Hannah Montana Takes Her Top Off
Well, I guess it was just a matter of time before fifteen year old Hannah Montana, a.k.a. Miley Cyrus, started stripping for the cameras.
Apparently, Miley now regrets the photos taken of her without a shirt and wrapped in a satin bedsheet by Annie Leibowitz, which are published in the current issue of Vanity Fair. Miley and her parents did, however, originally approve the photo, while Miley’s parents attended the photo shoot with Miley and Leibowitz.
Two questions. First, are ticket sales and Hannah Montana products not bringing in enough money to cover the bills these days, so Miley’s parents needed to further exploit their fifteen-year old daughter’s (rapidly fading) childhood innocence? Second, where is California’s Child Protective Services? Allowing your underage daughter to pose nude for Vanity Fair magazine raises serious questions about one’s parenting skills.
I was a little concerned when I read about the photo shoot too. My daughter has no clue who Hannah Montana is though. However, looking at the photos, I wasn’t as concerned. Honestly, you see more skin at the swimming pool or beach.
Comment by princess jen — April 28, 2008 @ 8:03 am
I think that Vanity Fair duped her a little, and part of it was definitely done in editing. The actual slides from the shoot show a fun (in an odd, runway show kind of way), strapless top, not just a sheet. She was also in jeans. She seems like a happy and healthy teen who loves her family—not in clothes I would wear, but not in the fun soft porn the touted picture suggests.
Also, it still annoys me that we do this to girls (it just isn’t culture in general). Our culture reveres women who wear practically nothing most of the time, then burns them at the stake other times. Can we please at least apply some of this intense scrutiny and judging from afar to famous men as well? I love how our culture works to have the women stone each other while the men sit back and allow themselves to tread moral high ground.
I don’t agree with what she did, and I am not standing up for her parents. I just think we need better examples and less stone throwing. I am not quite ready to give this poor 15-year-old a scarlet letter.
Comment by t — April 28, 2008 @ 8:13 am
I agree - the ones who this makes look bad are the parents. My daughter will be having senior pictures taken soon, and I’ll be there. If the photographer said, “Okay, let’s take your shirt and bra off,” I’d take issue with that!
Comment by TAG — April 28, 2008 @ 8:18 am
She is fifteen. The pictures are sexy and provocative. She looks like she is naked and barely covered with a satin sheet. There is no way this is appropriate for a girl her age. They look like the photos a friend of mine had taken for her husband.
My nieces love Hannah Montana. I would hate for them to see those pictures. Young girls are becoming more and more sexualized in the media and as consumers.
Billy, WTH? You are confident that your daughter makes good choices, but what about your choices? Someone with some sense should have stepped in and stopped this situation. These photos are now out there and can not be taken back.
Comment by Lisa O. — April 28, 2008 @ 8:29 am
What a pity. It seemed bound to happen, though.
So many young girls start out so cute and sweet in nice little movies… then can’t wait to shed the ‘goody two shoes’ image.
Sad.
Comment by me — April 28, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Lisa - I agree. I’m sure Miley was caught up in the glamour and excitement of being photographed by Annie Leibowitz. Her parents were responsible for monitoring the photo shoot, and for not allowing something like this to happen. After the controversy dies down, these photos, which are a direct result of her parents’ poor judgment, will follow Miley around for the rest of her life.
My teenage SILs watch Hannah Montana, but they’re probably old enough not to be surprised (unfortunately).
Comment by ECS — April 28, 2008 @ 8:50 am
For me, it’s not about the amount of skin showing, or even that it is only her back exposed. This shot was taken with the intent to convey seductiveness and womanhood, of which Miley Cyrus, at 15 years old, has neither.
I take photographs for a living. I love what I do, I am extremely passionate about it, and I am all for taking shots that push the envelope… but this is too far. I take these kinds of photos on occasion - for adult women (and often men) who want to gift their SO’s with something beautiful. I’d never agree to shoot an underage girl who wasn’t fully clothed, and it would NEVER occur to me to ask her to disrobe for a shot.
I’ve read that this shot was actually taken after her parent’s had left, and she remained there with only her grandmother and a family assistant. I don’t know if that makes it worse. I think it does. My grandmother would have been beating the photographer with her purse and yelling pervert if I had been told to get naked.
Comment by Jill — April 28, 2008 @ 8:53 am
I’ve been predicting this for a while. I am not at all surprised.
Comment by Kim Siever — April 28, 2008 @ 8:59 am
This is hardly that bad.
Honestly, at least she isn’t showing her privates like other young women out there, at least she isn’t singing rap songs about sex, nudity, drugs, etc., and at least she has gone and apologized for the entire thing.
You could give her credit for that, or you could go on bashing her for it.
Comment by Hello — April 28, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Give her a couple years. She’ll be driving around panty-less and shaving her head in public. OK, maybe months.
