# Semi topless underage pics by Vanity Fair



## Heck

I like to see where this story goes. If It were any of us taking "Art" Photos of a 15 year old how long before we get put in jail or sued, But I'm not Annie Leibovitz and don't shoot for Vanity Fair. Then again maybe there is no victim here other than Disney Channel. 

Story here:
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/04/61009/index.html


----------



## JIP

With all the people that surrounded her on the day of the shoot if someone thought this was going badly I think they could have pulled the plug in a second before the shots were ever published.  To criticise the photographer when everyone involved had every opportunity to see the images instantly is a dangerous game.  I think if they did not want these kinds of images done they should not have agreed to them in the first place.  I get the feeling this was some kind of grab at mabye tarting up her image or something that has gone terribly wrong.


----------



## Mike_E

Too early to tell, could just be hype.


----------



## Rick Waldroup

This apology of hers has to be coming directly from Disney.  C'mon, she knew what she was doing, her parents and handlers knew what she was doing and so on.  Disney has to protect that so-called squeaky clean image, don't you know.


----------



## abraxas

check out the 'cleave' on the photo in the article.


----------



## JimmyO

Is it me or does anyone else think that picture isnt very raunchy at all?


----------



## Harmony

The picture above the article is not the one mentioned in the article itself...


----------



## JimmyO

ohhh
gotcha


----------



## Harmony

Photo Here


----------



## eravedesigns

I think thats an amazing shot and artistic. It makes her look older and maybe thats why I find it ok.


----------



## usayit

Rick Waldroup said:


> This apology of hers has to be coming directly from Disney.  C'mon, she knew what she was doing, her parents and handlers knew what she was doing and so on.  Disney has to protect that so-called squeaky clean image, don't you know.



Exactly... Publicity is publicity and usually is good for a budding celebrity.  Simply put.. sex sells... and they are in show business.  Tt is easier to ask for forgiveness than get permission.  

How "raunchy" those pictures are will greatly depend on the beholder's upbringing, environment and culture.  

Personally.. I don't like what they are stooping to.  I don't like the message it sends out to millions of very young fans. The parents, handlers, guardians were there and knew exactly what photos were being shot... it was all about $$$, status and image.

As a photo in of itself.... I do think it is nicely done.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

You see a five-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and no-one cares.
You see a twenty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you admire her.
You see an eighty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you wish she'd put some clothes on.
But if a fourteen-year-old takes her top off then everyone starts worrying that it's a criminal offense.
You humans are strange.


----------



## Iron Flatline

I am fascinated by the fact that there are people in America who are professional alarmists about this kind of thing. In Europe and Asia this would bother no one. But then again (as usayit and others have already pointed out) it is simply Disney preemptively protecting an asset. Maybe even they are underestimating the American public, and no one seriously thinks this is a big deal.


----------



## abraxas

Controversy sells.  This is a lesson in promotion.  There is no such thing as bad publicity.


----------



## ScottS

eravedesigns said:


> I think thats an amazing shot and artistic. It makes her look older and maybe thats why I find it ok.


 
I agree, its a beautiful photograph. I find nothing raunchy about it.


----------



## Alex_B

Hertz van Rental said:


> You see a five-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and no-one cares.
> You see a twenty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you admire her.
> You see an eighty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you wish she'd put some clothes on.
> But if a fourteen-year-old takes her top off then everyone starts worrying that it's a criminal offense.
> You humans are strange.



Well said!


----------



## LaFoto

Iron Flatline said:


> In Europe and Asia this would bother no one.


 
This is what I was thinking.
I mean: what does she reveal? Nothing at all. Why the craze?
(Yes, I guess all those who say it is yet another promotion trick being pulled by the Disney Corporation are right).


----------



## Garbz

I am personally sick of people crying foul every time someone is seen without a shirt or what not. Some people say it's a fine line. I personally don't think it is at all.

If an image is designed to impose an erotic response in the viewer it is porn. If not it is art. To photography her fully nude in that position is not porn. To photograph her fully nude from the front is not porn if it is done right. But photograph someone with legs spread, or clearly aroused (erect nipples or other appendages) that THAT is porn in my eyes.

The over conservative people are setting art back many years. They should take a walk through an art gallery one day and find out just how many nude women and children are featured in classic portraits.

I vote the original article as the biggest non issue the news has published all year. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to get back to reading about the lost puppies and rescued kittens in my local tabloid.


----------



## usayit

Alex_B said:


> Well said!



Yes well said....  But here is the difference (or perhaps its just me... background, environment, and culture)

Young toddlers running around in bathing suits are not suggesting anything in regards to "sex" sells.... they don't have fans that revere them.    

Young adolescents running around in bathing suits are also not suggesting anything.  They are not in the spotlight in those bathing suits.  They are not in the context of increasing their popularity, fame, and bank account.  

This young "superstar" in those pictures is being featured in a magazine.  She is in a different context than those running around on the beach.

