
When Annie Leibovitz's picture of child star Miley Cyrus appeared in Vanity Fair her tween fans - and their parents - went ballistic. The naked back, the satin sheet, the damp hair ... how dare the innocent heroine of the hit series Hannah Montana look so provocative? Germaine Greer dissects the image itself, and we look at the people behind it: the photographer, Annie Leibovitz, and Disney, which markets the billion-dollar actor
Excerpt:
When Miley Cyrus was asked about the picture of herself clutching a satin sheet to her chest that Annie Leibovitz has taken for the current issue of Vanity Fair, she said it looked "pretty and natural" and that she thought it was "really artsy". If by this she meant artistic, rather than artsy-fartsy, she was right on the money. In western art most of the women portrayed semi-clad or totally nude are children. Their nipples are pallid and undeveloped, their breasts hard and veinless, their pubes unfurred. When Lucian Freud paints girl children, nobody cares; when Leibovitz photographs them, everyone goes ballistic. When Botticelli paints the yet-to-be-enjoyed goddess of love emerging from the sea, people come from all over the world to gape at her. The Greeks and Romans liked their goddesses meaty; our preferred Venuses are children. Hardy perennials such as Diane de Poitiers held their sway as long as they did because their bodies never matured.
Kate Moss has been able to earn millions only as long as she could continue to project the body image of a 13-year-old. The appeal of her nude portraits derives from the heart-breaking curve of her narrow hip-line and the tautness of her barely perceptible cleavage, not to mention the sulky innocence of her unfocused gaze. The icon of the 34-year-old mother qua 13-year-old virgin is even more disturbing than the sexy image of the 15-year-old Cyrus, because it is so much rarer and weirder. Sexually knowing 15-year-olds are normal. No matter how much energy Disney - which makes the TV show Hannah Montana, in which Cyrus stars - might put into denying the obvious, 15-year-olds are sexually aware. Any schoolteacher coping with a heaving mass of 15-year-old women knows that whatever their tribal culture or their religious affiliation, they are fascinated by sex. Girls' magazines pay lip service to health and friendship issues: their real subject is boys.
One of my friends and I recently had a discussion along those lines. We concluded that as a society we seem to want to promote the idea that women should be thin and lacking body hair, because it makes them appear younger. We have thoroughly conveyed the idea that body hair is nasty and must be eliminated. We don't want our women to look like women; we want our women to look like pubescent girls. Aside from breast development, we don't equate secondary sex characteristics with sexiness.
As for 15-year-olds being sexually aware, I'd say that's several years too late. Most kids that I knew growing up were quite sexually aware by the age of 10. I had friends who were already having sex at 13. Heck, I remember when I was 13 a 15-year-old girl offered me oral sex on a band trip. This was 25 years ago.
Nice to read some really 'meaty' writing for a change.
This article is absolutely fascinating. I love reading about and discussing the societal ideals of beauty and sex; they're ever-changing, and full of things that would send the housewives and soccermoms of this country screaming for the hills. I love it, thanks for the highlight!
The author of the seeded article seems pretty pompous. While he may make some good points overall his cynicism, and perhaps even his envy, seem to dominate the entire piece.
The author is Germaine Greer, one of the original feminist writers of the 70s.
wrong gender sorry - but same basic attitude still comes through to me.
I can see the cynicism. I think she is cynical about the way our culture objectifies and sexualizes children.
I think that is fine - she should be disappointed in that. However, her voice, as written, seems to direct her venom at far more than just the objectification of children and also at famous people in general. She just comes across as bitter to me.
Again, it is just the vibe I get from her writing style. Obviously other people who read the article might not get the same feeling.
Had she just focused on the Cyrus episode without going into all the other Leibowitz photographs I probably wouldn't have picked up on this bitter tone. However, she did. She strayed from what was as strong central message that used the Cyrus images to illustrate her point and in so doing seemed to lose both the power but also her focus by trying to comment on so many different images that really have nothing to do with the objectification of children as sexual objects.
Excellent seed, terrific writing. Right on the money.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |