Daily.
Whether they're selling her sexuality or her wholesomeness or her talent, they're still selling her and if she ends up turning into another Britney, everyone will line up to help tear her down or at least stop to look at the train wreck.
Posted at 12:50PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Craig Kennedy
26. Annie Liebowitz and the Cyrus parents should be flogged in public. But then I guess some people have the mentality that it's never too early to be a sex symbol.
Sure, it's not actual nudity but it's implied sexuality, which no 15 year-old (boy OR girl, rich OR poor) should be "selling sex." they barely even know what it is.
It kind of reminds me of Little Miss Sunshine. Those little girls were exploited. I don't believe in EVER using women as sex objects. That's my job, damnit.
Anyway, slap them. Really hard. A few times. A day. For a week.
Posted at 1:19PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Christian
27. You pretty clearly demonstrated one of the many things that's wrong with Americans' thinking right here. It's ok to "flog someone in public" and slap them repeatedly?
That's right, kids, violence = good, sex = BAAAD!
Posted at 1:28PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Tucker
28. I think this hole thing is stupid.I am a young girl who watches her show. Although I would never take a picture like this, she wasn't trying to make it disguisting. I think she is right it was supposed to be artistic nothing more.Famous million-dollar artists make paintings of naked people and don't get critized in fact that sell for lots of money.Plus she was covered anyway.If she was wearing a bikini it would be fine cause she is swimming, but it's not okay to be covered by a sheet for picture?That's stupid. She would be showing more skin in a bikini.It is not like it was posted on Disney channel for all the kids to see.What she does on her own time is her business.
Posted at 2:51PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Nay
29. I don't see what the big deal is with this picture. She's topless. Who cares? All that is visible is her back and the picture isn't even done in a sexual manner.
Honestly, are people so prude these days that a 15-year old girl baring her back is considered inappropiate. There's nothing wrong with nudity or the human body. If it's done in a gratuitous manner, I could understand, but it wasn't.
Posted at 5:13PM on Apr 30th 2008 by DylanG
30. if not damien - then she can be in a vampire based movie with the way she looks in that picture.
but you also have to add in the part not discussed: she has a handlers and such with her at all times i would assume (including family, and disney) and they would never let her out of their sight. also there are other questionable pictures. so the question is if no one talked about it would she even issue her statment?
but yes expect a lot of issues sold and her name increased.
31. 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.
Posted at 6:53PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Matthew
32. @ Tucker
Fine, you should be flogged in public. I think that's less damaging than the picture. Do you know how sick I am of this "women are sex" crap?
Women are female HUMANS. If you think that this kind of thing doesn't send the wrong message, explain why female driven movies are always the same soppy, pathetic, need a man to think for them, NONSENSE?
In other words, you seem to be part of the problem. A 15 year-old ROLE MODEL SHOULD NEVER BE TAKING A PIC LIKE THAT. NEVER. I DON'T CARE.
Posted at 7:24PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Christian
33. Ok.. First of all, ya she is 15, but have you seent all the pictures in vanity fair? like ok.. her dad was there with.. to me its an artistic picutre- she is Covered... hello... its a back.. like OMG its SUCH a big deal eh? well look at some of the dresses these people wear that expose more than a back... like? is this making any sense?? Secondly, the picture with Miley and Billy-Ray it is a gorgeous picture and i dont even see whats wrong with it.. she had her father's permission.. and back to the first one.. you cant expect this picture to ruin her carrer, like 1) shes her own person 2) she was not nude 3) if people would stop bothering other people about stupid things like this, the kids would not know about it... its basically a bunch of people trying to feel better about themselves by pointing out the flaws in other people's lives.. like?? get a life! She is 15 (old enough to know what is right and wrong), she was there with her dad (as you can see in the picture), she was not overly exposed (no 'private' parts were showing?? noting but her BACK...) its ridiculous.... think about it... then ya... GET OVER IT...
Posted at 7:32PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Rikki
34. Dear Kim Voynar:
Please consult your editor, Erik Davis. I point blank asked him some months ago why the Leno story was getting zero play around here and he told me, it wasn't really film-related.
And I've been reading Cinematical going on two years now.
Nice attempt to try to play me off as the new guy.Now try proving me wrong about the Leno story.
Posted at 10:57PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Philip
35. Here Kim just for you:
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/04/29/discuss-are-the-vanity-fair-miley-cyrus-photos-inappropriate/2#c11901615
You're welcome.
Posted at 11:24PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Philip
36. Link messed up:
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/01/04/golden-globes-update-actors-and-actresses-refuse-to-show-up/
Posted at 11:25PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Philip
37. Oh my Edward....
This is worse than when that rumor was going around
that Miley was pregnant! No, not because that was just a rumor, because evryone is making a HUGE deal out of
this! If you saw a 15 year old girl walking around in
the mall with a dress on that had no sleeves and
exposed most of her back with heavy red lipstick would
you think "Oh my god! That is so innapropriate! I need
to go home and make a huge deal out of this!" or "Huh.
Nice outfit. A little to much lipstick, but its fine, really." I
don't know about you, but I would think number two. I
love Miley Cyrus, ok? I love her music and her tv show.
Does this whole thing mean I'm gonna delete her songs
from my iPod? No. Does it mean I'll stop watching her tv s show? No. Does it mean I'll take my poster of her of my
wwall? No! It means... Well, nothing! Nothing has
changed! I won't stop watching Zoey 101 (one of my
faverite shows) just because Jamie Lynn Spears got
pregnant (And speaking of Jamie Lynn, why
a are deal out of this than when she got pregnant?).
Cause guess what? I DON'T CARE!!! And
neither should you.
Posted at 6:54AM on May 1st 2008 by Neve
38. 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
Posted at 5:34PM on May 1st 2008 by Tom Sutherland
39. She's in bed looking sexy. She's only 15. What do I tell my 16 year old daughter - that Miley's doing it right, and my daughter is taking things too slowly with boys? Miley has made $1 billion off kids, and now she's thumbing her nose at them, saying "I'm not a kid like you anymore." As a dad, i'm disappointed. dadshouseblog.com
http://dadshouseblog.com/2008/05/02/miley-cyrus-sexy-vanity-fair-pics-shes-younger-than-my-daughter/
Posted at 2:49PM on May 2nd 2008 by dadshouse
40. I think that South Park got it right on the nose with the episode with Brittny Spears that Miley is going to be the next Brittny Spears. AND THATS NOT A GOOD THING FOR ANYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted at 4:51PM on May 2nd 2008 by RX8racer
21. I think it is highly inappropriate that she has even been seen period. Why do parents submit their kids to such piss poor entertainment like Hannah Montana?
Posted at 10:03AM on Apr 30th 2008 by Eric H