It is not the amount of skin that does bother me a bit... It is the context of which the pictures are being done.  I think it is very easy for a young immature mind to infer that sexuality sells IS the TOOL for getting anywhere in life... why? ..  hey it worked for Britney and now Miley.  My young niece, who is a big fan of Miley, is going through a tough adjustment period at this time... things like this will just add to the complication.  The good news is that she doesn't read Vanity Fair.

Now if these photos appeared in a fine art book, I wouldn't give it a second thought... it is a nice photo.  BUT.. you'd be fooling yourself into believing that those photos to be printed in Vanity Fair were done for the sake of photographic Art.  They were done for sales and $$$.


----------



## usayit

Garbz said:


> If an image is designed to impose an erotic response in the viewer it is porn.



Here is where I also don't agree.  I don't find an image designed to impose an erotic response in the viewer as porn.  A nude woman in a sexy pose doesn't invoke that response in you??? What is the difference of a nude Miley not showing anything (like in that photo) and a young teen being depicted in sexual intercourse with everything covered??   If you put that same photo in a spread on a young teen porn magazine, I bet you all would have a problem with it.

For me.. it is not all about the photo or the amount of skin... it is a combination of various things including the context of which the photo is being published.


----------



## Iron Flatline

I think the image has no sexual overtone. It does not even suggest a willingness to drop the blanket, nor a defensiveness. If anything, it suggests an innocence of young love, the way a boy might see his girlfriend. Of course, if you believe two 15 - 16 year olds should not be having sex, that is a cultural issue. I certainly was not opposed to it when I was having first true love sex at that age. I think it is a beautiful image. I think this situation truly speaks more about the beholder than the subject.


I love the colors, the washed out desaturated light, coupled with her soft face makes me think of Dutch master paintings.


----------



## Alex_B

usayit said:


> Young toddlers running around in bathing suits are not suggesting anything in regards to "sex" sells.... they don't have fans that revere them.
> 
> I am afraid there are "fans" of that ... but I agree that it is people with mental problems, but they exist. I was rather shocked myself when I first learned so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photographic Art.  They were done for sales and $$$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree here ... in that sense everything that is done for sales is porn anyway in a way. If it is well made in an artsy respect, but done for $$$, then it is prostitution of fine arts ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hertz van Rental

usayit said:


> But here is the difference (or perhaps its just me... background, environment, and culture).....This young "superstar" in those pictures is being featured in a magazine.  She is in a different context than those running around on the beach.



And what sort of magazine is it?
_Tits And Bums Weekly_?
No, it's for _Vanity Fair_ - an up-market fashion magazine.
All in all a somewhat better context than the beach, I think. So any sexual connotations can only be in the mind of the viewer


----------



## Mystwalker

I'm assuming there was consent - pretty sure there was if it's for Vanity Fair.

If anyone is to be flogged it should be the parent/s for consenting.

Lastly, what the heck is Vanity Fair thinking?  Are they trying to increase teenage boys who subscribe?


----------



## Alex_B

well, models are about her age ...
 maybe one up to 4 years older only.

but i won't open that can of worms now


----------



## Big Mike

> I am fascinated by the fact that there are people in America who are professional alarmists about this kind of thing. In Europe and Asia this would bother no one.


Amen.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

It's even more intriguing that a Nation that gets all worked up about a teen baring a bit of flesh finds this OK.
Personally, I know which one I find the more unacceptable.


----------



## Antarctican

^^^ So true*.

Given the fact at least one parent was present, the reputation of the photographer, the fact the pose does not reveal any naughty bits and isn't (overtly) exploitive, it's all a tempest in a teapot IMHO.



*I found the sidebar at that site hilarious: "_Mail In Beauty Pageant
Win a Guaranteed State Title. Enter now to win this Beautiful Crown and Monogram Banner!"_


----------



## Heck

I guess the plan is to strike while the iron is hot. Make her look older and get a few movie roles before shes turns into a has been at the old age of 18 lol. Looking at the photo now It's not so bad but I see no good reason other than selling sex with a 15 year old. There's a million ways to shoot beautiful photos of her and not go for the sexy porn look. I say they all guilty of greed.


----------



## usayit

Hertz van Rental said:


> No, it's for _Vanity Fair_ - an up-market fashion magazine.



and what is so freakin fashionable about nudes?  I don't see a blanket a fashionable item unless we are now talking about togas. 

This isn't about a celebration of youth, beauty, and innocence, it is about sex sells and a celebration of how well it sells.  This is about exploiting (the photo and model) to further a career, sales, marketing, and cover.  

Again... I think the photo is wonderful and worthy of being framed on a gallery wall.  It is the context and how it is being used.



Put a Camel cigarette's logo on the bottom corner and make posters.....


----------



## Hertz van Rental

usayit said:


> and what is so freakin fashionable about nudes?  I don't see a blanket a fashionable item unless we are now talking about togas.
> 
> This isn't about a celebration of youth, beauty, and innocence, it is about sex sells and a celebration of how well it sells.  This is about exploiting it to further a career, sales, marketing, and cover.
> 
> Again... I think the photo is wonderful and worthy of being framed on a gallery wall.  It is the context and how it is being used.



