This is "about" idiots with a five-second attention span, pavlovian creatures barking for the newest drug, and a media spin cycle that needs new stories every ten minutes to stay alive. It's also about a society in which too many people have no brains at all because they watch Fox -- TV or News. It's about a country in which ten year old girls are routinely dressed up like prostitutes and displayed naked or nearly for the sexual fantasy and pleasure of men who are incapable of having relationships with grown up women. It is about parents who cannot decide between what the popular media says is right (sell your 13-year-old now while she's still marketable), and what they know in their guts is right.
The photos were simply beautiful pictures. No one except a pervert would think otherwise. There are so many perverts in the right-wing, packing the right-wing churches, that they can turn something beautiful into a scandal. That's what this is about.
Miley Cyrus: The Truth Is Unbearable
We are at war. Gas prices are at record highs. There are food shortages, a credit crisis, the financial markets are in hell and we are about to enter a recession. So, it makes total sense that Annie Liebovitz's photographs of Miley Cyrus are front-page news. The rumor mill is running at 100% capacity and the blogosphere is replete with pundits and self-proclaimed experts foretelling the end of Miley's business relationship with Disney. It's Cyrusgate! A scandal. Everyone is outraged!
First of all, Disney is not kicking a multi-million-dollar franchise to the curb any time soon. Miley Cyrus is a "big" star by any measure and she is a massive cash cow for ABC/Disney. Money talks, so you can absolutely ignore anyone who is floating rumors about a Cyrus/Disney split. (BTW: Miley, if by some bizarre, cosmic shift in reality, the Disney guys actually want to cut you loose, I'll be happy to pick up your contract right now, no questions asked.) If Selena Gomez's star is rising, it will do so on its own. She is not going to replace Miley Cyrus. If anything, programming execs will try to spin her off as a separate asset. Remember, Cyrus is a proven earner, Gomez is not.
Of course, Cyrusgate could just be a massive publicity stunt. Vanity Fair could really use the boost in circulation and there's nothing like a controversy to drive sales. But, I don't think anyone in marketing at Vanity Fair is that smart. (No offense). Disney's corporate governance is set up to prevent individual executives from intentionally packaging this kind of scandal, and truth be told, they don't really need this kind of PR. Miley doesn't need this kind of PR either, she is already overexposed (no pun intended).
So what is this really about? Let's review:
Love her or hate her, Annie Liebovitz's art cannot be ignored. She is a gifted photographer with a unique, highly recognizable style. Like all art, Ms. Liebovitz's work is a reflection of the society from which it emerges. It is not her job to create culture, it is her job to observe it, feel it and use her creativity to help us see and feel it too. Her photographs are not just "artistic," they are art, as they show us who we are.
As a professional photographer, Ms. Leibovitz is used to directing her subjects. She composes each shot and communicates with the on-camera talent much the same way a television or motion picture director would.
Miley Cyrus is a 15-year-old professional actress. She is in the business of taking direction from professional directors. It is how she makes a living. She doesn't write her show, she doesn't choose her camera angles, her costumes, her make-up or anything else about the Hanna Montana character. She is directed by various adult professionals who have made her a superstar.
So, when Annie Liebovitz (arguably one of the most famous photographers in the world) tells a 15-year-old professional actress how to pose, you can bet she is going to do as she's told.
That's the whole story. Now, let's add the narrative.
People are all bent out of shape about the "semi-nude," seductive picture of Miley Cyrus. As if somehow this photograph defiles this supposedly clean-cut, virginal 15-year-old role model/icon. If you look at it closely, you can argue that her expression is anything you want it to be. Put your fingers across the photograph to cover her body and if you look only at her face, she could be thinking or doing anything. It is non-descript in the extreme. Her back is bare. So what? Anybody with a long lens could catch a much more disturbing picture of her in a bikini at the beach.
The truth is, that none of my interpretation matters. The only thing that matters is what you think! What does this image say to you? Whatever it is - you are right. And, more importantly, you are entitled to your feelings and they are valid. That's what makes Annie Liebovitz an artist as opposed to a Paparazzi. She can evoke emotions from you that are under her control.
