Is the Annie Leibovitz Photo of Miley Cyrus Immoral?

[Starfish]

Was the photo "immoral"? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't allow my daughter to do it, but others have different standards.

But taking it without the consent of her parents, and considering Miss Cyrus' discomfort with it, was wrong.

 

[lilithu]

What about her motives for having the picture taken? Are Miley and her family "exploiting" Vanity Fair for the purpose of getting a big fat check?

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that she got paid more for consenting to that pic than she would have been paid for just posing in a t-shirt and jeans??

This is a business deal, and the arrangement was obviously agreed by both contractors to be satisfactory to all involved.

Wow, that obviously makes everything ok then. :sarcastic

 

[Nessa Nenharma]

Absolutly this is an indecent photo. You have a half-naked CHILD covered by a sheet. This isn't just indecent, it makes me sick to think that someone would exploit a CHILD in this way. Should Miley appologize? << IMO it is the parents fault, period. She is underage and should never have been allowed to pose in this fashion. I don't care what her and Annie "discussed" ahead of time, there should have been a point at which a parent should have stepped in and said, "I don't think that is appopriate", or better yet "NO".:no:

 

[OutOfTime]

true that now let's ask Hannah Montanah's fans what they think about the pics:

Deluded preteen fluorescent adolescent girl: OMGZ! Miley looks lyk soooo hottt (that's hot with a triple t). She looks absolutely fab. And her skin's like so awesome isn't it? i wish my lips were as pretty as miley's and i wish i was a little controlled new world order and media clone. OMGZ she should totally do more photoshoots. I LUV U MILEY!!! XOXOXO You're the best blah effin lah

 

[PureX]

From what I heard, money had nothing to do with this photo. Miley is already making many millions of dollars a month and this photo shoot represents a tiny fraction of that, relatively. The reason she stayed past the regular photo shoot to do this particular photo was because the photographer was Annie Libovitz. Also, Miley's parents had left the shoot, as it was over. It was Miley who decided to stay and make this particular photo with Annie.

It was not done for the money. It was not done with her parents watching. It was done because Annie is a very famous photographer, and because Miley felt it was a rare and special opportunity to be photographed by such a famous photographer. Obviously, neither of them felt it was in any way pornographic at the time they made it. Only later, did Miley come to feel that it was not appropriate because she realized that she's a role model for other, younger girls.

 

[Alceste]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that she got paid more for consenting to that pic than she would have been paid for just posing in a t-shirt and jeans??

I dunno - so far nobody's brought up the actual details of the contract or acknowledged what was in it for Miley. (Apart from me.)

All this talk of her being used seems to side step the issue that she was handsomely paid for her efforts, and that any publicity is good publicity as far as her career is concerned.

Wow, that obviously makes everything ok then. :sarcastic

It makes it FAIR and NORMAL in the context of magazine publishing and modelling. If you're no OK with the whole issue of modelling in general I agree with you. It's bollox. But many of the models you see in the glossy mags are underage. Why single one person out as the focus of your criticism of an entire industry? It seems unfair to the girl. She hasn't done anything unusual for our culture. The only thing that makes her stand out is the Disney connection, and if you really want to know I think Disney does more damage to young minds than a photograph of a girl's back ever could. Did you see the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe? Gah! The horror!

 

[Nessa Nenharma]

It was not done with her parents watching. It was done because Annie is a very famous photographer, and because Miley felt it was a rare and special opportunity to be photographed by such a famous photographer. Obviously, neither of them felt it was in any way pornographic at the time they made it. Only later, did Miley come to feel that it was not appropriate because she realized that she's a role model for other, younger girls.

I still lay the blame at the parents, they should have stipulated that the pictures taken should be viewed BEFORE being used. So while the parents might not be there, they are still responsible for their child.

Blessed Be

Nessa

 

[Scuba Pete]

I still lay the blame at the parents,

Yes, yes blame the parents. It's their fault that they have a beautiful daughter and that people want to see pictures of her! I still think that there is nothing sexual here. I must say that I see FAR more skin on the average dive boat and during my classes where I routinely teach 14 year old girls.

 

[lilithu]

I still lay the blame at the parents, they should have stipulated that the pictures taken should be viewed BEFORE being used. So while the parents might not be there, they are still responsible for their child.

Miley's father was there for the beginning of the shoot. I think he was too busy advancing himself to pay attention to protecting his daughter. What do you think of this photo?