I was talking about context.
You were saying that topless on the beach is one thing, but topless in a magazine is something else.
I merely pointed out that the magazine was a respected up-market publication and not a sleazy **** mag. If the choice of context makes a difference to what is or is not acceptable then you must allow that the type of magazine the pictures appear in must also make a difference.
You can't have it both ways.
I also fail to see why you have a problem with exploitation for gain.
All human endeavor is exploitation of one kind or another. And advertising, publicity and fame is exploitation in the purest sense. The model is every bit as guilty of it as the magazine, her parents and Disney. 
By agreeing to the shoot she demonstrates that she is quite happy to exploit her fame to make money - she would have been well paid for the shoot.
The magazine has to get this money from somewhere and this incident will no doubt boost sales (and raise her media profile at the same time).
So who is exploiting whom?


----------



## abraxas

Hertz van Rental said:


> It's even more intriguing that a Nation that gets all worked up about a teen baring a bit of flesh finds this OK.
> Personally, I know which one I find the more unacceptable.



Our misery is that obvious??


----------



## Iron Flatline

Heck said:


> Looking at the photo now It's not so bad but I see no good reason other than selling sex with a 15 year old. There's a million ways to shoot beautiful photos of her and not go for the sexy porn look. I say they all guilty of greed.


Well, _that's_ where we differ. I don't see SEX when I look at that picture.


----------



## Alex_B

ok, i just checked how said girl usually dresses ... I must say, she has been shown in poses which were much more sexy and aggressive (ok, with more clothing, but nudity does not define aggressive sexuality) than this rather innocent image which is being discussed here.

Sex sells, but that seems to be part of her whole appearance in the media.
 So discussion here is really about nudity, not about porn/exploitation.


----------



## Big Mike

We must remember that for a viewer to see or interpret that an image is 'sexy' or 'pornography'....part of that must come from the viewer themselves.

One person can look at a nude image and be only concerned with the composition, lighting, form and expression.  Another person can look at it and think that it's nothing but smut.  

The problem (as I see it) is that the people who take the most offense from such images...are the ones who complain the loudest.  (and they tend to be the ones who complain the most about anything).  

As mentioned...in some parts of the world, it's not uncommon to see actual nudity in main stream commercials/advertisements.  But in other parts of the world, a one second glimpse of a nipple will be headline news for weeks on end.  :roll:


----------



## Alex_B

Big Mike said:


> But in other parts of the world, a one second glimpse of a nipple will be headline news for weeks on end.  :roll:



Really ?

What would they say about German FKK ... quite well established nudism, all ages included, from 1 to 100 years.

Does that make many Germans criminals in other countries?


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Alex_B said:


> Does that make many Germans criminals in other countries?



:taped sh:




:lmao:


----------



## usayit

I was always under the impression that FKK clubs were still limited by an age restriction.


----------



## Alex_B

what do you mean by _still _limited, in general there never was a real limit. 

Without your parents' consent you cannot become a member in an FKK club, that is true.


----------



## JerryPH

Bah, its all a very transparent marketing ploy.

News sells and marketing sells. This is all free publcity.

Who was it that said that even bad publicity was GOOD publicity? Thats what they are playing here.

The picture I do not find very provocative... and in fact, I find the picture heavily OVER processed and lacking because of this.

THIS picture I find more pleasing than the final product tha everyone is yelling and sceaming about.  At least here her skin tone doesn't make her look like an Andorian from star trek... lol


----------



## kundalini

Geez.  I read all the comments before seeing the photo in question (why I don't know) but there is certainly a fair share of anal retentiveness within this thread for *that particular* *photo*.

It is an outstanding photo.

IMO, if someone views this as deviant, then there're surely some bones in the closet.


----------



## Alpha

Gorgeous shot.

If you're offended in any way by the photo or the context, do yourself a favor and go eat a rare steak while getting laid and reading The Genealogy of Morals.


----------



## John_Olexa

JimmyO said:


> Is it me or does anyone else think that picture isnt very raunchy at all?


 
I agree. I love the shot!! Leibovitz's does awesome work. I think the big deal is her age, if she was 18 or older we would not even be talking about it.


----------



## Mike_E

It's vaguely reminiscent of a photo of baby seals being clubbed.

A subject being used for an activity for which it neither deserves nor is ready.  :\


----------



## usayit

Alex_B said:


> what do you mean by _still _limited, in general there never was a real limit.
> 
> Without your parents' consent you cannot become a member in an FKK club, that is true.




Hehehe... ok... I think I'm confusing the "FKK club" used here with another type of German club.


----------



## Alpha

Well let's all go on believing that puberty doesn't start before marriage.

Let's proselytize our masochism.

If we're men, let's pretend we don't want to screw her when she turns 18, and if we're women let's pretend we don't want to be her.

Let's not get erections.

Let's act enraged and then secretly masturbate to the photo.

