Gawker
Annie Leibovitz: come off it. Really now. As dirty as the media business is—and particularly the celebrity media business, which Vanity Fair revels in under a sheen of high class pretension—there are some bare, bottom-level standards to which we all must adhere. One of those is, "Do not sexually exploit minors." You want to economically exploit a minor? Fine. That's a grand American tradition. But trotting out 15 year-old Miley Cyrus with pouty lips, tousled hair, and only a bedsheet is just bad. Bad! Of course Vanity Fair bears the responsibility for publishing it. But the idea for the shoot can be traced to the tired celeb photographer Leibovitz (who is sorry it's been "misinterpreted"). And her narrow, robotically transgressive act has now played itself out. This incident, and Leibovitz's entire style, is less shocking than it is boring—but with a 15-year-old involved, it's boring and creepy.
We're hardly the type to play scolds for risque media attention-getting stunts. But there is such a thing as a bright line that you simply don't cross. Consider this quote in the NYT from a Vanity Fair spokesperson:
"Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley."
Is that so? Here's a radical notion: stop bullshitting us. Everybody recognizes sex when they see it. Humans are hardwired for it, and media outlets are experts at pushing our buttons in that particular arena. Does anyone—at Vanity Fair, among its readers, or even Annie Leibovitz herself—believe that the master photographer didn't give any thought to sexing up the 15 year-old pop star in those photos? That the bedsheet was totally innocuous?
Another radical notion: the media and its proxies bear some responsibility for what is published. There are rare times when it falls to the photographer, or the publisher, to save someone from their own bad judgment. We live in a highly sexualized culture as it is; the least we can do is keep kids out of its spotlight until they're of age. Cyrus and her parents are either poor judges of PR, or were ignorant as to how the shoot would end up looking. Either way, VF and Leibovitz owed them the courtesy of not letting this happen in the first place.
Yes, a free press extends into the celebrity arena, and yes, we're all for openness in reporting, obviously. But Leibovitz, who has earned over the course of her career the right to call the shots on the photos that fill our country's glossiest magazine pages, has lost her perspective. It's a matter of very simple decency, and one doesn't have to be a prude, or a conservative, or even someone frustrated with the sheer vapid nature of these things, to steer clear of sexualizing children for the sake of selling more magazines.
Vanity Fair, sadly, would probably never deign to turn down a photo spread like this. But Leibovitz should know better. As technically skilled as she is (and there is no denying that), she has become primarily a machine for generating ginned-up controversy. And not always controversy that is provocative in the service of a larger ideal, or that seeks to shock us out of old and tired conventions. Just controversy, set up artificially, for the sake of itself.
A parallel to the current uproar is the outrage that ensued over Leibovitz's recent Vogue cover featuring Lebron James in a King Kong-like pose, holding supermodel Gisele Bundchen. Leave aside, for a moment, the argument over whether she was consciously using the shot to position the basketball star as King Kong redux. What's certain is that she's far too experienced not to recognize the images such a photo would call to mind, and the controversy that would ensue. And did her work accomplish anything? Was it a great stride towards racial equality in the elite fashion media? No, it was essentially a "Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Which is what Leibovitz excels at. And which is what she and Vanity Fair were going for with the Miley Cyrus shoot.
Leibovitz just released this statement:
"I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted," she said in a statement. "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together, and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it."The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."
Debatable. But even if such a photo would be considered beautiful hanging on the wall of her parents' den, a huge photo spread in Vanity Fair is quite a different story, and requires a bit more careful thought. Somebody has to be the adult. Furthermore, the celeb-shocker bit is no longer shocking. It's just wearying. Leibovitz is now firmly entrenched in the establishment, and it's time for some new blood to rush in. It is possible to say something interesting and useful about the celebrity machine. We believe!
We don't want to railroad Annie Leibovitz out of her profession based on one mistake. We just want some new ideas—for the sake of everyone. It's a safe bet that she doesn't want to be remembered as a child-exploiting one trick pony, either.
