Miley Cyrus: why is nobody defending art?
Filed under: Sex Sells
I'm not one to follow the travails of America's debutantes and their persecution by paparazzi. However, I have been puzzled by the brouhaha this week that has broken out over Hannah Montana's photos in Vanity Fair. The pics show Mily Cyrus, the actress/singer who portrays the television character, wrapped in a sheet, revealing considerably less skin than would be on display in a bikini.
What no-one seems to be discussing is that the photos were taken by photographer Anne Liebowitz, certainly the most renown and one of the most artistic of current-day photographers. She's not a sleaze-monger, and her photos of celebrities, many gracing the cover of Rolling Stone, are among the most praised of this art form.
I'm guessing this is another instance of the morality police, who wouldn't know art if you wrapped it around a brick and hit them between the eyes with it, dragging Joe Average into their sex-obsessed version of reality. The same people fantasize about taking a hammer to the package of Michelangelo's David.
Recent Posts
- Insurance Tip #2: You may not need long-term care insurance (9/06/2008)
- NJ may be the most stressed state (9/06/2008)
- Landscaping bargains abound in the fall (9/06/2008)
- Happy 10th birthday, Google, from a willing slave (9/06/2008)
- Insurance Tip #1: Your agent does not have to act in your best interest (9/06/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-05-2008 @ 2:35PM
chagrin66205 said...
Can I get an amen, somebody? The photograph is art and it is lovely. I don't really believe Miley Cyrus and her family are embarrassed by these pics; I am certain they are sorry the pics have caused such an uproar amongst the parents of her fan base. This is just one more reason Art (and Music and Philosophy) needs to be taught and encouraged in public schools.
Reply
5-05-2008 @ 3:08PM
Tracy Coenen said...
I dunno Tom. A child trying to look "sexy" wrapped in a sheet gives me the willies. I think they could have done art in a way that was not so suggestive, considering she is still a child. (But I blame her dad for allowing this to happen, not the magazine.)
Reply
5-06-2008 @ 9:36AM
Audio Guy said...
Can any of us recall being 15 or 16? Like it or not, this age group of young people is sexually mature. Why are we so outraged when we see them exploring or manifesting their own sexuality? She is no different after these pictures than she was before these pictures. While I will not share these photo's with my prepubescent children, my positive regard for the Cyrus family and Miley has not changed.
Reply
5-06-2008 @ 11:44AM
Tracy Coenen said...
Children of the age 15 or 16 are NOT "sexually mature." While they may be engaging in sex acts, they are in no way mature. They are children. Period. Children.
5-09-2008 @ 5:24AM
Carved Flotsam said...
Isn't someone finding something wrong in a picture a reflection of there own values rather than that of the picture. Some of the most beautiful art in existence is being classed as pornographic by people with seriously warped values. The world becomes a worse place when people look at wonderful family portraits and see something that is not there, is not intended to be there and is actually only there in the mind of the perverted one who had the thought in the first place.
The fact is that if you cannot look at something without having those thought then it is you that has the problem not the photographer or artist. Of course there will be those that do have this problem. But it is not up to me to solve that issue for them, nor is it up to me to ereadicate the world of art that might couse them to think in this way. Niether is it the responsibility of the well meaning, repressed public to do so either.
The issue may well be a deeper and more troubling one, is our education of our children actually forcing these warped values, are the adults of today being so brainwashed by the bad news seen everyday that they can no longer see beauty and love and can now only see ugliness and hate?
Tracey, it does not matter if Miley is sexually mature or not, some people wouldfind her sexually attractive dressed in a knit sweater and a pair of oily jeans, but that is not your problem, it is theirs.
I liked the picture with the sheet, it made her look vulnerable, it had a lovely quality to it, her face was clean, innocent and Annie managed to get her to relax totally.
and then I see crazy comments like, ''oh my god she was naked under the sheet'', doh! guess what, we are all naked under whatever we are wearing, and some of us even take off all of our clothes when we have a bath or shower!
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 1:55PM
Lori said...
I agree, if you see something wrong with the pictures, you are the one with the problem. Get your mind out of the gutter. Show some respect.
I only see a famous young girl trying to show who she is inside. That there is more to her than this person everyone see's on TV and at her concerts.
She was showing her soul, not her body. The photo was done with taste. There was a very soft, innocent glow to her that made me feel like she was opening her heart to us all through her eyes. Everything about the picture was about truth. NOT SEX!! Really people, get your mind out of the GUTTER! Let her be a teenager. YEAH, YEAH, DON'T EVEN SAY IT...."IF SHE DIDN'T DO STUFF LIKE THIS NO ONE WOULD BE SAYING ANYTHING"
WRONG!!!!! You people would ALWAYS find something somehow, somewhere to remark about.
Reply