« In Search of Silver Bullets | Main
What did you expect?
Annie Liebovitz’s portrait of 15-year old teen-star Miley Cyrus, planned for Vanity Fair’s June issue, may very well damage Disney’s billion dollar Hannah Montana franchise.
The photo, in which Cyrus appears to be covered by a satin sheet, also plainly depicts that she posed topless. The image has already cut a wide swath through cyberspace, and today it is published in The New York Times. As one might expect, the image is haunting and memorable; Liebovitz’ uncanny ability to reveal the essential character of her subjects through her lens is very much in evidence. And what we see through her lens is a self-aware young person mid-journey, as she travels from girl to woman. That Cyrus is perceived to be beautiful only adds further impact to Liebovitz’ image, transforming it from ephemeral to iconic.
Once again, this whole situation drives home how people have become brands. In Miley Cyrus’ case, she is not only a brand, she is a franchise – a billion-dollar franchise.
As might be expected, Disney seems more than a little disturbed by the threat this and other Cyrus-acting-out episodes poses. Last week Cyrus flashed her green bra. Sound like a teenager to you?
Disney claims that Cyrus was manipulated in Liebovitz’ studio in order to sell magazines. However, it is not insignificant that Cyrus parents or minders were present at all times during the photo shoot. Vanity Fair spokesperson Beth Knesiak said “Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley.”
Because Miley Cyrus is already 1) a cultural icon 2) only fifteen years old, and 3) female, to open a portal to her personal journey evokes accusations of feeding voyeurs. There cannot help but be truth to this allegation, but as so many sexually abused women would testify if they could, sexual predators – especially those who should be harmless (fathers, uncles, brothers, grandfathers, etc.) – often get away with their behavior because our culture shames young women for inadvertent and mostly innocent expressions of their budding sexuality. It is that shame-machine that is cranking out condemnation of Cyrus even now and Liebovitz is accused of being complicit.
Miley Cyrus' statement reveals the coercive power of that machine: "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. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."
It seems to me that Disney and Cyrus’ fans and their parents need to get real. If you’re going to turn these young women into public figures during their late adolescent years, you’re going to get the behavior that is typical of their age. One doesn’t come without the other. People accuse the parents, handlers, and managers of these young women of turning them into sexual objects. Given the behavior our culture encourages, it seems that they are turning themselves into sexual objects; the media facilitates others’ ability to watch the transformation. Is it offensive? Maybe so, but it is also a natural life stage. The only prudent decision seems to be to avoid late adolescent girls altogether, but this runs counter to the interests of advertisers who very much want to exploit this market.
This journey to womanhood seems to terrify and terrorize many North Americans. In their daughters, nieces, grand-daughters, and god-daughters, when they witness blooming sexuality they experience this awakening as happening to women who are wholly unprepared for the power and influence it conveys, yet they seem unwilling or unable to help prepare them. It would seem that denial or ignorance are so much more appealing harbors in which to wait out their beloveds’ hormonal storms. The whole thing strikes me as equivalent to the symbolic donning of a cultural burqa. It is not the truth of the journey that offends; it is speaking about it or depicting it that violates our prudish moral values. One thing that can be said about burgeoning worldwide fundamentalism (in nearly every religion) is that it is now cool to be a prude.
It is ironic that it is Liebovitz’s unerring eye and her ability to speak truthfully with her camera about Cyrus that has caught up both women in this maelstrom of outrage. There is little doubt in my mind that Liebovitz will be accused of serving up erotica to pedophiles before this is over. And while Annie Liebovitz hardly needs defense from me, it strikes me as unfair to summarily condemn Annie Liebovitz or Miley Cyrus without some further reflection. The cultural forces and the iconography of young, vulnerable women are both exerting considerable force. It is not the image itself but what it means, what it stands for, and the message that it is accused of sending to other impressionable young women that is the issue.
It was just a couple of weeks ago on American Idol Gives Back that I saw Cyrus perform. No adult could help but notice that Cyrus comports herself with polish and professionalism beyond her years. Likewise, in her youthful female swagger, alluring makeup, and gyrating hips, she projects feminine sexuality. Her performance–broadcast to tens of millions of households–could hardly be described as modest or demure, yet there is no widespread outrage about that. Why? Well, for one thing she wasn’t posing topless, even if she was covered. She was performing. I suspect a further reason is that Annie Liebovitz wasn’t behind the camera lens.
Posted on April 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Permalink
Bookmark with: 
del.icio.us, 
StumbleUpon, 
digg