I agree. It'd be nice if she'd done something different!

My initial reaction was along the lines of "Wow, that picture stinks. Who took it?"

Y'know, it isn't as though Miley was walking down the hallway, slipped, and oops! there's a compromising pic. C'mon, this was a planned event with a high-profile photographer who probably stays booked out months in advance. Not that it makes her any less scummy for having done so, but I'd imagine that the Leibovitz simply did what was asked of her...

I'd like nothing better than for this to totally destroy Miley's career. That seems to be the only way these sorts of people "get" that there's a price for willfullt, senselessly, betraying the public trust. I hope she's received her last Disney check ever.

but I'd imagine that the Leibovitz simply did what was asked of her...

Maybe so, but that begs the question of why use the highest paid photographer on the planet (I'm guessing) to do something that any mook with an EOS 1D could replicate?

And, according to this report, you won't see Disney dumping Miley anytime soon. Apparently, even Disney isn't immune to the "no publicity is bad publicity" syndrome.

Apparently, even Disney isn't immune to the "no publicity is bad publicity" syndrome.

Since they happily stood behind the High School Musical chick who had topless photos and they are very active in promoting homos_xuality as a "lifestyle choice", I can't imagine that they think anything other than that it's hilarious to take wholesome and try to corrupt it, no matter what they might say when the cameras are on.

I do tend to think that Miley represents a "property" (if I may be so crass) that merits a little more discretion, regardless of Disney's corporate culture, if for no other reason than her revenue-generating capabilities staggers the imagination. The Hannah Montana franchise has profit potential that even a Fortune 500 company can't ignore, and it's based almost entirely on a persona that's diametrically opposed to what Vanity Fair is promoting.

OTOH, some have observed that Hannah Montana is reaching the end of her shelf life (16 is the new 40...over the hill?), and Cyrus needs a new image to move past it.

This is actually all beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make with this post, but, like Leibovitz, I knew the reactions that it would generate. ;-)

Eric, some really good discussion here.

First off, I admire the work of Annie Liebovitz ..... stunning at times, and controversial, but also insightful, bringing to the surface a face her subjects might not have known existed, or had worked hard to conceal.

That being said, I feel that a Liebovitz portrait has become a token of celebrity ..... sort of the Andy Warhol '3 x 3' painting for the new generation. It's a token of arrival, and a ticket for continued success, an added level of exposure for an industry thast thrives on that commodity.

Personally, I don't think anybody is truly surprised by the photos, and that each - the photographer, the subject, the subject's manager, the subject's producers, the magazine - are all asking-for and giving exactly what is expected of them.

With that in mind, Eric, I thought one of your last comments was the most insightful ..... I believe it has been long decided that it is time for Cyrus to move on .... I think the photos represent the next stage of a planned career move ..... like the path Mima followed ten years ago in "Perfect Blue" ..... may Cyrus' journey be a little less traumatic.

I feel that a Liebovitz portrait has become a token of celebrity

That may be an understatement. For proof, look no further than Vanity Fair's annual "Hollywood Issue," which for the past 13 years has featured a three-panel foldout cover of Tinseltown's biggest celebs. I draw your attention to this one in particular. Anyone who can draw Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson, and Brad Pitt into the same photo (plus a few other only slightly less shiny luminaries) has got influence that's off the charts.

Part of the problem is Annie has become in the world of pop culture celebrity photographers what few celebs themselves ever reach -- a brand-name icon for whom the idea of "failure" is an alien concept. Just the fact that it is an Annie Liebovitz photograph by itself makes it good, in the same way certain clothing designers, filmmakers painters, playwrights or recording artists become so famous for who they are it really doesn't matter what the quality of the work is as much as it's new work (and Annie's even better off than most of the others, because there's almost no cash expenditure required to look at a photograph, the way there is to buy a CD, watch a movie or buy a designer piece of clothing).

When you're too famous to fail, you really can put it on cruise control and turn out anything, and as long as it garners even a little attention, your supporters are going to find artistic merits in it.

..... as for the photo that got all of this started. I think it's okay. I don't agree with Jim that "it stinks" ..... I just think it's okay. Of course, what passes as 'okay' for Liebovitz is still a notch or two above what passes as 'very good' for me.