Comments
Calculated move to gets loads of publicity for all concerned. Leibovitz is past her game and needs to retire.
the manufactured outrage just leaps off the page
It's not just the photographer here lets be honest. Her parents were on set and that should have been a judgement call on their part. had that been my daughter it would have been a No from the second it was suggested. I smell a cyrus publicity stunt.
I want to railroad Annie out of her profession! Has anybody ever defied rigor mortis through her lens?
I miss Herb Ritts.
What's the big deal? From the pix I've seen the girl is only showing a bit of shoulder. You can see a lot more skin at the local mall on any given Saturday
Well put. I figured she had at least another 4 or 5 years before posing topless in a magazine like this. Hopefully everyone involved (parents, Miley, Annie) can learn from this experience and keep it from happening again.
At least until she's 19 and a cokewhore, that is.
Should I be feeling guilty that I don't remotely care whether Miley Cyrus is doing nude-ish photos?
Also,@SecureLocation, agreed. This is not topless.
Actually, anyone at Vanity Fair even caring about a 15 year old star of children's programming is just a bit premature in general.
It would have been easy to just never pursue the article/photspread but if they didn't then perez hilton would still be blogging about her as would sites like... gasp, Gawker.
How much Miley Curus coverage has THIS site put up in the past few months? quite a bit. The fault lies squarely on many shoulders and to try to call Leibovitz out on it is creating scandal for scandal's sake and is no better than what she did, except maybe worse... for being so hypocritical.
"Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together, and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it." Yes of course, because Annie values the professional opinion of a 15 year old. Yeah, ok.
"Do not sexually exploit minors."
I can't help but note that The Gawker seems to be engaging in a "Do as I say, not as I do" approach in this very regard.
*Golf Claps*
What it comes down to is that young women, let's say "teenage girls", have a sexuality that nobody feels comfortable with. Why make it their fault? When I was 15 I was..ahem..no longer a virgin. It's not that rare, people!
It's sad that we've become so puritanical that we've got to make girls feel bad for becoming women. Having a budding sexuality is not the same thing as flashing your cooch or passing out with coke up your nose. This is NOT a scandal.
"The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."
Very little makeup??? Let's talk about wardrobe, please!!!
Is anyone here a Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus fan? Why is this girl so famous? Friends with daughters go nuts for her shows and are up in arms over Nakedshouldergate.
@donmiguel: I know that one of her songs that plays on the radio is sampling Corey Hart's "I Wear My Sunglasses at Night" because every time I turn on the radio, I hear it, and get Corey Hart stuck in my head.
Well stated, Hamilton. I take exception only to your claim that Liebovitz ought to know better, as this implies that she might be expected to exercise sound ethical judgment. It's too much to expect from somebody who published the photos of the dying and dead Susan Sontag, gracelessly admitting that she would have disapproved of those shots being made public. Creepy, exploitative, hurtful, and useless.
You've attacked both Vanity Fair and Leibovitz? I'd watch yourself in the West Village, Hamilton Nolan, lest the white-haired hordes beat you with their Aboriginal artifacts and Saarineen chairs.
Adrants listed the number of current trainwreck actresses who grew up performing for Disney, including headliners Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. I have to agree with them: it's Disney's fault.
@McCheeburger: Agreed. I love how this "outrage" is immediately followed by a post about a 17 year old who has been constantly referred to as "jailbait".
Any statement that kicks Vanity Fair in its simultaneously sycophantic and self-regarding ribs is okay by me.
Any chance of more?
Leibowitz is a successful photographer, but not a very good one.
Well ethicical judgements aside, i think it is just a lame photo, regardless of who/how old the subject of it is.
Miley does look like a teenaged prostitue, but since when was that a new idea for "Hollywood" to exploit its young in that way? Brooke Sheilds in "Pretty Baby" anyone?
It is hard to imagine Leibovitz going for anything other than underaged hooker in that photo. And the other ones of Miley lounging with her dad are just as awful.
The steely grey of her images, again and again and again, just tells me Leibovitz is just done.
