Back in 2008 before we all came together at SBIT, Miley Cyrus (15) posed naked wrapped inside a bedsheet for Vanity Fair magazine, photographed by none other than Ms Annie Leibovitz.
For detailed article: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3835597.ece
The photograph caused international outroar from parents of the crazed tween fans and widespread controversy amonst the industry.
A disney spokesperson described as "a situation [that] was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines.
In response to the internet circulation of the photo and ensuing media attention, Cyrus released a statement of apology on April 27: “I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."
Leibovitz also released a statement saying: "I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted," Leibovitz said. "The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."
Miley also posed with her dad Billy-Ray Cyrus in what was descibed as some creepy-too-close positions. Clearly her father didn't foresee a problem with the images.......
Young Harry??
A year earlier 2007, Daniel Radcliffe starred in a revival of the play Equus. The relatively unknown production attracted a lot of press attention, in particular the casting of seventeen year-old Radcliffe caused some controversy, since the role of Alan Strang required him to appear naked on stage. This was despite the fact that many other young actors over the years had performed the play naked, he got absolutely slammed by the media for his outragous behaviour.
Radcliffe insisted that the nude scene was not "gratuitous" and that he should portray the character and the scene as called for by the script. Peter Firth gave more than 1,000 performances as Alan Strang from 1973 onwards also 17 years old at the time (as the character was written). However only when promotional images surfaced of Daniel Radcliffe as he would appear in the play, was it to become controversial.
An interesting opinion:
What do you think about Miley & Harry's photographs?
Are these images offensive?
Are these stars too young for these kinds of scenes?
Is it unfair that there is limitations placed on them because they were labelled as role models?
Did these young actors know what they were doing? And the affect they would cause?
Or are they living in a fantasy world where there is no wrong and right?
Is the industry taking advantage of them?
Should we just take it for what it is or should these celebrities take some responsibility?
So many questions...................
The images themselves dont contain any sexual implications, I find them to be quite serene and beautiful. Without any 'pressure' from the media as a whole, these images would remain just as they are - beautiful portraits of young adults.
ReplyDeleteHow can an image be offensive when there is no crude, rude or adult content?
Hear hear Casey! Has the Bill Henson saga turned us all into Hattie Johnson's, looking for pedophiles behind every printed image? And why so much focus on the creators and purveyors of allegedly risque images? Why not turn on the people who feed the publishers their daily bread—particularly fashion magazine readers who are seemingly so desperate to be both young and beautiful?
ReplyDeleteThe work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes an ellusion of naked skin. In the tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks, and honourd painters such as Michelangelo
ReplyDeleteThe Sistine Chapel Ceiling, painted by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512, at the commission of Pope Julius II, is one of the most renowned artworks of the High Renaissance. Depicting scenes from the Book of Genesis, the Birth of Jesus;naked youths, figures men and women are painted both with and without clothing with no consideration or thoughts as to weather the content would be considered pornographic or offensive.
I dont seem to be able to find much media attention calling for the Sistine Chapel to removed from public viewing in similar fashion to Bill Hensens work however?
Why do you think that is?
Both peices of work express a sence of nudity. But I find that Cyrus's portait sends a different message to Radcliffe's "advertisment".
ReplyDeleteThe image of Cyrus sends off a message of, yes, a young youthfull adult, and without the opion of the media and public I'm sure her portait would have been loved by her family. The photo shows a naked back. If she were in a dress with no back like the photo, would she have such a responce??
On the other hand Radcliffe's image, I beleave is an advertisment for his broadway show. This play is about having an intermite relationship with a horse. For a 17 yr old or for any age I think this image is outragious, advertising to people about having intermite relationships with animals. And Radcliffe has a younger fan group, I say no wounder the media hit the roof.