Comment by Susan M — April 28, 2008 @ 9:18 am
ECS, let’s not be too quick to let Liebowitz off the hook. The entire project strikes me as pervy, and she also shared it its creation.
Comment by Mark IV — April 28, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Mark IV - of course, Leibowitz knew what she was doing. The parents deserve the lion’s share of the blame for this, however. They should have told Annie in no uncertain terms that their daughter was to remain fully clothed throughout the photo shoot.
Comment by ECS — April 28, 2008 @ 9:44 am
I have two teenagers and two young ones. My 15 year old daughter and I were talking about the Hannah/Miley phenomenon when her concert rolled through the area several months back. In our experience, its really not the teenagers who are interested in her or her show. The ones I know find it rather lame.
The kids who are most interested in Hannah Montana are my eight year old son’s classmates. Granted, eight year olds don’t generally peruse Vanity Fair, but everyone knows that these pictures will be everywhere. It’s a same that Miley is another role model to teach young kids that sex sells.
That said, I can completely understand that a 15 year old girl does not want to be perceived as a little kid. Think about it — what 15 year old girl is not concerned about her changing identity as she grows into womanhood. Here Miley is, continually infantalized by her role as Hannah Montana. I’m trying to think of an equivalent for the boys in the same genre, but I can’t. The Jonas Brothers, Derrek in Life with Derreck, Drake in Drake and Josh. . . same age (more or less) as Hannah Montana, but they are not geared to young children as she is. Those are the ones teenage girls are intersted in. Although you’ll here girls talking about how hot they are, it seems to be a more natural sexuality presented than the muted prepubescent type shown on HM.
There are so many other issues with these shows with teenage stars. As it relates to Miley’s picture, yes she and her parents (especially) used poor judgement, but we need to look beyond the personal choice and consider the larger social picture (no pun intended) that says being a woman means being sexualized.
Comment by rondell — April 28, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Sorry for all the typos and misspellings. Entertaining a 9 mo and typing don’t seem to work very well together.
Comment by rondell — April 28, 2008 @ 9:54 am
I’m surprised also since this hurts her image. She’s not a sexy pop star type, she makes her money through a wholesome role.
I do find the picture really sexy. It’s not just the bare back, it’s the messy hair and the look on her face. and such a childish face. ew. that’s really sad.
I understand the pressure to grow up and look sexy. Goodness knows I embarrassed myself at that age too, just doing what I thought hotter, older women did.
Comment by cchrissyy — April 28, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Just another chapter to add to Miley’s memoir.
“The multi-hyphenate teen star has signed a book deal to tell the story of her young life, it was announced Tuesday. The memoir by Cyrus, who stars in the Disney Channel series “Hannah Montana,” is planned for release next spring.
“Disney said the book will focus particularly on the guidance of Cyrus’ mother, Leticia.”
In this situation, it appears mom failed in her “guidance” of Miley.
I do not understand why a beautiful young girl would want to portray herself in such a provocative pose. Very sad.
Once again, innocence lost.
Comment by Kalola — April 28, 2008 @ 10:03 am
ECS, I agree, the parents’ mistake was in letting Liebowitz anywhere near their daughter. After, she once took erotic photos of Homer Simpson. Now that’s what I call sick.
Comment by Mark IV — April 28, 2008 @ 10:08 am
No such thing as bad publicity.
Comment by Susan M — April 28, 2008 @ 10:12 am
We had to turn off Hannah Montana several months ago to curb the sassy attitude in my almost tween girls (8 and 10) - I’m sad to say it worked. That being said, my girls would not have access to this picture, so while I am outraged that someone would allow their 15 year old to pose as someone’s lover in a satin sheet, it would not change whether my children saw her in character on the TV show. They will still listen to her music and play her wii game. But I would have to rethink it if they had access to the photo.
I’m sure the whole family was all caught up in having Annie Liebowitz taking her photo for Vanity Fair - how cool would that be!!! Poor Miley, isn’t this what parents are for - to foresee the flaws in your “caught up in the moment” judgment and reign you in for your own good? It seems hers are so hell bent on making her bigger than life that they lost touch with their own sense of propriety.
I am just glad my mistakes in parenting and I think we all make them, where I go against my better judgment in favor of building my child’s ego or social life, are not broadcast on entertainment tonight!!
Comment by mel — April 28, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Dang! Miley’s the featured performer at this year’s Stadium of Fire 4th of July extravaganze in Provo. Guess they won’t be putting this photo in the promotional materials.
Comment by no-man — April 28, 2008 @ 11:16 am
I’m just wondering how doctored this photo is. The digital photo Miley and her parents saw was probably less sexy than the one actually put in the magazine after it went through the “touch-up” artists.
That being said, you do have to wonder how her parents/minders thought it was going to turn out when Miley was asked to drape herself in a satin sheet.