And VF covers in general have a habit of this.
The one part of this rant i do agree with is, find some new talent!
Jeezo. HamNo seems outraged. Outrageously outraged.
& here are my reasons for feeling silly about the whole thing:
1. She's not topless, she's sheet-full.
2. Leibovitz showed some restraint, with an over-simple, classic, art pose... all this outrage about an image so boring makes little sense.
3. Nobody over 14 should care about Achy-Breaky Montana much anyway & that includes Vanity Fair & Gawker & you & me.
4. Everybody involved is a big winner. Miley & fam can begin transitioning the girl into the adult realm (which she needs to do to maintain viability longterm), Vanity Fair gins up some page views and talky-talking, & Leibovitz can still claim she's got what it takes to stir up trouble, validating her outrageously high day-rates to the magazine industry at large. Oh, and now Gawker & Hamilton Nolan can add themselves to the ever-expanding winner's circle for this page-view generating response.
The only loser here is Lindsay Lohan and her Marilyn Monroe booby-shoot that didn't manage to outrage anyone...
This always seems like a fairly thin wire to be venturing out on.
I mean, suppose a viewer of the offending photographs -- maybe a somewhat worldly-wise 16-year-old -- states that she doesn't find the shots to be especially "sexualized" at all...and that to her knowledge you, the critic, are the only person who views the photos sexually. Where does that leave you?
I agree with all of this. BUT! As annoyed I am at VF's decision to do this, Cyrus and her parents' decision to let her do this, Leibovitz's decision to do this, I am exponentially more annoyed at US the gawkers, not necessarily the "Gawkers" but the masses who have such an inconsistent vision of what's okay. This kind of sexualization of youth is completely and utterly prevalent in this country--why then do we keep having these seemingly random blowups over what's outrageous and what's not? What renders some stuff mundane and other stuff, worthy of such vitriol? Is there a clear delineation between what VF did and any of the shit you read in Seventeen or see on myspace, facebook, and EVERYWHERE else?
Whoopi Goldberg threw Miley under the bus on the View and defended Leibowitz for this. It's fucked-up to blame the child.
Also, unless Annie also doubles as the VF photo editor, your entire thesis isn't suitable for wrapping a virtual fish in.
Unless that's virtual fresh Chilean sea bass.
But now I've been trolled, again, on this monumental non-story.
Cut that out! (pwease?)
your point is salient, Hamilton, but, as far as I can see: scapegoats are always the relatively benign, perhaps banal, quite possibly impotent cover for something far more malevolent, insidious, systemic. hence, I distrust the pointed finger.
@VivianDarkbloom: it's also F'd up to listen to anything Whoopi has to say so... I don't know where that leaves us.
[Sans snark]
Am I the only one who finds this circle jerk of reactionary Puritanism somewhat hypocritical? The media, and particularly Gawker, as arbiters of morality in a media culture that routinely and constantly sexualizes children?
[Avec snark]
What's next on the menu of moral degradation? The exposed ankles of minors? Disgusting!*
*Sorry, the snark fails me.
[gawker.com]
But it's okay when Mr. Denton does it, right?
[gawker.com]
This story is one of those taking only slightly longer to fade away as the average Gawker post--which has maybe a 2-3-hour shelf-life. (Does anyone actually keep up with all comments on all posts here?) Ephemera, ephemera, it's all ephemera. And what's new about teenage girls being sold by their parents as sex objects? It's the p's' sick greed, though the Leibovitz leer is definitely gross, I have to say. Gross, gross woman.
@rod: EXACTLY.
Let's all thank god the Clintons didn't pimp out Chelsea like THIS!
Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together, and we discussed the picture...
So, based on this, pedophilia would be OK as long as you discuss it with the child first?
And with the whole "I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted (in your ignorance of art)" I have to say this:
I am not sure if Annie should stop taking photos or not, but she should definitely stop talking.
I give the Christians about a week until they start why its even more indecent that SOMEONE LIKE Annie take these kinds of shots.
