Cut the crap. Cyrus and her family knew exactly what they were doing, and that is creating a controversy out of nothing in order to generate a billion dollars worth of free publicity. The mainstream media is going nuts about this, mainly because people must be bored with the Presidential race, as well as with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and people obviously are not concerned about $4 per gallon gas and skyrocketing food prices.
So what exactly is so offensive about the photos, which show the 15 year-old pop culture phenomenon draped in a sheet with her bare back turned to the camera, hair tousled and a demure come-hither look in her eye? Is it the fact that her back is bare? No, it can't be that, because there is nothing offensive or illegal about the nude human back in our culture for persons of any age or sex. Is it the look on her face? No, it can't be that, because there are countless photos of Cyrus out there with a pouty or provocative look on her face. Or is it the combination of the bare back with the sexy glare that is so offensive? No, that can't be it because if the photo of Cyrus had been taken on the beach with her in a bikini, there would have been more exposed skin.
What makes this photo such a sensation, such a scandal, is the fact that Cyrus has already apologized for the photos in advance of their publication, thus ensuring a sell-out at the newsstand, and a predictable media frenzy. Cyrus, her family, and her handlers have played the media and the gullible public like a harp from Hell.
Are the photos "illegal" as that one blogger claimed? Absolutely not. There is nothing illegal about photographing the nude human body, no matter the person's age. What is illegal is photographing a minor engaging in sexual acts. Courts have consistently upheld the works of Robert Mapplethorpe, Jock Sturges and Nan Goldin as being valid works of art, even though their work sometimes features nude children, and create controversy. There is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of many people about what is child pornography, and what is the artistic depiction of innocence and beauty.
And now Jamie Lee Curtis has chimed in on the whole manufactured affair.
Today's generation of performers have had to navigate the treacherous shoals of adolescence in full frontal viewberty of the peering voyeurism of the media and it's voyeuristic participants. We have watched them as they stumble out of the safety of childhood, not that being a professional actor as a child is safe, but that is another blog, into the glare of celebrity, rehab, prison, teen pregnancy and now this, a backless shot of a young girl. It was called "artistic'.More nonsense. Comparing the "backless" shot of a young girl with rehab and prison is further sensationalizing and publicizing the situation. And someone who is really deeply concerned about "voyeurism" shouldn't be in "show" business.
Anyone who just stands back and examines the photo can see that there is nothing wrong with what Annie Leibovitz calls a simple and beautiful image, but looking through the forest of false indignation, insincere apologies, corporate condemnations and public hysteria makes it hard to see the trees.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
9 comments:
Here here. Let's stop this nonsense before it gets started, please. Don't we have anything else to do in America than manufacture another "pop-tart"? Move along folks...there is nothing newsworthy in viewing Miley Cyrus' bare shoulder. The media seems shocked that Cyrus might actually be nude under her sheet. Nobody tell them that she's nude under her clothes too...
My thought on the bare shoulder: "Kid needs a sandwich"
"Bread and Circuses" nothing has changed in thousands of years.
I believe that it was the look in her eyes combined with the fact that she was always considered a "good girl".
Also, it was probably the sheet, which suggests she was naked in bed and someone comes into the scene that she feels the need to quickly cover up.
The line between something being "innocent" and "sexual" is so thin. I don't believe nudity alone makes something sexual. It takes certain poses, certain facial expressions, certain looks in the eye.
That is why I do believe for example Jock Sturges photos are so inappropriate. He dances on that thin line between "innocent" and "sexual" and indeed often falls off to the sexual side.
That said, it is concerning that the new definition of "nude"is bared back, but again I believe the sheet, and the implied bedroom nudity the sheet implied was the main problem here. That and the look in her eyes.
I hadn't heard of Nan Goldin so I pulled up some of her photos. Most of her photos of adults were sexual.
I only saw one photo of child nudity. Again it was the case as you find with so many of these photographers that it wasn't the nudity itself that tended to sexualize the photo but instead the pose.