Sometimes I feel like some kind of overprotective freak mom b/c I try not to expose my daughters (7, 5, & 21/2) to things like Hannah Montana & HS Musical (believe me, this isn’t easy!). But I feel like they are still little & don’t need to imitate high school age girls. I’m always surprised when my friends who have kids the same age as mine look at these movies & programs as “wholesome” entertainment for their kids. IMO, it’s not age appropriate for anyone under the age of 11.
Plus, these child stars always grow up & do stupid things or start marketing themselves as sex objects (i.e. LIndsey Lohan, the Olson twins, Christina Aquilera, Britney Spears, Vanessa Hudgson, etc. etc.). I don’t want my kids to be fans of Hannah Montana when Miley Cyrus reaches the age of 18 & joins the Hollywood club scene.
I’m not even going to touch the sassy attitude Mel has already alluded to, but an excellent book about popular culture’s damaging effects on children is Hold On to Your KIds.
Comment by brittany — April 28, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Not to take any responsibility away from Miley’s and her folks’ imprudent decisions, but I think I place the bulk of the blame on Annie Leibowitz and Vanity Fair. That’s really unlike me. But that’s how I’m feeling it right now.
Comment by madhousewife — April 28, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Huh, well that was stupid!!!
Comment by Sunshine — April 28, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Hmm. So in a society where we take ALL the children away from a religious sect because they face the “imminent” danger of being married off as teenagers, we allow parents (knowingly or unknowingly) to have their teenage daughter pose in a provocative manner that suggests nudity. Makes sense to me.
Did the parents really expect anything else from Vanity Fair?
Comment by Stephanie — April 28, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Thanks for sharing this, ECS.
Comment by Stephanie — April 28, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
That’s a shame because Annie Leibowitz is a true artist, and by no means sticks to just “revealing” pictures. I have to think Miley’s own conflicted feelings over being 15 but regarded as a kid by most might have played into her willingness to try this kind of photo shoot. But having it out there in the world, she’s feeling uncomfortable with her choice.
I’m just glad that things I said and did at 15 when I was trying to figure out that fine line between child and adult were not made public. But that’s celebrity for ya.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — April 28, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Shame Shame Shame on her parents!
Comment by Dan — April 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I just keep thinking…isn’t this child porn???? It doesn’t show any boobage, but through the pictures you get the idea that she is naked. I just don’t get it!
Comment by Sunshine — April 28, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Sunshine, I think that’s why it rubs me the wrong way. This photo is intended to be provacative and titillating. I won’t go so far as to say pornographic, but nonetheless it is meant to capture sexual attention. No 15 year old girl should be the subject of sexual attention.
Perhaps that makes me old fashioned. Too bad. I’d never allow my underage daughter to remove her clothing for a photo shoot.
I hate the implication that women can not be beuatiful in photographs unless they are portrayed seductively or sexually. Miley has a beautiful face with unique features. There are hundeds of better shots that someone like Annie could have captured, and none required the removal of her clothing. The whole Hannah Montana machine is such that the magazine would have sold without a sexualized image of a girl.
Comment by Jill — April 28, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
…and my spelling sucks today. Sorry.
Comment by Jill — April 28, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Hey Rondell,
I largely agree with your comments. Its sad that women are reduced to their sexuality. My kids love Hannah Montana and its sad to watch her innocence slip away.
I hope you are doing well. I was your HT for a few years back in NS2. We have 4.5 kids now and live in TX. Say hi to A for me. I always loved your kids I hope they are doing well. Send me an email so I can send you some pics and get caught up.
bobmelissa bell @ Yahoo.com
Comment by bbell — April 28, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
I have loved reading all the comments thus far…. my favorite is #7 regarding familial supervision.
it’s a great monday ou there.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — April 28, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
bbell,
I thought athat was you!!!
e-mail me sometime at amileofsmiles at sbcglobal dot net.
Comment by rondell — April 28, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
She’s covered. It’s in Vanity Fair not in Seventeen.
Try this. Do your daughter’s hair, wrap her in a bed sheet and shoot her on your bed with your Nikon, Cannon or whatever. This should end the issue for her and at the same time demonstrate to you Annie Leibowitz’s genius.
Comment by Howard — April 28, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
I think they all deserve a share in the blame. And call me a cynic, but I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if Miss Cyrus knew what she was doing.
Comment by bythelbs — April 28, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Thanks for the post.
Anyway, when I saw the picture on CNN this morning, my thoughts were, “When did Miley get sp depressed?”
I have to agree that she shouldn’t be showing as much skin as she is and the fact that her parents were at the set and allowed it, makes matters worse.
What I also find disgusting is that people are going, “Let her be a teenager!!!”
If this wasn’t Miley Cyrus, but some normal sophmore girl, charges would be filled.
But the photo I find most disturbing is this one with her father.
Comment by Ri — April 28, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
They’re on loan to West Texas.
BINGO!
