Response to Miley Cyrus Photo by Annie Leibovitz

I	Initial Reaction to the Image	Comment on the Critiques	Leibovitz Video in mind- your reaction to this image	The Role of the Photographer	Additional feedback
MS	Times is just looking for something to be mad at. If your famous your going to get your picture taken, if you dont want to do it say no. if you cant say no then you dont have strong will and your a sheep. they mention that annie uses nudity but there no nudity in this. there prom dresses that show that much skin. we just see innocence because shes on the same channel as mikey.	You go Germanie. Im full on board with everything she says.	shame on you for appologizing, you have nothing to be sorry for. she is competent as well as her parents its not your fault that 90% of America isnt. Its a job like anyother. the famer isnt made to appologize for the murder of innocent defenceless animals.	the role of the photographer when photographing people is catch ho they really feel about being photographed. if they want to work with you if they want ignore you if they want to be out raged or moved. you have to try and get as much information of this person as possible and still make a successful shot.
MS	Yes i have seen it before. As a portrait it is a great shot and it really shows some vulnerability in someone who has been portrayed to be able to do it all. I am aware of the controversy that goes along with it and to be honest i think it got a little out of hand. There are people younger than this who have been photographed in a lot less that didnt get a bad rep. I think the main problem people have with this photo is that it looks like a bedroom shot and she is only 15.	I agree with the Germain Greer article. There is alot more out there that is being done which is worse than this and nobody seems to care about the nude children portrayed in those.	I think its an extremely vulnerable picture which shows some of the effects being a star can have on a young girl. It takes a toll on your body and the image you need to maintain. So this shot was a real shocker to those who had never seen something like it before.	As a photographer you do need to have some sense of responsibility of what these pictures will be percieved by others as, but i dont think annie was in the wrong by taking this photo. There was a huge over reaction made by this. I think the problem was that she as seen on many children's shows and looked up to by them. If she had been in some vampire movie then this picture would most likely be seen as completely acceptable.	http://theletter.co.uk/index/3355/zhang_peng/full http://www.chinasquareny.com/gallery/index.php/artists/86-artistzhangpeng http://www.e-sushi.fr/imagearticle/zhang-peng05.jpg this is an example of an image taken that is along the same lines as the miley photo but didnt get any wold wide news. These are real people that are just highly photoshopped
MS	I think that this is a pretty well taken photo. I hadn't seen the image until today, but I was aware of the controversy.	I think that the Times got all wrong, Germaine Greer got it all right with some quirkiness, and Leibovitz kept it real. Where I think the times is wrong is that Leibovitz doesn't exploit anyone just to make money. Especially with herself having two young daughters, I don't think she would portray Miley in a way she wouldn't do for her daughters. Germaine Greer had a good analysis in saying that Western culture is just prude, and made the good point that her parents consented to everything and were on set. The final article really shows how Miley Cyrus is a hypocrite and probably only said she is embarrassed of those photos just to save face.	I don't think it is a bad image at all. It is very tasteful, and it doesn't show any cleavage that is seen in so many images today. It really does show a tension between the viewer and the subject. However, it really doesn't portray Miley Cyrus at the time, who was a teen girl playing as Hannah Montana.	I think that the photographer should do ethical things, but shouldn't be afraid to push boundaries. Also, even if you get in a tiff like this, you should always stand by and defend your work.
MS	At first, I did not realize it was Cyrus. I had figured, given the nature of the photo, that it was someone older. I was aware of the controversy, but never had seen the photo.	I feel that a lot of people are over-reacting. Its a simple fact of the matter that this photo was going to be taken at some point during her career. Whether it was then, or three years down the road, this was going to happen sooner or later. Secondly, this also comes down to the fact that people would be upset by this quickly, but then would get their apology quickly and then forget the whole thing ever happened. It would leave their mind entirely. They would go on consuming the "wholesome" Miley Cyrus regardless of this photo, those who were overly offended aside. I can understand why people may get upset, but honestly, it could have been far far worse, and there are plenty of examples of other celebrities where it has been worse.	Again, I feel that this image could have been far worse. It is as Germaine Grere said "classy." It is a symbol the times that we live in. We live in a time where celebrity is everything and individual artistic freedom is encouraged, but then we become mired in these Victorian ideals about what is and isn't permissible. It stymies creativity and hurts art over all.	I think that an artist's vision should be the first consideration, and if that involves being controlling or irresponsible, then so be it. The concerns of mass media consumption shouldn't affect one's work on the whole	Seriously, get over it, people. You're going to, anyway.