Let's care whether or not other people wear clothing and how much.

Let's lock up our sons and daughters.




Or we could just make peace with ourselves.


----------



## usayit

kundalini said:


> Geez.  I read all the comments before seeing the photo in question (why I don't know) but there is certainly a fair share of anal retentiveness within this thread for *that particular* *photo*.
> 
> It is an outstanding photo.
> 
> IMO, if someone views this as deviant, then there're surely some bones in the closet.



Um... "Fair share".  I'm pretty much the only one on the other side of the fence.  Who else are you referring too?

"Anal retentiveness" and "bones in the closet".... wow... my friends who actually know me would laugh.  I am so far from anal retentiveness.. maybe a bit high strung but only at work.  Honestly.. its an opinion and I respect both sides.  I did mention that a lot has to do with your background and culture.  Did I mention that I like the photo in of itself?



> f you're offended in any way by the photo or the context, do yourself a favor and go eat a rare steak while getting laid and reading The Genealogy of Morals.



Its funny how one side can accuse the other side of being too much of something but at the same time be just as offensive themselves.


----------



## usayit

Alpha said:


> Well let's all go on believing that puberty doesn't start before marriage.
> 
> Let's proselytize our masochism.
> 
> If we're men, let's pretend we don't want to screw her when she turns 18, and if we're women let's pretend we don't want to be her.
> 
> Let's not get erections.
> 
> Let's act enraged and then secretly masturbate to the photo.
> 
> Let's care whether or not other people wear clothing and how much.
> 
> Let's lock up our sons and daughters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could just make peace with ourselves.




Ok thats overboard.. It is funny how either side of this topic can easily be just as over-the-top.   Oh letsee.... one other forum I had a similar debate (on the other side no doubt) kept on saying something to the fact that it is a slippery slope to corruption of morality.. heheh elol.  that was pretty dumb.


----------



## Alpha

usayit said:


> Its funny how one side can accuse the other side of being too much of something but at the same time be just as offensive themselves.



The only thing offensive about that statement is imagining the logistics of doing all three simultaneously.


----------



## christopher walrath

I've been thankful lately to Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.  They have been stellar examples of how my 11 year old daughter should not portray herself when she comes of age.  They showed my very impressionable daughter what not to do.  All I needed was for Hannah Montana to become a crack whore and maybe I could convince my daughter to join a convent.  Things are looking up.


----------



## usayit

christopher walrath said:


> I've been thankful lately to Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.  They have been stellar examples of how my 11 year old daughter should not portray herself when she comes of age.  They showed my very impressionable daughter what not to do.  All I needed was for Hannah Montana to become a crack whore and maybe I could convince my daughter to join a convent.  Things are looking up.



Unfortunately it wasn't so easy for some young girls I care for.... they often only see the glitzy side and not the troubles resulting from their decisions.


----------



## usayit

Alpha said:


> The only thing offensive about that statement is imagining the logistics of doing all three simultaneously.



ok... :er:


----------



## kundalini

usayit said:


> I'm pretty much the only one on the other side of the fence. Who else are you referring too?


I was speed reading and not paying attention to whom was posting.  You are correct.  I had no intentions to single you out, but I stand by the gist of my comment that *that particular photo* is nothing to get upset about in the eyes of a photographer, rather, in my eyes..  I see nothing overtly sexual but see innosence instead.


----------



## craig

The fact that anyone succumbs to the poop written for e online is disappointing. They are barely above National Enquirer ( a U.S rag). Granted; VF is not what it used to be but they are a major national (if not international) editorial and advertising player. Disney with all of it's current power does not let it's #1 star pose half naked without them seeing and approving the shots first. We really need to relax and understand the media before posting.

)'(


----------



## LaFoto

I don't get it.

"Semi-nude?"

When all you see is a bit of bare back?

My own 15-year-old daughter looked at it and only commented on "I see less clothes on most of my friends who are into competitive swimming like myself than I see here". And then said how beautiful she thought the photo was as photo, and that it definitely does not make the person look older.

When a bit of bare back can make someone think of "sex", then a lot must go on in that someone's head...


----------



## Iron Flatline

Says former child-star Jamie Lee Curtis:


> When these young people get all dressed up for award show red-carpet events don't we all comment how beautiful, stunning and grown-up they look in their strapless/backless dresses and heels and tousled hair? None of this is new. None of this should be news. But it is news because it is a business.


----------



## Andy5D

its just to get a bit press really there are worse pictures out there of celbs


----------



## usayit

Let me just take this a little further for curiosity... 


What if...
the photo did show an exposed breast?  The same expression, the same composition, the same lighting, basically the same/similar pose but with an exposed breast.  

What if..
the photo portraying Hannah Montana exposed?

Would your opinions change?  Would you still share the photo with your young daughter or son?