Comment by Guy Murray — April 28, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
This photo is in the genre of child erotica which is one step below child porn. You see the same stuff in Abercrombie & Fitch and in the early Calvin Klein jeans featuring Brooke Shields. I have to view child porn and child erotica as part of my job. Knowing how many adults there are who get off on this material changes the way I see children who are even marginally sexualized.
I can tell you that because I have seen these images, I see plenty of evidence that our society and the media normalizes child sexuality and pornography every day. Go to your run of the mill child dance recital and you see over-sexualized children doing a bump and grind, all to the applause of LDS parents who think they are cute. That is exactly what is being done here - the normalizing of child sexuality. It is appalling.
While I am hopefully in the minority of society that ever has to view these images and that you never have to, I can tell you that child porn is the ugliest, most vile, revolting, sadistic media the world has ever seen. Picture the worst, most degrading adult porn and then visualize a three year old as the actor. No words can describe it. When you realize how many adults there are who victimize teenagers and children for their own sexual gratification - or other benefit, as in these photos - and how many look at these images and get aroused, then maybe you will begin to understand how damaging such images are. Call this photo artistic, but I can guarantee you that some pervert is masturbating to this photo.
Comment by Michelle — April 28, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
What else I find disturbing is the attitude, “At least she isn’t showing her breasts or vagina…” Have we lowered the bar that far down? No wonder it seems the world is going to Hell in a hand basket.
Comment by Lisa O. — April 28, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
It’s interesting. Many models are this age and pose in equally provocative photos for things as innocent as soap or moisturiser. What is more upsetting about these images, in particular, is that we all know Miley Cyrus is only 15. Some nameless model, sure, there’s a good chance she’s only 15, but we don’t know who she is, and she hasn’t built her whole career around being a “good girl”.
I thought these photos were much more tasteful than similar shots she posted on her webpage. (Yes, I watch too much TMZ.) Those photos were just icky - her laying in her undies on top of Hello Kitty sheets, tell me that’s not some perv’s fantasy. At least this one had some artistic merit to it.
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
I find it highly disturbing that any parent would want to take a photo of their teenage child this way. Especially a father.
Annie Leibowitz is a genius, but she’s not above making mistakes. This was a rather big one.
Comment by Jill — April 28, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
What law is being broken here? It may be disturbing, but it’s not illegal. Porn is specifically defined under law. Other images aren’t porn.
That is such an odd assertion.
Wasn’t anyone here ever a 15-year-old? I remember being a 15-year-old, and I paid a lot of attention to 15-year-old girls. 15-year-old girls are developing, and many of have them are indeed sexy (though current laws and cultural norms discourage older people acknowledging that, for obvious and reasonable reasons).
Besides, if Miley had lived 150 years ago, we might have called her “Wife #30 of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
Remember, Joseph Smith married Helen Mar Kimball at an even earlier age. (And others barely older.) He certainly saw some girls this age as sexual creatures.
So why are we so shocked when Leibowitz points this out?
Comment by VC Joseph — April 28, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
The shocking/upsetting factor is that Miley’s character is marketed to elementary school age children. When your 7 year old wears Hannah Montana shirts, carries a Hannah Montana backpack, brushes with a Hannah Montana toothbrush, etc. etc. and obviously idolizes Hannah Montana (as it seems many young girls do based on the success of the brand), and Hannah Montana suddenly shows up “nude” in a provocative pose, what message does that send to her?
Comment by Stephanie — April 28, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
VC Joseph:
I should have been more clear. I should have said that no 15 year old girl should be the subject of sexual attention from adult men. Teenagers will be teenagers, obviously. I remember being 15, and I would never have been allowed to take a photo like that. I also wouldn’t have had the desire to, but that’s just me. As a grown woman, I embrace and appreciate sensual photos when taken and shared appropriately.
There is more to a woman - or in this case, a child… no matter how old she wants to be, she simply isn’t - than sex. Why does her budding sexuality need to be the focus in an adult magazine? And why does someone as talented as Annie need to join the club of sexualizing a teenager, when it’s already done a thousand times over in every stupid ad campaign we see in print or on TV? Why feed the machine and waste your talent with a shoot like this?
Thank GOD it isn’t 150 years ago. Frankly, no matter when it took/takes place, men marrying underage girls disgusts me. It’s not about love, and that’s what marriage should be based on. Joseph Smith isn’t infallible because he started a Church. Polygamy is a whole ‘nother can of worms I won’t get into. I don’t condone it, never will.
It’s odd to me to say that because something happened 100+ years ago, that it should be perfectly acceptable now. In that case, we should segregate again! Heck, that was only 40 years ago, so it’s even more acceptable, right? /sarcasm
I am going to leave this post alone now. I’ve said all I need to say, and I’m not trying to start a war, but this issue hits close to my heart for some reason.
