Another Leibovitz photo in question
It wasn’t long ago that her Vogue cover was accused to be racist, now it’s her portrait of Miley Cyrus thats getting the heat.
I’m a fan of Annie Leibovitz and I think her shot of Miley Cyrus is artistic (although apparently not original since she’s done the same shot with Diana Ross for Vanity Fair in 1989. But she did describe the portrait as a classic portrait and classic and original don’t usually go together).
But unlike her Vogue cover which I couldn’t see what was wrong with, the issue here is a little more obvious. So this picture is beautiful, but would you really publish a picture like this of your 15 year old daughter? This picture probably should have just stayed in their family’s private collection or Annie’s coffee table book. And if you had, say, a 9 year old daughter who idolizes Hannah Montana, would you really want her to see these pictures? At nine I was already reading my Tita’s Vogue and Cosmo and there were sexy pictures but they’re weren’t my age. For my generation, it’s like seeing Punky Brewster or Sabrina the Teenage Witch naked.
I think it’s inclusion in Vanity Fair makes it more commercial than art. I can imagine it being used as an ad for pedophile sites.
What’s a little disturbing really is that Miley Cyrus like Britney said she’ll save herself for marriage and that she’s certain she won’t end up like Lindsay and Britney because of her faith and her Christian family and then pictures of her with her boyfriend come out in public. Maybe these pictures are not really scandalous for Americans but I’m not American and I’m a little conservative so if I saw pictures of my 14-yr old daughter with her boyfriend in bed I’d probably make her kneel on rock salt for a week. (Hehe Mama Hitler in the making, that’s probably why I don’t have kids yet.)
I have nothing against “early bloomers” and kids exploring (except maybe if they’re my own kids) but don’t pretend to be all clean and say stuff just to get more publicity. If you want to be sex objects then by all means…
Don’t you find it annoying when people pretend to be all angelic when deep inside they’re really wild sex craved amazons that have been repressed for 100 years. Who cares really? I don’t personally know Miley so who knows what she is. The point is: Just don’t pretend to be something you’re not.
Hmm… this post has jumped from classic portrait to wild amazons so I’ll stop here.








April 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
i have to admit, i watch hannah montana. but that’s not the point, i dont think the vanity fair picture is offensive, what i find offensive are the pictures from myspace! kakaladkarin ko yan kung anak ko yan.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Yeah the vanity fair picture is nice. I like it. Pero medyo disturbing sya if you put it out for everyone kahit na hindi na appreciate yung art. Kahit ako, kahit anong pose ang pagawa ni Annie Leibovitz sa kin or sa anak ko malamang gagawin ko. Pero di ko siguro pupublish lahat.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
OR… if i did publish them i wouldn’t say i was coerced diba? if i had the same pics they’d probably be displayed all over my house haha. remember that conversation?