(besides the obvious legalities involved in various countries... be respectful of opinions as I have always shown...   )


----------



## The_Traveler

usayit said:


> Let me just take this a little further for curiosity...
> 
> 
> What if...
> the photo did show an exposed breast? The same expression, the same composition, the same lighting, basically the same/similar pose but with an exposed breast.
> 
> What if..
> the photo portraying Hannah Montana exposed?
> 
> Would your opinions change? Would you still share the photo with your young daughter or son?
> 
> (besides the obvious legalities involved in various countries... be respectful of opinions as I have always shown...  )


 
I don't share boobie shots with my grandchildren because it's inappropriate for me to relate to them about sexual issues. If the underage model did boobie shots with her parents' permission, I would be angry at the parents for giving a bad example of parenting, for not keeping the chilkd from doing something she muight regret and can't 'fix' later on.

A prime requirement of good parenting is keeping your child from doing stupid things they will later regret and can't recover from, protecting them from the major stupidities of youth and allow them to make small mistakes that they can recover from.


----------



## usayit

How about your opinion on the photo?  Would it change?


----------



## Heck

Well Im sure it possible that one thing lead to another durring the shoot and when your dealing with a famous photog and mag that she could have been steered into the shot that they now regret. It's possible even for "Pros" like her people to make a mistake.


----------



## Heck

Weather you think the photo is wrong or not Miley Cyrus and her people don't like it and are saying they were tricked or fooled into it.


----------



## Heck

When I see the photo and if I did not know her age I would have said thats a nice photo of some girl who looks like she just got it good all night long. But knowing thats shes 15 is where I just feel the shot is not one that should have been taken but thats just my 2 cents.


----------



## gsga

--the most distasteful the aspect of this whole debate is that this is how marketing works in 2008. this is viral marketing at its worst and everyone who posts in this thread and any other thread on any other board has bought into it. we are all doing free advertising for disney and for this person/her career/music/whatever. advertisers have found the best way to circumvent our short attention spans and ability to tivo, chose our own content, click off, turn off. they get us to talk about it. blog about it.

--i'm more in the Usayit Camp. personally, i think its hypocritical that america hyper-sexualizes everything then complains about it. we're oversexed, yet puritanical in thought. that being said, i DO NOT think its right to put a 15 yr old in this situation. yes, i like the shot. yes, its aesthetically pleasing. yes, i'm sure lawyers were consulted and disney signed off on everything. yes, we really don't see any nudity. but that's really not the point.

we as a people sexualize our daughters at a younger and younger age... all the time. i think this is a feminist debate. oh, the kneejerk reaction is "well, sex sells. everyone knows that. that's the business". but by doing shots like this, its showing our daughters that this is what they're good for. i call bullsh*t on this.


----------



## Antithesis

I saw the images on the tube last night and thought they were pretty tasteful. If she were at the beach wearing a swimsuit she'd be showing a whole lot more skin than that. Disney's just making a fuss because their poster girl is growing up. You can totally tell that they told Miley what to say to the press in that regard. If Leibowitz wasn't big enough, she's going to be even more of a household name.


----------



## abraxas

Saw it again last night on the T-V (as pronounced by Bob Dylan).

A fine photo still, it's all in the promotion.

On a related thread (for all the Ansel Adams haters), did you know Ansel would have gone into relative obscurity if not for a young student properly promoting his work?


----------



## kellylindseyphotography

oh who really cares about miley cyrus and her newest way to exploit herself?  really.


----------



## KOrmechea

usayit said:


> What if...
> the photo did show an exposed breast?  The same expression, the same composition, the same lighting, basically the same/similar pose but with an exposed breast.



I'm pretty sure the photo wouldn't run because she's underage.  Also, if the photo was made available some how, I'm sure everyone involved would be in hot water.


----------



## RMThompson

kellylindseyphotography said:


> oh who really cares about miley cyrus and her newest way to exploit herself? really.


 
This is a forum dedicated to discussing photography, in all styles and aspects. Your comment didn't add anything to the conversation, so why bother?

People can discuss what they want, within reason.

That being said, I think it's a bit too far... not OVERBOARD like the media has said. As a society we need to protect those younger, and here is failure.


----------



## Alex_B

yes, but all your daughter's friends are European, that is the difference.

Actually, in Düsseldorf downtown in the summer most 13 - 14 year old girls show more when dressed than she does semi-nude ... and they do it to show off. Over here things are just totally different.

Currently in Germany in the big cities it is swinging a bit too far even for my taste, as often it is extreme peer pressure among young girls to pretend to be more and more grown up and sexy than they really are.



LaFoto said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> "Semi-nude?"
> 
> When all you see is a bit of bare back?
> 
> My own 15-year-old daughter looked at it and only commented on "I see less clothes on most of my friends who are into competitive swimming like myself than I see here". And then said how beautiful she thought the photo was as photo, and that it definitely does not make the person look older.
> 
> When a bit of bare back can make someone think of "sex", then a lot must go on in that someone's head...


----------



## RMThompson

Also I don't buy her being "tricked" into it. Watch the video of her DURING the shoot on Vanity Fair's website... she doesn't seen all "AW SHUCKS WHAT ARE WE DOING" as she is trying to portray now.