And when she is very good ..... like her portraits of Willie Nelson, Steve Martin and so many others ... WOW!

When you're too famous to fail...

That's a curse I deal with daily. ;-)

...as for the photo that got all of this started. I think it's okay.

Again, I respectfully disagree...it's not even OK, from a creative perspective. (I'm not qualified to comment on the technical aspects.) And the more I think about it -- prompted by some of the preceding discussion -- the more merit I give the idea that Leibovitz was working to a carefully planned set of specs given to her by her employer.

I am a little late in getting in on this. I just found out who Miley Cyrus is about 6 months ago. Wasn't her mullet headed dad on location? And doesn't this just prove that he really is a mullet head?

Dale, I haven't exactly been immersed in the details of this situation, but one account I saw reported that Billy Ray was at the shoot but left before this photo was taken. If true, it is puzzling that he wouldn't stay for the whole shoot.

The argument that he, as the father of a minor, bears the brunt of the responsibility has a lot of validity in my opinion. I don't care if his daughter's annual income is many times his own, he's the parent and ought to act like it. But, that's easy for me to say. I can't even adequately supervise the dog.

However, I must say that your obvious envy over BR's hair is not a pretty thing. ;-)

I'm amazed that people see this as a seductress type picture. She looks rather bland to me. Not come hither. We have all seen much worse walking through our local mall on the weekend. It's all I can do to keep myself from having a chat with those girls about decency. But still, this picture, eh...

I guess seductiveness is in the eye of the beholder. That's why I didn't intend for this post to be a moral commentary, but rather one about creativity. But sometimes the comment thread has a mind of its own.

It's very sad knowing what was a "family channel" is just the new way of expliciting kids into media moguls that will role model into our young kids lives. It's bad enough that parents don't say anything to prevent another Brittany Spears or Linsay Lohan, but a fifteen year old girl who hasn't even enjoyed high school is looking to be the next Marilyn Monroe. And YES i say looking because she has enough sense to say no, but did she? NO! So now we just watch as the problems start rising and rehab becomes her. So young and so beautiful with a potenial future, but so ignorant towards the world.

I'll admit that the track record of female teen idols isn't very good in terms of a smooth transition to adulthood, but I'm not sure we should write off Miley for this one indiscretion.

While it might prove to be the first public stumble in a long downward spiral, it's equally possible that it's a wake-up call that puts her back on track.

From a photographer prospective I agree she did "call it in". The photo reflects nothing of Miley's personality and is something Annie has done many times before. I recently bought Annie's book "A Photographers Life" and it was a HUGE disappointment. There was just handful of photos of celebrities, family, the rest were various photos of Susan Sontag in various views of seemingly disgust on her face and gestures. I think Annie's work is still relevant, but isn't as ground breaking as it used to be.

Bleu, I'm glad you weighed in on this, as I have a lot of respect for your photographic eye. I haven't seen A Photographer's Life, but I know it got hammered pretty hard by some critics, and sparked a debate over the difference between art and personal memoirs.

I know who Miley Cyrus is (and even give her props for the pop hooks in the few of her pop songs I've heard), but I hadn't heard anything about the Vanity Fair shoot. So I guess I'm standing in the doorway of the cave, looking in.

My knowledge of Annie Leibovitz doesn't extend very far. She lost me as soon as I stumbled on on those nekkid pictures of [shudder] Yoko Ono. But, as one of the other commenters aptly noted, the Lolita angle seems very out of synch with Miley's 15-year-old “girls just wanna have fun” vibe.

The opening line of the article to which you linked (“Annie Leibovitz, a world class lesbian photographer...”) strikes me as almost comically biased, but it does suggest a possible reason for the tone of Miley's shoot. Or, as my grandma was fond of saying when we kids were being a bit too cheeky in our interpretation of innocent things she said, “You've got a dirty mind.”

Off that subject, I'd really enjoy reading your thoughts on how to balance creativity with falling back on proven design frameworks.

Off that subject, I'd really enjoy reading your thoughts on how to balance creativity with falling back on proven design frameworks.

Interesting question. Don't know that I have any meaningful insights...but that's never before stopped me from posting! I'll think about it (which is a unique approach).