Now, if you don't like what you see. You have only yourself to blame. By this, I mean you have only our culture to blame. If you think that this particular 15-year-old is not exhibiting behaviors that are appropriate for her age, don't blame the artist or the subject. In fact, don't blame anyone - just go fix it. Are our children exposed to too much adult content at too early an age? Are they striving to live faster than we would like? Do you feel it is inappropriate for tweens to dress like young adults? If so, then fix it one child at a time. You can start right in your own house. But don't blame the artist or the artist's subject. They are simply a reflection of who we are and what we are doing.
Of course, the so-called, "semi-nude" picture was not the only picture that caused a controversy. There's this very nice father-daughter portrait. (In truth, this one makes me a little bit uncomfortable.) Billy Ray and Miley look a bit like, em, err ... well - they don't look like they're in a father/daughter kind of pose here. So much for the "her dad had already left the photo shoot when the 'controversial' shots were taken" theory. If you were Billy Ray, and Annie Leibovitz (with camera in hand) told you to "lean back on one arm, put the other arm around your daughter and look out into the distance" you'd have followed directions too.
In conclusion, I must remind everyone that there is not one single consumer in the Hanna Montana universe who reads Vanity Fair, or at least there wasn't until now.
Shelly Palmer is Managing Director of Advanced Media Ventures Group LLC and the author of Television Disrupted: The Transition from Network to Networked TV (2006, Focal Press). Shelly is also President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NY (the organization that bestows the coveted Emmy® Awards). He is the Vice-Chairman of the National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences an organization dedicated to education and leadership in the areas of technology, media and entertainment. Palmer also oversees the Advanced Media Technology Emmy® Awards which honors outstanding achievements in the science and technology of advanced media. You can read Shelly's blog here. Shelly can be reached at shelly@palmer.net
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
At a rock concert all the girls scream and want 20 minutes with the guy on stage, right?
IS this because girls just are that way? Or is it because the front row at the concert is planted there to incite the crowd? Do our children take drugs because of their parents, or is it because drug use is glamorized in movies?
The idea here is that the markets do not educe behavior but reflect it - give you what you are interested in. It is a free art, and there is no company liability for anything you see you do not like. IF you see something you do not like, it is YOUR OWN FAULT, because you looked at it.
This has completely overlooked Miley's personal campaign of self-promotion and the sort of image she wished to project. IT also overlooks that Disney does not mind pushing pedophile images, and this marketing groups here says that is our own fault.
People smoke cigars although they are obnoxious, and taste bad. If Hollywood smokes cigars on TV, more people smoke cigars. Just because a commodity is pushed does not mean it should.
I thought this was PR for the media and Miley, but it is far worse. We are being told that the media have no responsibilty whatsoever, for anything they do. It hurts their bottom line to think any other way, so Joe Public, screw yourself if you do not like it.
Do teenage girls get pregnant? Is it their own fault? I think Disney should setup a fund, to help out unwed teenage mothers - just to show they are parents also.
You're right on one point, to quote, "None of my interpretation matters." And you're right, what matters is what is our interpretation, and by "our" you must mean, the target audience, and they will think that they'd better go along with their daughter when they go to see Ms C's latest bit of fluff which whithout this bogus controversy of the kind only wahabists and puritans could find in the least bit controversial, would go directly to video following a short and mostly un-noticed release.
The controversy itself tells us just how hyperextended the sex-negative nerve is in certain segments of the population, and little else, except that by stimulating it one can be guaranteed a boost in awareness which translates in this case as in so many others, as a huge increase in profit...and so, it's all good, no?
HuffPost's Pick
When tween pinups get older so do the tweens who worship them. Therefore since the fan base become more interested in sex as they become teens the star has to provide sex appeal to keep her fanbase. Look at the history of Britney and Christina, Hilary Duff and Ashley Simpson, Vanessa Hudgens from 'High School Musical'. etc. What they do is change their image from innocence to sexy when their fanbase become teenagers. Their fanbase no longer is interested in Disney innocence and want what teenagers want i.e sex, drugs and rock and roll. So the tween star image has to change in order to keep her fans. It is very calculated and micromanaged.
Of course, right down to when that shot was planned, taken and distributed. Pure top-level commercial design and photography and brand management masquerading as art.
I simply cannot believe the bluenoses on this site. Sexual? An "incestuous" looking pose with her dad?
The only thing I see that is sick is those idiots who think there is anything remotely sick about this.
. I've also found that those who see naughty things everywhere are the same one who actually do find naughty things in places like AIRPORT BATHROOM, CONGRESSIONAL PAGES, etc.