 

[lilithu]

Yes, yes blame the parents. It's their fault that they have a beautiful daughter and that people want to see pictures of her! I still think that there is nothing sexual here. I must say that I see FAR more skin on the average dive boat and during my classes where I routinely teach 14 year old girls.

It is not the quantity of exposed skin that is at issue. Do you honestly think that no one gave any thought to how that photo published in Vanity Fair would increase sales? Honestly? And if they were thinking of increasing sales, then why would that be if there is "nothing sexual here"?

 

[Magic Man]

Miley's father was there for the beginning of the shoot. I think he was too busy advancing himself to pay attention to protecting his daughter. What do you think of this photo?

Somebody posted that in this thread a few pages back. I don't see anything wrong with that either. As some would say, art only reflects what you bring to it. I don't see anything wrong with either photo, but I'm not looking for something wrong. In the one in the link, it's a fully-clothed father and daughter lounging around together with no sexual implications, unless that's what you want to read into it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why is there such a big deal about this portrait?

Do we get equally upset when 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17 year olds are walking around at the beach or public pool with a two piece bathing suit on?

 

[Alceste]

It is not the quantity of exposed skin that is at issue. Do you honestly think that no one gave any thought to how that photo published in Vanity Fair would increase sales? Honestly? And if they were thinking of increasing sales, then why would that be if there is "nothing sexual here"?

Isn't it at least possible the editors put more thought into standard editorial considerations? Like, for example, whether it fit in with the image and content, whether it could be associated with a "punchy" headline, whether it was consistent with the atmosphere in the interview associated with the photo (assuming there was one)... you know, things editors of successful publications must think about, which I suspect are more complex than "hey I bet we'd sell a lot of magazines if we could just get a photo of Miley Cyrus' exposed back and stick it in somewhere!"

 

[lilithu]

I dunno - so far nobody's brought up the actual details of the contract or acknowledged what was in it for Miley. (Apart from me.)

All this talk of her being used seems to side step the issue that she was handsomely paid for her efforts, and that any publicity is good publicity as far as her career is concerned.

No, it doesn't. If she would have been paid the same amount regardless, which I'm sure is the case or else the parents wouldn't be able to say they didn't know, then her paycheck is irrelevant to the point.

It makes it FAIR and NORMAL in the context of magazine publishing and modelling.

Since when has normal ever been an adequate justification of ethics??! You're argument seems to be "People do this all the time." So what?

 

[lilithu]

Isn't it at least possible the editors put more thought into standard editorial considerations? Like, for example, whether it fit in with the image and content, whether it could be associated with a "punchy" headline, whether it was consistent with the atmosphere in the interview associated with the photo (assuming there was one)... you know, things editors of successful publications must think about, which I suspect are more complex than "hey I bet we'd sell a lot of magazines if we could just get a photo of Miley Cyrus' exposed back and stick it in somewhere!"

So you honestly think that it didn't even cross their minds that a backless Miley with tousled hair and a satin sheet would increase sales?

 

[Alceste]

So you honestly think that it didn't even cross their minds that a backless Miley with tousled hair and a satin sheet would increase sales?

I'm only suggesting you don't know what they were thinking. That's why I asked if you thought it might be possible their jobs might be more complex than simply putting as much young skin onto as many pages as possible.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Actually, what if she were bare-backed, hair tousled, and pregnant?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It is not the quantity of exposed skin that is at issue. Do you honestly think that no one gave any thought to how that photo published in Vanity Fair would increase sales? Honestly? And if they were thinking of increasing sales, then why would that be if there is "nothing sexual here"?

Are you suggesting that they should only use photographs that would DECREASE sales? Hmmmmnnnn... there's a concept. I don't understand why a bare back SCREAMS sexuality to everyone! It certainly doesn't make me want to lust after her (even though I am an old fat man as some would indicate) or to remove that sheet with mind.

Heck, I don't have a problem with that picture of her and her father! You might be appalled at that amount of physical intimacy between daughter and father, but I think it's GREAT! They shouldn't be afraid of showing affection and I certainly don't see it as being sexual in nature.

 

[lilithu]

Are you suggesting that they should only use photographs that would DECREASE sales? Hmmmmnnnn... there's a concept.

I am suggesting that they should not use the sexualization of 15 year old girls in order to increase sales.

 

[lilithu]

Actually, what if she were bare-backed, hair tousled, and pregnant?

Is Jamie Lynn Spears available for a photo shoot?