1
   

That Miley Cyrus photograph.

 
 
quinn1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 12:01 am
It looks like a classic portrait to me. I think the lipstick is a bit much and would have rather seen a mauve shade but, that's me. It's not a big deal - it's nothing but an innocent portrait in a classic style. IMO at least.

I'm sure the hoopla is up and about on it but, wasn't there a lot of the same for Demi Moore when she did the bare nekkid pregnant thing? I understand this is a child but, it is a child star just the same. No matter what she does she will be criticized for it. That's how the cookie crumbles in starland.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 12:28 am
Maybe starland isn't so far for me. A lot of my life was in west LA and Santa Monica, home of may stars, would be stars, wanna bees and others who could care less.

I remain interested in how this works out.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 12:29 am
eoe wrote:
But who are the vultures? And who's the carrion?


Vultures = Hefner and the ilk
Carrion = child stars ...flavor du jour ... Miley Cyrus
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 07:30 am
eoe wrote:
Cyrus Offered Playboy Centerfold
...The Hannah Montana star sparked outrage when the candid snaps - which show Cyrus posing bare-backed, wrapped in a satin sheet - ....


can·did (kndd)
adj.
1. Free from prejudice; impartial.
2. Characterized by openness and sincerity of expression; unreservedly straightforward: In private, I gave them my candid opinion. See Synonyms at frank1.
3. Not posed or rehearsed: a candid snapshot.
n.
An unposed informal photograph.


"Candid" is not how I'd describe that photo. (Not harassing eoe, but the original author of the quote.)

How can a portrait be "candid?"
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 10:34 am
I don't think the photo is necessarily bad in the sense that she is completely covered; however, it insinuates sex and a certain sexuality that isn't appropriate for a 15 year old. It borders child pornography in its implication. And what the heck is a 15 year old doing in Vanity Fair anyway? It isn't a teen magazine.

She is 15, I think they (magazine and others that allowed this photo - potentially including her parents) are trying to cash into this cash cow and take advantage of a teen. Does a 15 year old - even a mature one - really completely understand the implications? That's why they are still considered children and cannot even drive yet.

Yeah I heard about the centerfold. Again someone trying to take advantage of some one while they are a hot commodity. Hefner would probably go ahead and have her photographed naked if he wouldn't get legally in trouble for it.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 11:35 am
I know society has swings with values and so I keep waiting for the morality pendulum to swing back. Guess what.... I will be in the ground before that happens. I hate to sound like a doomsayer..and negative. I'm no prude...but fergawdsake, if you want to make money and cash in, why not a clean cut picture with her being hugged by her Daddy?

I'm just not cut out as a consumer of this crap. I resent the Vanity Fair for pushing it too. Whatever does she have to do with their readership and demographics? Editorially, to me, this is pretty suspect.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 11:42 am
Linkat wrote:
It borders child pornography in its implication. And what the heck is a 15 year old doing in Vanity Fair anyway? It isn't a teen magazine.


Vanity Fiar is known (since the re-start in 1981 [?]) for its controversial photography of ... current celebrities.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 11:44 am
Ragman wrote:
I know society has swings with values and so I keep waiting for the morality pendulum to swing back. Guess what.... I will be in the ground before that happens. I hate to sound like a doomsayer..and negative. I'm no prude...but fergawdsake, if you want to make money and cash in, why not a clean cut picture with her being hugged by her Daddy?

I'm just not cut out as a consumer of this crap. I resent the Vanity Fair for pushing it too. Whatever does she have to do with their readership and demographics? Editorially, to me, this is pretty suspect.


I agree 100% - a 15 year old is not the target audience for this magazine.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 11:47 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Linkat wrote:
It borders child pornography in its implication. And what the heck is a 15 year old doing in Vanity Fair anyway? It isn't a teen magazine.


Vanity Fiar is known (since the re-start in 1981 [?]) for its controversial photography of ... current celebrities.


I don't have a problem with that - I mean that is what the magazine is about. I had no issue with the Demi Moore photo that some one mentioned. It is more the age of the individual being photographed - not appropriate for the audience. If this were any adult celebrity it would be a non-issue.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 12:13 pm
I suppose, the most favourite magazine for the 10+ youth here ("Bravo") couldn't be sold in the USA: porn.
0 Replies
 
mushypancakes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 01:24 pm
I was a bit surprised the photo is so tame. The "news" was splashed all over, then I open up and see the pic, and it's a yawner. Not all that bad, in my opinion, as far as "out there" or inappropriate.

Right, I don't agree with sexual photos in general of teenagers splashed in public. And it is sexual. But not near what I have gotten used to seeing - and no one says a thing nor blinks an eye. In fact, they offer it up to their kids for Christmas.

The only big thing about it is she is affiliated with Disney. It's the same reason McD's doesn't have this sort of photo of teenies to sell their McNuggets.

Bad for the company reputation as a wholesome family fare.

Maybe the girl is looking to get out of Disney. *shrug*

Americans do love their teenage girls, so let's not get all up in arms about this one, is how I see it. Get up in arms about the real horrid ones out there, and for creepers sake ....Why are these parents buying this little girls's tickets at like over 100 bucks a pop?

Who's the ridiculous ones in this situation.really.

The photo is pretty plain but pretty in a classic sense. And yeah! a bit vampirish...which is cool in a way. lol.

I don't take it all that seriously.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 05:32 pm
Linkat wrote:
Ragman wrote:
I know society has swings with values and so I keep waiting for the morality pendulum to swing back. Guess what.... I will be in the ground before that happens. I hate to sound like a doomsayer..and negative. I'm no prude...but fergawdsake, if you want to make money and cash in, why not a clean cut picture with her being hugged by her Daddy?

I'm just not cut out as a consumer of this crap. I resent the Vanity Fair for pushing it too. Whatever does she have to do with their readership and demographics? Editorially, to me, this is pretty suspect.


I agree 100% - a 15 year old is not the target audience for this magazine.


I cancelled my subscription and stopped reading Vanity Fair a few years back when the covers seemed to be all Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and those Olsen twins. Obviously, I was no longer their audience.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 05:36 pm
Scuse me, I have a question< please?
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 05:38 pm
Let me guess: You want to know who Miley Cyrus is, right farmerman?

You only know this if you have a child under the age of 12.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 05:44 pm
youre a mind reader CJ. Gimme a hint please. Is she in "Charmed"?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 05:55 pm
farmerman wrote:
youre a mind reader CJ. Gimme a hint please. Is she in "Charmed"?



Her daddy sang Achy-Breaky Heart.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 05:58 pm
I know who Billy Ray is. Ok, so why make a big deal over his kid like this. I mean the picture is really not that much. It is kind of spooky in a Goth horror , Blair Witch kinda way.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 05:58 pm
He's quite a nice fella IRL. I was surprised.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 06:12 pm
I think that the problem is that the photo was for vanity Fair....Not only is it mainly a men's mag thus the sexuality was assumed to be motivated by a desire to titillate rather than as art, but also given her up to now goody-goody image it is assumed that this kid was being exploited, or doing the exploiting....either way either the kid or the audience on being used. leaves a sour taste.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 06:15 pm
Vanity Fair is most definately a magazine directed towards women.

osso, the photo reminded me of a specific painting too -- the closest I've been able to recall though is Vermeer but I think that's because the pose is so Vermeer - over the shoulder, hunched back. He painted several young women in that pose.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 02:52:09