The above pictures of Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana, has caused another outburst in the U.S.
After Annie Leibovitz' artistic pieces were published in Vanity Fair, Cyrus publicly proclaimed she was "embarrased" and critics said the teen idol shows too much skin. The Disney Channel, who sponsors the Hannah Montana act, was not pleased. Cyrus declined a movie premiere, I think it was, and apologized to her fans if she gave the wrong image.
Granted Cyrus looks like an abused child in the photo on the right, but what skin is she showing that wouldn't otherwise be seen when wearing a bathing suit?
Again, this brings up the nudity issue that I've touched on before. Shoulders, apparently, are now dirty as well. As are bare backs.
In order to view skin, you must be 18. In order to show it, you must be over 21. Otherwise you are "exposing" yourself or the media is taking advantage of you to sell papers.
Perhaps the Academy Awards ceremony need to be X-rated from now on? Just think about all those low-cut gowns...
6 comments:
The whole thing is so strange. I wouldn't care if she was swimming naked, being naked is a natural state after all, but those photos implicate that she is trying to cover herself in that sheet against someone looking - and that's acrually an issue. For that, I think she is too young. It's not how much skin, it's the circumstances. It's a context.
Then nobody will really care or react in this day and age except for the over-zealous morale watchers, and that's a bit sad because it's for the wrong reason.
Yeah, you're right. The cover-up is what makes it strange. And I think the photo on the left looks natural, somehow, like she just came downstairs for breakfast and dind't bother to get dressed, while the photo on the right - the one that really started the debate - is dark and disturbing and makes you wonder what she is hiding from or what just happened. The problem I have is that the debate isn't focused solely on what the photo is saying, critics are just focusing on how Cyrus is "essentially naked."
I react like ab. It is the context. The way the very young girl is looking, the way she hides her body. If she were sitting with her back straigt, she would signal something else - natural everydayness, pride... but now her posture has sexual implications - more so in the right picture.
Natural nakedness should harm nobody, but this sexualisation in/of society is terrible. I'd like children to be children, but pictures like this one, and the sexualised fashion pictures of too young models makes youngsters adopt a style that is not only ridiculous but harms their behaviour. Some years ago I saw a ten year old girl in my child's school, wearing a strapless top - she couldn't concentrate on her work in school because she was too busy with stopping her top from falling down! Of course her parents should have refused her buying/wearing that piece of clothing, but I can't see why clothes like that should be in the children's departments at all.
That's the trouble with the morale watchers - they are so eager, they become blind to what they are actually talking about.
I agree on the over-sexed atmosphere in today's society and the fact that young girls are seen as sexual creatures - not for their own development and eventual enjoyment, but for the male eye. And the male eye is very present in that second photo, as you are indicating, Vickan - she looks slightly scared, trying to hide and protect herself, but we sense that the man in the doorway watching her is too big and too strong. It looks like the beginning of a stupid porn movie.
Looking again trying to use the photographer's eye, I suppose she might not have been aware of the innuendo. If you want it to, the picture can look like an old oil painting.
ab, I suppose you are right. I don't think the photographer took these shots with the purpose of exploiting Cyrus or to hurt her reputation. And it is possible some "touch up" was done by the magazine later on as well...
Post a Comment