Comment by Jill — April 28, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Jill,
I’m not saying that it should be acceptable. I am saying that it’s a natural impulse, which has been the norm through most of human history. It’s very normal, as a matter of human history, for 15-year-old girls to be sexualized, and indeed, to be moms and have children. Modern society is the outlier.
This is not to say that prior societies were right. Clearly, society can and does make choices to impose new norms.
It’s just pointing out that, the evidence suggests that teen sexualization is actually what’s most natural for human beings. Modern society’s norms are very artificial impositions.
Stephanie,
Why the insistence on an eternally prepubescent, sexless icon? Hannah grows up, like everyone else. That’s not a bad thing; it’s a normal part of human development.
Is it really healthy to encourage our children to focus only on eternally childlike and sexless icons, a la Mickey Mouse?
American culture has a weird preoccupation with the eternal child. Shirley Temple’s career crashed when she became a teenager, and never recovered. It’s perverse. Why is it so wrong for Shirley, or Hanna, to grow up — to move beyond childhood into womanhood, and eventually, to have children of their own?
Comment by VC Joseph — April 28, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
I agree with the two of you who already mentioned this; Britney Spears was considered wholesome only about 8 or 9 years ago, and pre-teen girls raved over her.
#36, Wow. THAT is indeed a highly disturbing photo. It would be disturbing even if it weren’t her father, but it’s worse that it is.
#38, I know what you mean about LDS parents watching young girls in frizzed-out hair and tons of make up, wearing sexy outfits and dancing using steps that appear to have originated in tribal fertility dances. (I’ve got nothing against tribal fertility dances when done by adults.)
I’ve taught junior high for 20 years, and our cheerleaders have been doing this kind of thing for all those years. Yet, 25 years ago, in my high school, cheerleaders just did the splits and yelled a lot.
However, as far as stars go, though, it’s not only girls. I was rather disappointed when Dan Radcliffe (Harry Potter star and well-liked by many teen girls) decided that being grown up meant going nude on stage in a rather disturbing role. Granted, he was of age (just barely– no pun intended), so it was all nice and legal. But I was irked that he, as a role model, felt the need to do such a part while he was still doing all the Harry Potter stuff. (The other young stars of the shows have done other works without public dispaly of their privates.)
It is worth noting, however, that since he pulled off his boxers in public, his popularity has plummeted with the girls I teach. Two years ago he was THE star. Now they aren’t so interested.
Comment by apaperbackwriter — April 28, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Jill,
You’ve missed the point. There is a big difference between art and pornography between snap shots and fine photography. There is even a big difference between nudity and pornography.
We live in a world full of sexually provocative images. We have choices, we can stick our heads in the sand and play “isn’t it awful” or we can educate ourselves and our children.
Innocent children will not understand an adults emotion over this, they will not “get” the sexual implications. We might try saying something like “Oh, yeah it looks like they are trying to make Miley look older” as you remove the child from the image.
If they are older it presents a great teaching opportunity, sex, makeup, gender expectations, etc.
Michelle,
Some perverts would masturbate to a driver’s license photo.
Comment by Howard — April 28, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
You make a really good point about Daniel Radcliffe. Is it a double standard that we care so much about the Miley Cyrus photos, or is it because she is technically still a minor?
Comment by Quimby — April 28, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
VC Joseph, does growing into a teenager need to mean posing nearly nude in a provocative manner in an adult magazine? Not in my house. That’s not the message I want to send to my girls (if I had any) about growing up. It’s also not the message I want to send to my sons about the girls growing up around them.
Comment by Stephanie — April 28, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Howard,
This is not a driver’s license photo. It is a sexually provocative pose by an underage girl just like the ones I find by the dozens in computers full of child pornography. We do live in a society full of sexually provocative images. I think it is a shame. Children will understand the adult feelings behind these photos if they continue to be inundated by these types of images and we use them to “educate” our children instead of being repulsed by them. I chose to educate my children by pointing out how pathetic it is to try to get attention and celebrity by selling your body - either as a model or any other kind of celebrity.
Quimby,
I don’t know if it is a double standard, but I do know that our society reduces women to sex objects far more often than it does men. As a feminist, I am eager to see fewer women descend further and further for attention by exposing more and more of their bodies. I don’t want to see more of men exposing more of their bodies. This weekend, there was a cheesecake photo in a weekend newspaper of an actor on a motorcycle in jeans and t-shirts. Why do men get to stay fully clothed and still be considered attractive while women from Nicole Kidman to Miley Cyrus have to take off more and more?
Comment by Michelle — April 28, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
Michelle
By your own admission being repulsed is not working.
Comment by Howard — April 28, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Howard:
Be careful about taking that photo of your daughter in to be printed. These days photo printers are to turn in questionable photos to the authorities. I’ve heard of moms being harrassed for breastfeeding photos of their tiny babies.
I looked at Miley’s photo again, and it’s sad. She looks sad and way too thin… it’s disturbing.