----------



## Alex_B

RMThompson said:


> Also I don't buy her being "tricked" into it. Watch the video of her DURING the shoot on Vanity Fair's website... she doesn't seen all "AW SHUCKS WHAT ARE WE DOING" as she is trying to portray now.



The family is just afraid to lose Disney or advertising income if her images goes the wrong way, not compatible with their current supporters. Hence they claim they were tricked into it. I guess even the girl herself understands the business and just plays a role.

Lets face it, she is *15*, at 15 these days if you are not totally uneducated, you understand a lot of the world. Some people at 15 make their first inventions or start their first own semi-pro business.

So no one sell me the idea of poor naive girl being pushed into something here.


----------



## maggamoo

I agree with the comment that I don't think she was tricked into taking this photo. How can you trick someone into taking their shirt off and posing for a photo. She knew what was happening. I think the photo could have  turned out "sexier" than Miley and her family thought it would be but, they let her take her shirt off. 

I do think it is a very beautiful photograph.  I love it, and wouldn't be opposed to having something like this done of myself for my husband. Let me make that clear FOR MY HUSBAND! I think it is a very sexy photo and the mom in me would show my claws if someone took a photo like this of my 15 year old.  

A photo doesn't have to show anything to be suggestive.  I always hear about the meaning behind photos, I definitly think this one has meaning.


----------



## kundalini

Since no one else wants to make the obvious crack (or craic, if you're so inclined)

Who's going to have the 'Achy Breaky Heart' ?

That being said, her father has been in this game for a long time.  So, along with Alex_B....


Alex_B said:


> So no one sell me the idea of poor naive girl being pushed into something here.


----------



## MACollum

It seems to me that many teenage girls would love a picture of themselves like this. It's clean (nothing inherently "dirty" in it) but reflects a girl's desire to be seen as a woman. However, it probably should not have been chosen (by anyone) for publication.


----------



## Jeff Canes

Alex_B said:


> So no one sell me the idea of poor naive girl being pushed into something here.


 
At less not one that is that is estimated to be worth a billion dollars


----------



## Early

I have nothing against photographs of youth in the raw for art's sake, or even to make a statement, but that photo is way too suggestive, and that makes it child porn. IMHO.


----------



## Rick Waldroup

Early said:


> I have nothing against photographs of youth in the raw for art's sake, or even to make a statement, but that photo is way too suggestive, and that makes it child porn. IMHO.


 
Okay, sure.  Maybe it is suggestive to _you, _but to a lot of us it is simply a photo.  Good grief, calm down.


----------



## kellylindseyphotography

RMThompson said:


> This is a forum dedicated to discussing photography, in all styles and aspects. Your comment didn't add anything to the conversation, so why bother?
> 
> People can discuss what they want, within reason.
> 
> That being said, I think it's a bit too far... not OVERBOARD like the media has said. As a society we need to protect those younger, and here is failure.



True enough.  I just think the obvious intention of publicity towards young starlets is rediculous.  If we wanted to talk about the picture as a PICTURE, without it being miley cyrus, I'd be game for that.  Its merit, composition, beuty and so on.  But I just think its silly that a publicity stunt gets so much attention when there are far more important things happenening in the world.


----------



## abraxas

Rick Waldroup said:


> Okay, sure.  Maybe it is suggestive to _you, _but to a lot of us it is simply a photo.  Good grief, calm down.



That reminds me, what ever happened to the Coppertone Girl?


----------



## Rick Waldroup

abraxas said:


> That reminds me, what ever happened to the Coppertone Girl?


 

Why, Abraxas, the artist would be brought up on charges. You know, you can't have dogs running around pulling down the knickers of young girls now, can you?

What a screwed up world we live in.....


----------



## Sirashley

The debate shouldn't be about Miley Cyrus, the debate should be about what is art? The problem is, the photo is of Miley Cyrus. The fact remains, IMHO, this photo is artistic. There is nothing sexual about it. If Thomas Mapplethorpe's work is art, then surely, this is art. 

I have seen many nude photos that do not imply anything sexual at all. This photo reveals nothing more than a teenagers back, have any of you ever been to the beach? You may see a teenage roll into the same position with a beach towel... Do you get sexually aroused??? If you do, then the problem lies with you, not with the teenager...


----------



## usayit

Sirashley said:


> The debate shouldn't be about Miley Cyrus, the debate should be about what is art? The problem is, the photo is of Miley Cyrus.



I don't think you can seperate the photo from Miley Cyrus.... Here's what I am observing..

* Those that can seperate the photo from the person and publication see it as pure art.
* Those that cannot seperate the photo from the person and publication see it as a bad influence on impressionable minds AND a exploitation of art for publicity, career, and dollars.

