Hannah Montana

Hannah Montanna's appeal is evident by the fact that in spite of having never seen the show on TV my 8 year old has a poster of the fictional pop star in her room and had a Hannah Montana cake for her birthday. After the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy, Miley Cyrus got elevated to some kind of a perfect-wholesome-teenagers status with articles about her faith in God and her excellent upbringing under strict rules etc. in every magazine. Hence, it was inevitable that some horrible photo or article would emerge to pop that balloon. It happened this weekend.

Some provocative images of Miley Cyrus with her boyfriend circulated the net. I was however, more worried by the spread she posed for in Vanity Fair magazine. Apparently her parents were at the shoot, and it was the famed photographer Annie Leibovitz handling the camera. Everybody was quite aware the photo would make Miley appear nude, covered by a satin sheet. Miley was apparently clothed under the sheet, but does that really matter? From what I read everyone was on board with what the picture was going to look like, and everyone involved with the photo shoot, including Miley and Ms Liebovitz themselves, agreed that the photo would appear "artistic".

I am not stranger to art and yes nudes can be very artistic! What shocks me is the state of current culture that nobody batted an eyelid about a 15 year old kid appearing to be nude in a magazine spread - art or no art! Yes, it is "simple" and "beautiful" picture, but it is a girl in the picture not a grown woman. She is insanely famous, but Miley is still a kid, and although she did not do a Britney Spears style sexy-school-girl photo, in my mind that kind of pose is inappropriate for a young girl. Why would the photographer suggest it and why would her parents agree? Could it be that we have gotten so desensitized by the sexualization of everything that it never occurred to anybody that maybe it is not a very good idea to photograph a 15 year old, naked in bed with a sheet held up to her chest?