Am I surprised that her parents let it happen? Not really. For some people the all might dollar speaks louder than anything. They’ve already allowed her childhood to disappear into a world of rehearsals and concerts and tv.
Trying to keep our kids away from the mass commercialization is the best bet.
Comment by me — April 28, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
They have carefully crafted her innocent public image over the last few years and maybe this photoshoot was a way, they thought, of trying to groom her “image” out of the “innocent” Hannah Montana and on to more “mature” TV or movie roles? I assume that they got more of a public backlash to it then they were intending.
Comment by SkyeBlue — April 28, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Me,
No worries, there is no photo of my daughter. It was a hypothetical exercise designed to help see the difference between art and pornography, snapshots and fine photography.
“I’ve heard of moms being harrassed for breastfeeding photos of their tiny babies.” Sad to be living in a world that makes parents afraid to photograph their children.
Comment by Howard — April 28, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
She is 15 and far from being a woman! Years and years away from being a real woman!
Comment by Sunshine — April 28, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Right Howard,
Of course I realized you were speaking hypothetically. What I was saying that because that photo is “art” by a “true artistic photographer” and in a popular magazine her parents can pretend that they were just expressing themselves.
In the real world, photos much more innocent than this one have landed people in trouble, you know the famous naked kids in the bathtub,…
Yes! It’s a pity that things have gotten so bad that even innocent behaviour is suspect.
(sigh)
Comment by me — April 29, 2008 @ 1:10 am
Thanks for all the good comments! I find it most disturbing that Miley was embarrassed and regretted the photos after they were published. Her embarrassment at the photos makes the exploitation of her by her parents and photographers even more obvious and disgusting.
Comment by ECS — April 29, 2008 @ 6:46 am
ECS,
I rarely agree with you but…..
The more I think about this the worse it looks. Its even possible that her parents did this to toughen up her image as she grows into adulthood. She cannot be a child star forever so why not start the transition now?
Shame on Billy Ray Cyrus for exploiting his daughter like this.
Comment by bbell — April 29, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Predictably, this Leibowitz person is defending her actions and insists that anybody who objects is misinterpreting her, uh, “art”.
Comment by Mark IV — April 29, 2008 @ 8:04 am
bbell, well, this is one for the history books!
Mark IV - yeah, I can see how people might “misinterpret” the photo. I have to say that I generally love Leibowtiz’s photos. She’s very talented.
Comment by ECS — April 29, 2008 @ 8:27 am
As appalling as this is, I’m hesitant to pin blame on her or her parents (although I’m more than happy to pin blame on Vanity Fair, a publication that’s doing its darndest to become trashier and trashier. Or maybe it always was). Mostly that’s because I don’t have any context with respect to her parents. I know random people on the street are always yelling at my wife because my daughter doesn’t have her shoes on, or her coat on, or whatever. But they weren’t there thirty seconds earlier when my daughter tore off her shoes or coat, and they don’t recognize that my wife is in the process of putting them back on (or that you can’t reason with a two-year-old).
I realize that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between a two-year-old and a fifteen-year-old, and between not wearing shoes and being photographed in a sexualized manner, but there’s not a lot of difference between judging one parent and the other in a total vacuum of context.
Again, though, Vanity Fair should have its feet held to the fire over this.
Comment by Sam B. — April 29, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Sam, while your argument has some merit, I think the sexy photos of Miley with her father belie any benefit of the doubt for Miley’s parents with respect to the Leibowitz photos. I could be turning into a prude (or a pervert - both?), but I think it’s kind of creepy to have your picture taken with your 15 year old daughter draped around you wearing a mid-driff bearing tank top.
More importantly, people actually yell at your wife on the street? Where do you live, man? That’s crazy!
Comment by ECS — April 29, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Sam,
We got that a lot in New York, too. Random passers-by would glare and say, “that child needs to be wearing a jacket.” Nevermind that we were walking across the street to a playmate’s house, and putting a two-year-old in a jacket (and then out) is a complicated process. But yeah - devoid of context, just a glare and then a self-righteous, “that child needs a jacket.”
My wife would get upset about this — feel like her skill as a mother (which she spent most of her time doing) was being wrongfully maligned by random busybody strangers who had no context.
One day, we were both walking across the street with a (jacketless) Son1, and a busybody little old lady did the usual glare-and-mutter, “that child needs a jacket.”
And I snapped back, “it’s okay. He’s being punished.”
Her jaw dropped, and she literally stood there in shock for a few moments, as we walked on. It was the best reaction possible.
After that, that line became our usual reply to the NYC busybodies.
Comment by Kaimi — April 29, 2008 @ 10:07 am
(and it never failed to draw a horrified, shocked, stop-them-in-their-tracks reaction — much, much better than just telling them to go f* off.)