I am in the middle.  I like the photo it is artistic and well done.  As a person who is a new father in an extended family with very impressionable young girls... a few of which are fans of Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus, I have a problem with it.  Perhaps it is different in other countries, but here in the states it has become increasingly more complex raising a child among all the media hype.  Afterall, those young girls are not necessarily mature enough to see past the content and view it from a pure artistic standpoint.  Here in this forum of artistic minds, we are more than capable.  In another group, the focus is parenting...  I'm actually the one fighting to convince that group that the photo is more than being explicit... that it is art.  

In a previous post, I asked a couple "what ifs".  First one asked if your opinion would change if it exposed a breast.  Personally, my opinion on the photo itself would not change.  I know it is illegal as she is 15 BUT I think it would still stand as a wonderful artistic portrait.  History is full of works of art of young women in the height of their youth and beauty in the nude.  A famous photographer was brought up on charges for that reason.. I think his work is worth noting.. and his works are nice.

The second "what if" asked if my opinion would change if Miley portrayed as Hannah in the exact same pose.  I would have even more of a problem with that then Miley posed as is.  Why... because of the status of that figure in the young minds of millions of fans.  

No one really responded.. but I was wondering for those that sit on the other side of the fence would see as the photo crossing some boundary if a breast was exposed.  I was also interested to see if the famous persona revered by many young minds, Hannah Montana, would also cause some boundary to be crossed by the same crowd.... I was interested to see if those in that crowd could still seperate the photo from the youth influencing character.


If the young woman in the photo was some unknown person, would Annie Leibovitz and Vanity Fair print a similar photo for artistic purposes?  I think not... after all.. what would be the gain in publicity and $$$... hence I feel it is an exploitation of the character Miley plays, the young population that follows for the millions willing to purchase the magazine.

kinda off topic....

I'm a big Simpson's fan and in the show Itchy and Scratchy (the cartoon within a cartoon) watched by Lisa and Bart plays on a more wholesome version I grew up with... Tom and Jerry.  It is a brilliant play on our society by the creators.  This is along the same lines.... Take Tom and Jerry series back when I was a tike and replace it with Itchy and Scratchy.    Its still a cartoon thus a form of art albeit a bit more violent than the original.... but a young mind watching really isn't capable of separating the art from the violence.


< I appreciate the respectful responses and discussion... I was getting it from one group (my attempts to show the art side) and I really didn't feel like dealing with it here as well>


----------



## usayit

kinda really off topic...

On tv today during lunch, there was a ticker scroller thingy (dont' know what they are called) at the bottom that said that schools were closed and on lock down in a city right next to ours due to S.WA.T. and police activity.  My wife was in tears.....  until I looked up the report's details on my phone.  It turns out that the police were after an individual (armed robber) in a nearby home and took precautions by locking down the schools in the immediate area (nothing to do with the children).  

This our society...


----------



## kundalini

Sorry usayit, but this is twice you have brought up the hypothetical, if she exposed a breast. The fact is that a breast wasn't exposed and you could argue until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that a breast wasn't exposed. Since the event never happened, why should we postulate on an event that has never occured?

Whether the photos were under the guise of Miley or Hannah is insignificant due to the fact they are one in the same..and anybody with a semblance of grey matter between the ears should be able to see the indifference.

I understand your need to understand, but I question the reasons to promote an occurance that never happened. If Annie Leibovitz took a photo of an unkown individual, the controversy would definitely be much less opinionated, but the result would surely still be an exceptional photograph.

On aside...Itchy and Scratchy don't hold a candle to Tom and Jerry. They all owe homage to Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner.


----------



## abraxas

Rick Waldroup said:


> Why, Abraxas, the artist would be brought up on charges. You know, you can't have dogs running around pulling down the knickers of young girls now, can you?
> 
> What a screwed up world we live in.....



I figure she's in her early 60s now.  Which to this old dog,... is kinda hot.  



kundalini said:


> Sorry ...
> 
> ... an exceptional photograph.
> 
> On aside...Itchy and Scratchy don't hold a candle to Tom and Jerry. They all owe homage to Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner.



I was looking for a gift for my 15 year old grandson who's coming to visit this summer.  I'm going to buy a VF and throw it in the extra room for the young man's,... perusal.

I don't know if it were Beavis or Butthead, but I'm sure the quote the kid'll use is, "Uhuh-uh-uh-uhk."


----------



## usayit

kundalini said:


> Sorry usayit, but this is twice you have brought up the hypothetical, if she exposed a breast. The fact is that a breast wasn't exposed and you could argue until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that a breast wasn't exposed. Since the event never happened, why should we postulate on an event that has never occured?



It matters to me and this is a discussion.  I just wanted to see where the line is drawn for some people.  It is easy to dismiss a hypothetical if your interest is who "wins" and "looses" in a debate rather than learning and taking something away from such a meaningful discussion.  

Besides... if it weren't for me, you'd all be talking to the choir.... and this discussion would be flat out boring.



> Whether the photos were under the guise of Miley or Hannah is insignificant due to the fact they are one in the same..and anybody with a semblance of grey matter between the ears should be able to see the indifference.



