Gothamist: Miley Cyrus "Embarrassed" Over Vanity Fair Photos

Karen

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:02:07 -0500

Ok, if this were Jennifer Anniston, sitting there with a bare back, clutching what looks like a sheet to her front, would anyone coubt that it was implied that this is a sexual photo? So, if this kid is 15, she's a minor. I think she must have parents around? Why didn't they look at this photo-were they even at the shoot? Why didn't they nix this idea before the photo was even set up? Sounds to me, as if Billy and whoever he's running with this week, see Miley as thier cash cow, to be milked.

Spiritof76

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:15:57 -0500

It's an awful looking photograph. As others wrote, she looks like a very pale, puffy little girl trying to be sexy.

Barbj8

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:30:49 -0500

Somewhere in Annie Lebovitz's computer, is a picture of the queen in the same outfit.

holla

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:54:57 -0500

looks like she has a kool-aid mustache.

guest guest

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:34:27 -0500

PronG, I don't see a bed. Nor do I see any indication of nudity... other than a bare back. There is absolutely no visual reference to the female form (a.k.a. no curves or bumps), making this photograph arguably less suggestive than average teenager wear. This photograph is far less revealing than what is worn by olympic gymnasts, swimmers and figure skaters. I find the composition about as suggestive as a painting of a cherub. Don't get me wrong, I hear what you are saying. Do I find the photo appropriate? No. But I think it is many times more appropriate than other types of clothing, which, for some unknown reason, are considered culturally acceptable. Namely, her stage outfits, or for another example... figure skater outfits, which completely creep me out... and are totally suggestive.

Steven

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:58:11 -0500

Could Miley be the next Britney or Linsday?

PnonG

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:57:49 -0500

she normally dresses worse, good picture or not, whatever... to say it isn't suggestive is bizarre. barely 15 year old girl, nude, in bed... if it's OK with you fine but not sexualized?

Amanda Harlech

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:55:36 -0500

What a bunch of CRAP! she is choosing to be a profesional biimbo and now she is upset about images clearly she will use to promote her career?! BULL shiat

Kojak

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:48:22 -0500

If I read one more story about Miley Cyrus, I'm going to crack her over her Achy Breaky skull with my Achy Breaky bat.

robingee

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:24:56 -0500

Burn stuff in a bonfire? How retro!

Pizza_Time

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:18:19 -0500

Hasn't Vanity Fair done that same exact bed sheet pose like 50 times already? It seems all too familiar. I realized just how overrated Leibovitz's work was when I saw her "exhibit" at the Brooklyn museum last summer. Anybody can take a thousand pictures and end up with 5 great ones. This shot just confirms that she gets more work from her name/rep than the actual quality of her work. So over rated. this shot is weak. Miley does have the sleepy just laid look which is probably why some people are all up in arms. Leibovitz's main photography talent is convincing people to make stupid decisions while appearing in her photos. Sure she has had some great shots in the past. That is why she has the power to coerce controversial shots from gullible subjects who should know better.

sonyactivision

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:58:57 -0500

This is the worst scandal since that Harry Potter auto-fellatio row of about three years ago. My thoughts and prayers go out to them both.

wowthatsucks

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:46:47 -0500

with that face, she's been very lucky so far

gasoline serpent

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:25:55 -0500

It's not overtly sexual, it's certainly not terribly attractive, and I really don't see this photo screaming "OMG SEX SYMBOL" anymore than her outfits on stage do. I think it's a remarkably well composed, lit, etc photo. As for Miley bitching about this not being 'artistic' in nature... I really must question what she was expecting. It's Vanity Fair. And I'm sure the moneys dished out for being a cover model weren't half bad, either.

johnnye

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:24:57 -0500

I heard Vanity Fair could not get copies of her at age 3 in a bathtub with a few of her friends.

jibbly

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:04:01 -0500

inoyourider FTW

sonyactivision

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:02:32 -0500

She's a dirty little whore and I for one, wouldn't be surprised in the least if her next "photo shoot" involved her getting ass-fucked by a German Shepard."Hannah Montana" is just another 'nom de porn' for aspiring little twats.

Polite New Yorker

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:47:51 -0500

It will be a good corn harvest next year.

JRod5417

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:44:22 -0500

She should be embarassed. She looks like a pale chipmunk in that photo.

dagblad

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:42:18 -0500

http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/7364/Nice-Girl.jpg First thing I thought of.

inoyourider

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:29:44 -0500

This wasn't an accident. Obviously staged to market her as just risque enough to appeal to a slightly older crowd of girls without alienating the parents.

bestview

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:20:09 -0500

Guest guest: I'm sure you're correct. By "her" I really meant the Miley Machine. I saw some clip that I think was Miley Cyrus singing, and she was shaking her hair all over the place as though she'd had too much Red Bull. Is she blonde sometimes? Or is that someone else?

babyhitler

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:13:11 -0500

I don't understand why people are angry. She's slutty and she makes little girls slutty. Those little girls grow up to be adult sluts. Adult sluts = easy sex for you and me later on. You know how much ass you can get on myspace for not doing anything now? It's all thanks to Britney, paris, and lindsay for showing little girls the way.

guest guest

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:56:27 -0500

bestview, I don't really thing it is about her decisions, as her success is apparently a family industry. This was probably a poor business decision for Cyrus Inc., not because the photo is sexualized, as it isn't - but because it has an urban, cosmopolitan feel - which will be alienating to her folkum yokum fanbase. Or maybe it is a smart business decision as Cyrus Inc. beginning phase II of the "brand." I'm no business man.

bestview

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:47:09 -0500

It's not the most flattering photo. It makes her look pasty and sad. It seems like this was something Miley wanted to do at the time (perhaps wants out of a Disney contract?), but now she's realizing it wasn't a great decision. We've all made decisions we'd like to take back; we just don't all have it documented in public. She's 15. Fifteen year olds often make poor decisions...just like 25 year olds and 35 year olds and so on and so on. And as an aside, I really like the Queen's portrait.

guest guest

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:45:54 -0500

What matty said. Not being in her target audience, my familiarity with her is limited to what I saw on the morning shows today. Her ‘teeny’ outfits are fairly inappropriate. But this photo shoot? The big shot in question really isn’t very sexualized. OMG, a back. So what?

Dirk

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:38:51 -0500

Leibovitz's work is so consistently bad. This is no exception.

matty

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:29:03 -0500

This is classier than what she normally wears. I don't see what the big deal is.