Comment by Kaimi — April 29, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Frankly, I think the public reaction is a bit silly. Not because I believe that the photos are appropriate, but because it is ridiculous, particularly in this day and age, to expect any of the Hollywood glitterati to serve as role models. What are people thinking? It doesn’t matter that Hannah has been marketed as “wholesome” (and as the entire process of marketing people is a form of figurative prostitution, the entire concept of being marketed as wholesome should be an oxymoron); as soon as it serves her or her handlers’ interests, the wholesome marketing will drop.
Parents, stop looking for role models for your kids, and start parenting!
Comment by Derek — April 29, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
The outrage and shame she seems to be expressing right now probably comes from having a talk with Disney reps that warned her the cash cow of her show and tour might be leaving. The behind-the-scenes film that Vanity Fair released doesn’t show an embarrassed girl being talked into doing something by a famous photographer, it shows a girl enjoying herself and laughing at some of the poses. This was probably all a plan to get some grown-up pictures taken, and it backfired. I have no doubt that she and her parents knew exactly what was going on, just like a teenage Britney Spears dressing in a miniskirt when she first started making music videos.
We’re talking about a girl that has camera phone pictures of herself in bikinis and underwear on the internet, you really think she’s embarrassed about these photos showing nothing more than her shoulders?
I think the bigger problem here is actors being treated like heroes, and when they do something stupid they’re asked to apologize. They’re actors, you’re kids shouldn’t be treating them as anything more.
Comment by jjohnsen — April 29, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
ECS,
New York City. The funny thing is, it’s often old women (or occasionally men) who have never had children. (True story: my wife asked one once if she’d ever had children, and she responded, “No, but I have nieces and nephews.”)
So I’m probably a little jumpier about criticism than I should be. You’re right, the picture with her dad looks pretty, um, bad, but I’d generally rather think it was a lapse in judgement by the parents, and not a malign decision. That’s not to excuse it, but I honestly hope they are caring, loving parents who didn’t think through all the consequences. (I assume it’s easy for parents to get caught up in the moment, seeing their daughter get photographed by a serious photographer for a serious magazine.)
Kaimi,
Thanks. That is a wonderful response; I’ve been trying to convince my wife for a year now that she really needs to say something mean back. I’ll see if I can convince her to say it; I always want to say f* off, but my wife wouldn’t, and I’m not convinced it’s a good thing to say in front of my innocent daughter.
Comment by Sam B. — April 29, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
I’m with jjohnson on this one - she seems to have a trend going of releasing somewhat racy images and then “apologising” and becoming soo embarassed when it backfires. Sure, she’s a kid, but she’s a kid who has actively sought the spotlight for a number of years; you can’t tell me she’s not media-savvy and in control of her image. Coming on the back of the pictures on her website (her in her undies, laying across a boy, kissing a girl, pulling down her top, etc.) her cries of exploitation just don’t ring true.
Comment by Quimby — April 29, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
jjohnson and Quimby - you really don’t think Miley is being exploited by her parents/Disney/Annie Leibowtiz, etc.? I guess I’m inclined to believe 14 and 15 year olds are too young to know what’s in their best interests. And parents who allow/encourage their daughter to parade around half naked and show her underwear on stage are not acting with her best interests at heart, IMO.
Comment by ECS — April 29, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
I don’t only blame her of course. I’d say zero blame to Vanity Fair and the photographer, a small amount to the kid, and most of the blame to her handlers (parent’s, studio reps, babysitters, etc.).
I’m just saying most of the posters are acting like she’s a little kid that was taken advantage of for these photos, and I think she knew what was going on the whole time. Fifteen is a lot older than it was when I was a kid. She may not totally know what is in her best interest, but she knows photographs can be provocative, because she’s taken provocative photos of herself.
Vanity Fair offers behind-the-scenes video of most of her shoots that are fascinating. She never comes off as trying to manipulate people, and these shoots range from the Queen of England to people I’ve never heard of that run start-up tech companies. I seriously doubt she was beating this child and her parents down until they finally agreed to show some skin.
Rolling Stone had an article about famous music videos a little while back. One of the videos they discussed was the first Britney Spears video, and how she was hitching up skirts and tying up shirts to show more skin, insisting on it even when people thought it was too much. I know we like to think of these kids as being no different than our teens raised in Davis County Utah, but they’ve been raised in the business and probably know what sells more than you or I do.
After watching the video and reading the article, I’m pretty sure the whole Cyrus family knew exactly what they were doing, they just forgot to discuss it with the teenybopper factory at Disney.
Comment by jjohnsen — April 29, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
to Howard:
You’re saying that you, as a father, would take a picture of your teenager daughter, apparently naked in a bedsheet with her hair messed up and a ‘please take advantage of me’ look on her face?
When you send for the prints, will child social services hand deliver them to you?