Sadly, Miley is another young girl in the long line Hollywood has created just to tart out and destroy. Its just in today's digital world, it only takes 6 months to be the next Brooke Shields.
This is the last place in the universe that anyone should be decrying any sort of exploitation. Think about all the mentally disabled people you mock on a daily basis: Julia Allison, Lindsay Lohan, Perez Hilton, everyone at n + 1...
If VF had used Bruce Weber for this shoot then there'd be no controversy. He'd surround Miley with a squadron of half to fully naked 15 year-old A&F muscle boys and no one would bat a lazy eye or play the exploitation card game.
It's different for girls.
Lebowitz will never be remembered as a "child exploiting one trick pont," she will be remembered for her body of work, not one bullshit story that a few hacks tried to sensationalize.
Ironic given that Graydon Carter was very hoity-toity about Roman Polanski's taste for the teenage after losing to him in court ("As a father of four children, one of whom is a 12-year-old daughter..." etc.)
And that said Pole screwed Samantha Gailey after he'd been commissioned to photograph teenage beauties of the world for Vogue Homme...
Still, it is inarguably cyclical what is considered appropriate. Eva Ionesco's mother photographed her for Playboy when she was eleven, in 1976. (She appeared in Polanski's The Tenant the same year.) Two years later she did Penthouse.
At least Miley Whatsit has actually pubesced.
The main problem with Annie Leibovitz is that regardless of age, the people she photographs look as if they have died and been stuffed and varnished. I often wonder: does she perhaps deploy that method popular in the Victorian era (also a hot time for child photography) of bolting the subject to the wall and leaving the shutter open for several days?
@rod & WackoJacko: And might I add: Seriously.
Shut up, Gawker.
Well-written. Smart.
What's making it a big deal is the publicity machine posing the question of whether seeing a non-naked 15 year old girl is somehow vulgar. I'm sure it's a "hot topic" on The View today. I also bet people who never bought Vanity Fair before are buying copies as "collector's items".
If I were Annie or Miley, I'd do the exact same thing over again and not change a move.
Bravo.
@mackintosh-toffee: Naught shite. The pics of Daddy and Miley look like shots from a fotoplay of Lolita. My cringing cringed.
Isn't this the same sequence Britney Spears went through?
@jackvinyl: I agree with your last point, in that this whole thing smacks of those racy Jessica Biel photos that came out when she was desperate to leave 7th Heaven and be seen as a grown-up sex symbol, despite major backlash from the show's conservative fan base. Regardless of any token apologies she made, it always just seemed like calculated collateral damage to me.
So Miley (who's clearly been enjoying taking saucy candid shots for a while now) publicly backtracks and wrings her hands alongside the moralizing MiniVan Majority to great effect after the pictures have come out, but the mission of transitioning away from the Disney image is accomplished, and that's probably all that mattered.
The disaster that is Britney has everyone on edge. Did those South Park boys call this one right, or what?
@sharpeiboy: Good point. This debate is best reserved for The View.
We should just buck the trend and go the whole other direction on Gawker. Her and Taylor Momsen should just make out. Naked. On camera. Kick it up a notch. BAM.
We don't need new talent in glossy mag photography. What we need is more Bruce Gilden: [www.magnumphotos.com]
@Hez: Exactly. Miley and her agents have just given consent for the rest of the entertainment industrial complex to view her as an actual human being with a sexy future and not just the 20-years later, live action Gem that Disney & Achy-Breaky Daddy created.
And again, Gawker, it's a pretty boring picture & a more boring critique...
@Pope John Peeps II: just call it "artsy"
I just came in my pants a little bit.
ok I just don't get it are people ACTUALLY offended? it's her shoulders. if she was in a swimsuit no one would care. when you see nipple you can get all outraged, for now focus on more important things. like, can I bum a cig?
Leibovitz - hacky for a while and just livng up to expectations. But the thought of Miley's creepy 'ol daddy Billy Ray on the set watching and approving ...eww.
Sex sells. And everybody involved knows that.