I do take insult to that...  it does matter...  Just like how fans of a particular movie/tv show tend to refer to the actor by their character's name in public, I'm sure there is a population of young minds that don't make the distinction.  

In other news... Anne Leibovitz published an apology as well.  Kinda sad as from the sound of it, she is really proud of that photo.... 




> On aside...Itchy and Scratchy don't hold a candle to Tom and Jerry. They all owe homage to Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner.



Sure that's your opinion... but neither Itchy and Scratchy had the so called "knowledge" of Wile E. Coyote nor the the "cunning" of the Roadrunner.


----------



## spiffybeth

why wasnt this an issue when britney spears was on the cover of rolling stone when she was 16?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/BSpearsRstone99.jpg


----------



## usayit

IIRC, it was an issue.... with the former mickey mouse tike.

Unfortunately Brittany and Paris both continue to be issues... how young girls select them as a role models always confused the hell out of me.  

Oh well.. lesson to be learned... sex.. and money are the short cut to stardom and greatness.


----------



## Socrates

Heck said:


> I like to see where this story goes. If It were any of us taking "Art" Photos of a 15 year old how long before we get put in jail or sued, But I'm not Annie Leibovitz and don't shoot for Vanity Fair. Then again maybe there is no victim here other than Disney Channel.
> 
> Story here:
> http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/04/61009/index.html



The photo is, of itself, not sex-oriented and actually quite tasteful.  On the other hand, I can help being reminded of JonBenet Ramsey.  I submit that the real issue is the effort to portray a child as if she were an adult.


----------



## abraxas

That's pathetic.


----------



## maytay20

Hertz van Rental said:


> You see a five-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and no-one cares.
> You see a twenty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you admire her.
> You see an eighty-year-old running around on the beach in just her knickers and you wish she'd put some clothes on.
> But if a fourteen-year-old takes her top off then everyone starts worrying that it's a criminal offense.
> You humans are strange.


I like this!!

I am on the fence about this one.  It is a artsy photo.  Personal I like the photo.  to me what is the difference from the shots of her in the tiny green dress except she is hold her top on.  If she had more of her chest showing maybe be worried but her and her parents saw this as OK.  I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## mrodgers

You don't need nudity for a sexy photo.  This shot was taken to be sexy.  Everything about it screams sexy; the look, the hair, the pose, the skin showing, the coverage used.  15 year olds are not suppose to be viewed as sexy.  They should be viewed as kids and as minors.

Totally wrong by the parents, the photographer, the magazine, Disney, everyone involved.

But it's all over the internet, all over forums, all over the news, all over television, all over the newspapers, all over the celebrity exploitation magazines, on Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brian, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, local news, The View, Good Morning America, Regis and Kelly, all over everywhere.  They achieved _exactly_ what they were trying to achieve.  Publish the photo, then back down and apologize for it.  The media will go nuts and the exposure will be astounding, exactly what they got and exactly what they wanted.


----------



## maytay20

mrodgers said:


> You don't need nudity for a sexy photo. This shot was taken to be sexy. Everything about it screams sexy; the look, the hair, the pose, the skin showing, the coverage used. 15 year olds are not suppose to be viewed as sexy. They should be viewed as kids and as minors.
> 
> Totally wrong by the parents, the photographer, the magazine, Disney, everyone involved.
> 
> But it's all over the internet, all over forums, all over the news, all over television, all over the newspapers, all over the celebrity exploitation magazines, on Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brian, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, local news, The View, Good Morning America, Regis and Kelly, all over everywhere. They achieved _exactly_ what they were trying to achieve. Publish the photo, then back down and apologize for it. The media will go nuts and the exposure will be astounding, exactly what they got and exactly what they wanted.


If that is the case most of the other photos even some of them with her dad I would view as sexy.  Especially the "rock star" ones the tiny dress leather coat and red lips.  If that doesn't say sexy then I don't know what does.  But hey she is 15 if her parents think it is ok it is up to them.


----------



## craig

mrodgers said:


> You don't need nudity for a sexy photo.  This shot was taken to be sexy.  Everything about it screams sexy; the look, the hair, the pose, the skin showing, the coverage used.  15 year olds are not suppose to be viewed as sexy.  They should be viewed as kids and as minors.
> 
> Totally wrong by the parents, the photographer, the magazine, Disney, everyone involved.
> 
> But it's all over the internet, all over forums, all over the news, all over television, all over the newspapers, all over the celebrity exploitation magazines, on Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brian, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, local news, The View, Good Morning America, Regis and Kelly, all over everywhere.  They achieved _exactly_ what they were trying to achieve.  Publish the photo, then back down and apologize for it.  The media will go nuts and the exposure will be astounding, exactly what they got and exactly what they wanted.



I think you may be off base here. Just because she is 15 does not mean she can not be sexy. She is in the entertainment biz her job is to be sexy. I think you are confusing sexy with beautiful. Can you post the articles where VF or Disney backed down. And yeah the media is having a field day with this. My feeling is the media is to blame not the Cyruss' not VF and not Disney.

)'(


----------