You people need to get a life and quit trying to find naughty things everywhere you look
Thank you for saying something sensible.
I've heard somewhere that pornography, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Some of you folks need to get a life.
qft, as the kids say.
The folks who angry over these types of pictures typically are the same ones turned on by them
Mr. Palmer, I don't understand your title. What "truth" is unbearable?
The fact that the dirt is in us. That's the unbearable truth. I looked at the bedclothes pic, saw a teen girl in bed waking up, nothing sexual. I looked at the father-daughter pic for the first time right here, and found it, uh, hmm... So it's subjective. And it's complex, the individual reaction. My mind goes: Why the bare mid-riff in the dad shot? Why is he staring off, away from his kid? Why does she look so dark and almost angry? Because I'm projecting onto it the same personal feelings people have projected onto the other photos.
The problem isn't the pictures folks.
The problem is that Americas puritan roots keep showing and the sexual oppression keeps us looking at everything in a sexual light.
Someone once said "Reality, what a concept."
The idea that reality is a definable constant,
seems to the cause of most of our grief.
The greatest stumbling block in the path of our species growth
is the inability(refusal) to take a step sideways and view
anything from a slightly different angle(reality).
To call Annie Liebovitz an artist, not a paparazzi, is distorting things. She is like Miley Cyrus, a brand. She has used her considerable marketing skills to grow that brand for many years. Cyrus on the other hand, has little if any experience doing that. The real crime is not Liebovitz taking a pretty mediocre photo which she has taken in the past (see photo of Diana Ross), but the fact that Disney is reaping huge profits by exploiting teens such as Cyrus and then crying foul when things don't go their way. Kettle black, anyone?
Annie A Paparazzi?
Are you serious?
Have you EVER seen her running down the street harassing a celebrity? Screaming their name at a red carpet event?
How about this, oh clueless one, celebrities SEEK HERE OUT FOR PRIVATE PHOTO SHOOTS. Corporations hire her, countries even hire her.
So to put her in the same classless arena of papaRATzis is just beyond the pale.
This entire event is a non issue that some rightwing puritanical nutjobs got all bent out of shape about.
I just love when people put a whole hierarchy to any profession. It just shows how elitist they really are. A salesman is a salesman, they could be selling shoes, used cars or billion dollar B-1 bombers. Same thing in photography. Annie Liebovitz an artist? You'll find more photos in collections of museums from the newspaper photographer Weegee, a guy that ran down the street chasing his subjects than Ms. Lievbovitz, who although has Fortune 500 companies lining up to pay her, has no cred in the art world. Just because you get paid the big bucks doesn't really account for a lot, Paris HIlton and Lindsay Lohan get paid more for their acting skills than most SAG members, but are they accomplished actors? So how about knocking people like Liebovitz off their pedestal and not look so down on paparazzi. The fact that Miley Cyrus is the focus of this article, should give everyone pause to even think of making judgements on the merits of anyone. I mean, really???
The photo of Mylie Cyrus back looks classical, not trashy. It's not really provocative by the standards of any civilized country, which the U.S. is not.
The photo of her with her dad is definitely not suggestive to me. Billy Ray Cyrus is a decent guy who loves his daughter. All I see in that photo is emotion, nothing the least bit sexual.
The difference between them and many other people is that they're both socially confident, physically confident, and they're not going to treat each other like lepers just because they're of the opposite gender.
I think these photos are serving as a Rorschach test. If you see sex everywhere you look, it may have more to do with you than what you're looking at.
I think this story is on the front page because we, as a society, need to have this discussion. Children ARE being sexualized, and it contributes mightily to the fact that crimes against children are rampant. Whether parents just go along with something kids want because they are copying what they see on TV and all other media, or it's being pushed on them by troubled parents (Jon Benet Ramsey, Lindsay Lohan, all the way back to Brooke Shields), it's happening and it needs to be examined.
Shelly Palmer makes some good points here, most notably, "If you think that this particular 15-year-old is not exhibiting behaviors that are appropriate for her age, don't blame the artist or the subject. In fact, don't blame anyone - just go fix it. ... You can start right in your own house." I think he's also correct in his observation that Annie Liebovitz is creating "a reflection of who we are and what we are doing" (the same could be said of Vanity Fair magazine).
I also applaud PatA's observations about Ms. Cyrus' father. He can spin this any way he wants to. He's wrong and it's in the picture.
I'm sure she didn't have any problems with the pictures until she got some negative feedback. Then suddenly she had to deny and excuse and make it someone else's fault to save her image.
Mountain out of a molehill. I just don't see any problems with these pictures. Then again, I guess that means I'm not some narrow-minded sexually repressed pervert.
It doesn't hurt me too much for some one here to say something like "narrow-minded sexually repressed pervert". I just cannot accept the idea of sexually exploiting someone, anyone, of 15 years. Personally, I can accept just about anything that two or more adults want to do, as long as everyone is consenting, and noone gets hurt. BUT, minors usually do not have the maturity to know what they are getting themselves into, and adults shouldn't be getting rich at their expense. I will not condone the sexual exploitation of minors, whether it is for personal gratification, for fame, or for money. Some things are not only disgusting, but inherently harmful to the minors, and intentionally posing children and/or teenagers as sex objects is one such thing.
My English is far from perfect, but I think you can get the idea of how I feel.
the thing is...what message does this send to girls her age...and i guarantee that the rationalization will be: "well if Miley did it then..."...anyone who has a teenage daughter knows that little impetus is required to seek to follow "the crowd" or succumb to peer pressure...couple that with the decreasing amount of parenting time/supervision in two-worker households and you can see where this goes...men need little incentive to lust after the opposite sex and with underage girls seeking to look, act and feel older, they can become easy prey for less than savory types...i sense an ulterior motive to this...it is not as benign as it appears...
Mamacat is dead on. Teenagehood is already fraught with enough dangers without a "role model" and her family contributing to and participating in a portrait that has such heavy sexual overtones.
For the father to agree to take the pose of "lover/lover" with his daughter/daughter is simply outrageous! What message did he think he was sending to his daughter and the daughters and sons all across the world? That it is okay to pose in a provocative manner with your daughter?? It is not appropriate.
And if BRC is trying to get his "15 minutes" of fame, I will award him the "Father of Shame" award......from Central Texas.
So, Disney hires this kid and makes her into a star, with help from others. She gets lots of attention and makes lots of money. Where in all of this does it say that she has to be a role model? Get a clue, stars are icons, not role models.
And I'm sorry, but if you see two lovers in that picture you were looking for any excuse to see anything that might be scandalous. There is nothing overtly sexual in the picture... meaning if you see sex you have the problem in your brain, not them.
I really have to laugh at all the right-wing crybabies. Here they have one of the best opportunities to teach their kids their values by showing how even an ICON like Cyrus can do something they think is wrong. Instead, they are so diseased by Victorian sexual mores that they think the next picture will be with Miley facing the other way!
Also from Central Texas....
For me, this was about the exploitation of a 15 year old girl. Sexually suggestive photos of someone so young are inappropriate, if not illegal, in our culture. When we decide that it is OK to show sexual photos of children and young people of 15, then we are saying that it is OK to think of them as sex objects. I thoroughly disapprove. People her age should be trying to go to school, to learn about the world, to learn what it is to be an adult.
The young woman should not have been exploited in this way.
I agree with mamacat. The photo was provocative and exploitative. There were a million other possible photos of Miley that Annie and Vantiy Fair could have taken. They chose to go with this one. The fact that some people think it's art is not an excuse. If that were the case, as Palmer asserts, then many types of illegal inappropriate behavior could be gotten away with on the grounds that the perpetrators think they are "artistic". Adults are supposed to know better. They are supposed to protect teens not exploit them. That is what society is all about. So Palmer is wrong. The fault is not in ourselves here. It is in Annie and Vanity Fair for their conduct. Ultimately, someone has to be responsible. To pose an extreme hypothetical--if a 35 year old man has an affair with his 15 year old student, would Palmer think that such an act is the fault of society as well?
So, what is a good way to exploit a 15 year-old girl?
Maybe Liebovitz could have kept it real by having 15 y.o. Miley pose in a school uniform?? And maybe they could have had her bent over Billy Ray's lap and recieving a spanking? Who could argue with that, it's a common occurrence in most families? As long as Billy looks stern and Miley is crying then no-one could accuse them of posing provocatively then, huh?
Loading comments…
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving...
I've read the comments. I know what some of you think. Yawn. It's not a story. He's not...
Posted May 5, 2008 | 09:41 AM (EST)