Comment by sn — April 29, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
This quote by Miley is very revealing:
“I think it’s really artsy,” she told the magazine at the time. “It wasn’t in a skanky way. Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought that was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.”
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
sn,
No I am not saying that. See 54.
Comment by Howard — April 30, 2008 @ 8:34 am
Exactly Stephanie, it reveals that Miley was interested in doing something artsy, and she thought it was really cool.
Page six (the NY gossip column) has Disney executives saying they’re going to keep Miley under wraps for six months until things cool off. This reinforces which people thought these pictures were the wrong choice, and it’s not Annie, Miley, or her parents.
Comment by jjohnsen — April 30, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Actually, jjohnsen, my point was more the part about “you can’t say no to Annie”. Why would she think she can’t say no? That doesn’t seem to be very healthy.
Comment by Stephanie — April 30, 2008 @ 10:57 am
You’re joking, right? Do you have a daughter?
I love Annie Leibowitz, I rabidly watch her making-of videos and will buy magazines for no other reason than they have a Leibowitz layout. She’s one of my photography heroes. I’d pay big bucks just to be able to take pictures with her, or spend time on one of her sets.
Do you know what I’d say if Annie Leibowitz asked my daughter to take her shirt off her shoulders and wrap herself in a sheet? “No”. Do you know what I’d say if Annie Leibowitz asked my daughter to sexually drape herself over me? “No”. Now if it’s that easy for a poor boy from Utah to say no, how easy do you think it is for a girl that experts have estimated will be a Billionaire by age 21? How easy do you think it is for the rich father of that girl?
Is there any possible way her saying “You don’t tell Annie no” could be a small amount of hyperbole?
Comment by jjohnsen — April 30, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
I think that she is complicit in the exploitation. I think she understands: 1) sexuality is powerful; 2) her career as a tweenybobber is limited; 3) her image is too squeaky clean to make a transition to adult star. I don’t think Leibowitz was cajoling or forcing her to do anything she wasn’t comfortable doing. I don’t think her parents/handlers were cajoling or forcing her to do anything she wasn’t comfortable doing. I think it was a very deliberate ploy to change her image, and it backfired.
She has posted some very revealing pictures of herself on her website, at least twice, perhaps three times. Each time the pictures have caused an outrage; and each time she has apologised and professed to be embarassed. If she was really embarassed, why would she keep posting the pictures?
Comment by Quimby — April 30, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
ALeibowitz tends to do literal interpretations of her subjects, it’s pretty clear that she saw her as a burgeoning sex symbol.
no forcing going on there.
Comment by mfranti — April 30, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Howard: its just that you recommended a parent do that to see that A.L. is a genius. I assumed you were speaking as though you’d do that to your daughter (I certainly would not) Even if you think its a cute look, it doesn’t seem to be a smart move to me.
Comment by sn — April 30, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
At first I was shocked to see her pictures but then I thought about it and is nothing weird. It’s not appropriate but that doesn’t mean that she is a bad inspiration for other people. Girls do not have to copy every move or action she does. I think that she learned her lesson; besides we have seen worser things. At the beach and swimming pool you see people semi-naked all the time.
Comment by none of your business — April 30, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
I’m normally on board with you, ECS, but I think people might be blowing this whole thing out of proportion. I saw the photo in controversy at a news website, and it didn’t strike me as sexual, lewd, or racy. And I would hardly consider bearing one’s back and shoulders to be the same as “posing nude.”
Comment by Steve M — May 1, 2008 @ 6:15 am
Yeah, well. I guess I could have been overreacting. Although, I’m generally disturbed by the trajectory of young (girl) starlets (why aren’t there boy “starlets”?). The American public watches them crash and burn with relish. It’s a blood sport, and it’s distressing to see so many young girls falling into bad habits at early ages. But what else is new? Britney Spears, Drew Barrymore, Marilyn Monroe, it’s an old Hollywood tradition.
Comment by ECS — May 1, 2008 @ 9:15 am
It is disgusting how much our society relishes seeing young celebrities’ lives turn into trainwrecks. Cyrus is definitely a member of a high-risk group. However, I’m not convinced that the photo was truly exploitive, or that it represents Cyrus’ first step on a very slippery slope to personal ruin. But that’s just my impression, and I could be wrong.
Comment by Steve M — May 1, 2008 @ 11:24 am
I Love Miley
Comment by Reilly Finch — March 22, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
you are sexy lets see some action i want to see your brest get nacked
Comment by dj — July 18, 2009 @ 1:31 am
what rubish miley can’t do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by aashima — October 30, 2009 @ 9:45 am
i would like to say if she has realy done it then i think she has gone mad she has forgot her all morals i think we should teach her again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
Comment by bebo sethi — October 30, 2009 @ 9:51 am
i would like to say if she has realy done it then i think she has gone mad she has forgot her all morals i think we should teach her again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! love miley johnson
Comment by miley johnson — October 30, 2009 @ 9:56 am