Nudists shouldn't just leap to an artist defense just because they use nudity. Some photos regardless of the nudity are just offensive.
Sean, do a Google image search on Miley Cyrus and you will see that there are many images of her that are more "sexual" than the Leibovitz photo. On stage, Cyrus dresses in sexy outfits, struts provocatively, blows kisses and sticks her tongue out. Her red carpet photos show her in slinky backless dresses, and she looks like she's in her 20s with all the makeup. It's hard NOT to take a sexy photo of this girl. This brouhaha over the Vanity Fair photo is manufactured outrage. As for Sturges and Goldin, I am not necessarily defending their use of nudity, I am merely pointing out that the law has upheld their nude images of minors as not being pornographic. The point was to contrast the edginess of these photographers with the relative innocence of the Cyrus shot.
Could it be that Milly is so non-sexually minded that she doesn't realize the sexual impact of her struts, kisses, and sticking her tongue out?
I also saw the "lesbian kiss" photo she did with a friend. But looking at it in detail the two were eating licorice, one from each end and they had finished enough to meet in the center. No doubt you can make sexual connotations from that, but could it also be that Miley and her friend were merely being silly, and Miley didn't understand how people might perceive the photo?
I had always thought Billy Ray Cyrus to be a decent person. Perhaps that is why I am so inclined to give Miley the benefit of the doubt where I would probably not do the same for Lindsey Lohan(that and Lindsey has been known to have done some very clearly outrageous things).
But perhaps I have been deceived about Billy Ray and Miley. After all, I don't know them personally. So perhaps I am being too naive about them.
It seems like we live in an age where we can't afford to give people the benefit of the doubt, because the worse about them is often true. I was deceived by Michael Jackson after all. I really thought he wasn't sexually minded and didn't really understand why society would think it wrong sleeping in the same bed as children. Boy I was sure the fool there, so in the end perhaps I am also a fool about Billy Ray and his daughter Miley.
I believe what was so offensive about the photos was they were an attempt to Sexualize Miley.
Perhaps you are right in saying that Miley was sexualized long before the photoshoot but Vanity Fair is a popular magazine so it brought this to the attention of an larger or at the very least a different audience than those who are usually aware of the going ons of "Hannah Montana".
http://www.newstoob.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/miley_cyrus_not_pregnant1.jpg
Anna, take a look at the photo found at the above link. Miley is all made up, showing cleavage, and making a very sexy and provocative pose. At 15, she is between being a child and a young woman. Any photography of her is bound to be sexy, and, after all, she is in "show" business. It was Miley's pre-emptive "apology" for the photos, and Disney's subsequent condemnation of Vanity Fair, which propelled this into becoming a media controversy. I believe that this was all manipulative and planned as a publicity stunt. The other day Vanity Fair's web site crashed from all the people trying to see the photos. The mistake people make is thinking that actors are role models, when all they are doing is really selling themselves to a gullible public.
Perhaps in this increasingly sexualized society we live in many teenage girls honestly don't know the difference between being attractive and being sexy. They don't know the difference between being glamorous and being provocative. After all they are receiving so many mixed messages.
But then it raises the issue of where was her father in all of this? Why isn't he protecting her public image. Why hasn't he talked to her about the clothes she is wearing and how she is acting.
I must admit although I knew about Hannah Montana on TV I never took the time to look at photos of Miley Cyrus in public (after all why would I). I had thought that although of course she was in the Hollywood scene since her father was a country singer and many country singers are grounded and have strong principles, that Miley was a cut above the Lindsey Lohan type.
Well, looking at the pictures I guess I was wrong. I am totally disenchanted and I guess I should think the worst about everyone.
Billy Ray Cyrus is obviously not the man I thought he was. We really need to do something in our society about the sexualization of our kids. It is wrong and will just lead to more teen pregnancies and teen sexual diseases.
By the way, what has changed my opinion about Miley wasn't her "nude" photo but the one you showed me. It shows that it doesn't take nudity to sexualize a person.
Post a Comment