by 
If it didn’t happen so often you could almost believe them. It’s like a line from a movie: Young starlet is discovered for some talent. She is built up and is sold as a pure girl– a role model to look up to. Then, there are pictures discovered showing that she’s not who she claimed to be, or (as in the case of Miss Cyrus) she has photos taken that show off a different image than the managed one…
Not that the photos that are coming out are some of the worst ones that have been taken, but the idea that our girls have to feel that they’re inadequate because of their body shape is something that we shouldn’t be reinforcing.
“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,” Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. “I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.”
You can be the judge, if you wish. This page from ABC News has the photo which only reveals the starlet’s bare back.
She believe it was supposed to be “artistic”, but where does one draw that line, or how? What makes nudity in one case artistic and another case porn? What’s being done in the image? What it does to the viewer?
Miss Cyrus should have known better. There was no reason that she had to take her clothes off for a photo shoot.
The photographer should have known better. Women are more than sex objects, right? She’s popular for more than just her body, so why did they have to objectify a 15 year old?
It’s time that we start to expect more from our entertainment and for those that would be our role models. It’s time we start rejecting the status quo when it comes to this kind of thing– we can do better.
What I don’t get is she has a great career. Not sure what she felt this would do for it. I guess she is part of the generation that was raised on the notion that “sex sells”.
Colleens last blog post..Puppy Breath
Have you walked through a museum lately? The renaissance paintings are full of naked women. Often in similar poses to what you showed us. Let’s look more recent though; do you know how art students learn to draw people? They buy books full of naked people in different poses, or hire a live nude model to pose for them. Being naked in a picture (drawn or photographed) does not make a piece porn. I would argue (and the art community would probably agree) that it is the intention behind the piece that makes the difference between porn and art.
Now, considering that these pictures seem to have been commissioned with the idea of making art. I believe we should not tear this poor girl down.
P.S. Proof of renaissance pictures. (These are considered art and it would be a shame to hide them from your children, but I must warn that they are paintings of naked women)
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/botticelli/botticelli.venus.jpg
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/farnesina/raphaeldet2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leda_and_the_Swan_1505-1510.jpg (this one was by Da Vinci)
Have you walked through a museum lately? The renaissance paintings are full of naked women. Often in similar poses to what you showed us. Let’s look more recent though; do you know how art students learn to draw people? They buy books full of naked people in different poses, or hire a live nude model to pose for them. Being naked in a picture (drawn or photographed) does not make a piece porn. I would argue (and the art community would probably agree) that it is the intention behind the piece that makes the difference between porn and art.
Now, considering that these pictures seem to have been commissioned with the idea of making art. I believe we should not tear this poor girl down.
P.S. Proof of renaissance pictures. (These are considered art and it would be a shame to hide them from your children, but I must warn that they are paintings of naked women)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leda_and_the_Swan_1505-1510.jpg (by Da Vinci)
P.S.S. There were more, but my comp messed up and deleted the message. I will find the rest tommorow morning.
You know….yeah. You could see it coming. Sheesh.
Miley and her Dad were just featured in the latest edition of the Christian Reader (I am so skeptical of that publication..it’s just fluff!) It was all about her family being close and Christian and how Miley was so All American, clean cut…
I don’t think the photo is horrible in and of itself. IF I saw it in a museum, I wouldn’t think so. But what you have with Miley is a VERY famous 15 year old, who is marketed to TEENS and PRETEENS, and the photograph can not be interpreted as artsy according to this context.
What were her father and mother thinking? I have teens…I can’t imagine standing there, watching this, knowing it would be broadcast EVERYWHERE! and saying it is okay for my teen daughter?
Yeah, I’m sorry, there’s no way a 15 year old should’ve been allowed to do a shoot like this.
It’s not even pretty – that’s another thing. It’s an ugly photo.
AGs last blog post..Thankful
Holly, so your saying that if your famous you can’t make art?
AG, if anything it not being pretty further proves that it was meant to be art not porn.