Folks are up in arms because they think it’s too sexy. I hadn’t seen it until late last night, and I have to say I find it jarring.
Not because the picture makes her look sexy. I’m used to seeing Miley Cyrus look sexy. Don’t know what I mean? Google “Hannah Montana” and you’ll be greeted with thousands of pictures of her in full makeup, sparkly tops, spandex pants and her hips thrust out.
We’ve all seen so much sexy that we’re mostly immune to the Baby Hooker look that Cyrus sports on a regular basis.
The Leibowitz Picture, however, presents an entirely different image. It makes Cyrus look like what she is. Not a hooker grabbing a mid-stroll coffee at Chock Full O Nuts (which is how most of the HM costuming comes across) but like a little girl who is just waking up. You can clearly see, in the much ballyhooed photo, the baby fat in her cheeks, the clean-scrubbed look in her face and an innocence in her eyes. She looks like a fifteen year old child. [In case you were wondering, that’s also why the pictures aren’t posted here. I have a personal policy against posting sexualised photographs of children. So neither type of picture is here.]
Is it art, to expose the child behind the Baby Hooker? I think on some level it probably is. The Leibowitz picture, as all true art, says something deeper about the subject and the zeitgeist. Is it in the right context? I think probably not. It might have been better released in a photographic retrospective or a coffee-table book. Releasing it in the current context of mass media (i.e. Vanity Fair) means whatever art exists is muddied by the streets of commerce and loses its artistic merit.
What I find even creepier is Bill O’Reilly’s seeming obsession with these pictures.
I hate all marketing of Children including in horror movies and sexual exploitation. We send all the wrong messages with this kind of marketing.
As a society, we asked for it with Britney Spears. What amazes me is that the picture didn’t include Madonna in it somewhere. I’m just not amazed anymore. I also try not to look at the car wreck that is the modern media any more.
Releasing it in the current context of mass media (i.e. Vanity Fair) means whatever art exists is muddied by the streets of commerce and loses its artistic merit.
That’s the thing here, though. Most people don’t go to art museums or buy coffee table books. The way our society is set up, the main avenue in which art (and consumers goods, which is what Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana is) are exposed to the masses is through magazines, television and movies. Back in Michelangelo’s day, his art was distributed at The Vatican, for example – that’s where the audience was. In current society, landing in Vanity Fair is basically the Holy Grail for getting your name/face out there.
I somewhat agree with you on losing artistic merit, as whenever I mix commerce and artistic endeavors, the art loses the joy in a way. But Leibovitz has built a career on very in your face photography, from a naked John Lennon curled up beside Yoko, a naked & very pregnant Demi Moore, and now the MC pics. Another reason I don’t buy the backtracking by the MC camp as well — had they not seen a AL photo before?
Is it art? I guess that’s up to the viewer to decide since all art is subjective.
All of the backtracking in the Cyrus camp strikes me as “we’re sorry we got caught.”
Most people don’t go to art museums or buy coffee table books.
Exactly! If you want an arty photo of yourself and/or your child (listen up, Cyrus family) then don’t have the picture taken for a major media outlet. In art, the venue DOES dictate the subject matter–whether anyone wants to admit it. That’s part of why MA’s art dealt chiefly with Catholic religious subjects. Were he Greek they might have been all of Pan and Aphrodite.
What kills me in the reaction to the VF photo is that she’s LESS naked than most bikini shots.
Except for the makeup. That’s the real nakedness, and I think that’s what’s shocking people–even though they don’t realise it. If she’s wearing makeup, she’s like a mannequin or a doll–she’s had a bit of her humanity masked and concealed.
Without it her personhood shines through and THAT makes her sexuality dangerous.
What I find even creepier is Bill O’Reilly’s seeming obsession with these pictures.
Over the years it seems that B O’R has been able to have creepy obsessions numbering in the thousands. If it weren’t for television I’m convinced he’d be the sort of fellow who teaches Eleventh Grade literature so as to have an excuse to hang around the gym for cheerleading practice.
Except for the makeup. That’s the real nakedness, and I think that’s what’s shocking people–even though they don’t realise it. If she’s wearing makeup, she’s like a mannequin or a doll–she’s had a bit of her humanity masked and concealed.
See, here you raise an angle to the conversation that I hadn’t thought of: the lack of make-up unmasking unleashing humanity.
And, damn, I hate to open this can of worms, but I thought about this yesterday: Those little pageant girls, a la JonBenet Ramsey. When that hit the media, it was a major firestorm regarding the objectification of little girls BECAUSE of the make-up and the hair and the too mature outfits for a 5 year old.
You say her humanity is masked and concealed when she’s in the makeup and character, but how is that different from the little girls in the pageant. Couldn’t their parents say “oh, well, she’s just playing dress up and having fun”?
I think it’s all pretty creepy and sorry to play devil’s advocate here, but that’s been running around in my mind. I can’t wrap my brain around where the line is drawn.
And regarding O’Reilley, he’s a twisted dude — wasn’t he the one that had a sexual harassment suit brought against him – wasn’t there an audio tape of him talking to some woman about what he’d like to do to her with a loofah? GAK!
Hell of a post. You presented a whole new perspective and nailed it.
In earlier times she would already be married with children. In some states, I guess she is marriageable. I think that she can handle it, personally. What we are seeing is her trying to salvage her livelihood… I am sure that deep down she may be proud of her burgeoning womanhood. It’s all natural.
Hell of a post. You presented a whole new perspective and nailed it.
Agreed 100%
yoh yarih yum bishee bur heleh sain saaihn ug hureltsehgui bainaa gehdee naiz ohin n ch bas huurhun l yum bna le shde yun swit ntr ene 2 hoeulaa l saaihn tohison bas aztai hosuud
Miley probally did not know they were doing that.
She is just 15 she did not mean to do it I mean we all make mistakes and need to Start All Over.
two comments have been deleted because the poster posted under another person’s name. Not cool.
I really liked your perspective on this. I would also contend that this is Art simply because I would consider AL an artist. She really has done a lot for photography as an artform, imho.
That being said, I think your other comments, eg ‘we’re sorry we got caught’ are dead on. The grown up thing to do would be to say, “we’re sorry you took it that way, but we don’t think it’s offensive.”
I guess that would require the Cyrus camp to be more grown up and not be exploiting their daughter in the first place.
[…] part of the problem for her. She is in fact two brands, Hannah Montana the wholesome Disney girl, Miley Cyrus, a budding starlet. On top of that she is a fifteen year old girl who like most fifteen year olds […]
hellO!!!!! MILEY IS SO PRETTY