MS	Personally I find the portrait tastefully done. It shows a vulnerability to Cyrus, that we don't publicly see.	I can see where they all are coming from. I think Greer's response was overkill. Not all girls are bred to be "whores". Times are changing, or rather people's viewpoints are. As a society we are sexually aware earlier than our parents were. I think if it's handled properly it shouldn't be an issue. All parties gave their full consent. I think Cyrus only backtracked on her views of the photo because of the controversy it generated with her younger fans. I do find the photo with her father, kinda skeevy.	I think it was tasteful and classy, and I think that everyone who was present at that photoshoot knew what they were getting into with having Leibovitz as the photographer. Pushing boundaries isn't something she shies away from.	I think it's the job of the photographer to prepare whoever they shooting. Let them know what their vision is, and listen to the subject's input, and take it into account.
MS	I was aware of this controversy at the time it was going on. After hearing about it I read the interview and looked at the pictures in Vanity Fair. I don't see what is wrong with these photos. I understand what people think is wrong with them, but I don't agree. She is not showing anything, and she is not trying to be overtly sexual. I like the photo and think it is tastefully done.	I think the critique from Times is completely absurd. The way that person writes and thinks in my opinion is so over the top and they are just trying to get epople riled up over nothing. The Germaine Greer review makes some good and interesting opinions, but also feel it is a little over the top. I think people often try to make something where there is nothing. I think Annie Leibovitz is sincere in her intent with these photo's and people just like to make drama.	I don't think Leibovitz was trying to be controversial with these photo's. I really believe she was just trying to take a simple, beautiful portrait. And that people misinterpreted it. Maybe people think it shouldn't even be possible to misinterpret, but I think that would put a lot of constraint an artistic vision.	As far as photographers manipulating people to get what they want, I am not entirely sure how I feel about it. I do think it is wrong to mislead people, and I personally don't think I would feel comfortable doing it, but a lot of times it does result in a more successful photograph, so I can't say other people should never do it.
MS	My initial response was not shocking. So many girls today have shown much worse on personal pictures and the internet that my shock factor is somewhat gone. I actually think this is a great photo. It is not Annie's fault nor Miley Cyrus's. I think everyone at that shoot was okay with it especially her father. She had to grow up sometime and this photo was just part of hr transition.	The Times interview was just plain harsh. Janice Turner only sounds like a jealous wannabe when she complains about the photos of Miley. I think she should give it a rest. The Germaine Greer interview was the best and I think honest with good points. She managed to argue a good point without sounding snotty. The Leibovitz interview was justified and fair. I don't think Annie needed to defend herself in the first place but when Miley could not make up her mind saying that the images were artsy one minute then apologizing to her fans the next it would be hard to make a statement on the subject.	After watching the video I have the utmost respect for Annie. The way she captures a photo is unlike any other. Doing the people shoot myself I almost dreaded it. Every time I saw a person I would lift my camera and they would look at me so I never got the shot. With Annie the famous people she is photographing are well aware that she is taking a picture. So when I have to take pictures of strangers it is impossible for me because I do not have their permission and that makes me uneasy. My analysis of the image has not changed. It is fine with me, Miley or her parents could have said "no".	The role of the photographer when shooting people is daring. With portraits it is fun and a little easier when the person is aware. Some other artists styles when shooting street scenes and just randomly taking pictures of anyone is a little weird to me. I give that kind of artist kudos for having the guts to do that, but it is not for me. In fact I find Richard Avedons' portraits much more interesting than Bruce Gildens' street shots because the portraits are personal and interesting whereas Gilden is just taking pictures of random people walking and I just don't get it.
MS	I have not seen this portrait before and was not aware of the controversy. Yet after hearing the story I can understand why there would be such a big fuss over this picture.	I think that this is a situation where I can view this controversy from both sides. I can see how Annie meant for this photograph to be an artistic photograph with the light and the pose. Yet, on the other hand I think that at 15 years old this is a little bit of a revealing photographs and the lighting makes it look a little more inappropriate then I'm sure was expected.	Overall, I think that for this age of a child it is an inappropriate image. I think that there are many other ways Annie could have gone to make a successful image but not making Miley look older then she really is. I also think that it is kind of sad that for her to get so much attention she has to be barely dressed and all done up in make up and messy hair.	I think that the role of the photographer is very important. It is their artwork that is going to be shown and critiqued. I think they have to think about how they want to be portrayed and viewed by the public, both the photographer and the person they are photographing. The picture is basically all about how the photographer wants it to look and the mood they would like it to give off. I think the person with the most control a photo shoot is the photographer because most of the choices are made by them.
MS	I have seen this picture before, but I never realized it was miley cyrus. I think it's a very dramatic shot, and I can see why there would be controversy with it's publication. I've heard some things about it, but to be honest I don't know as much as I probably should.	I think this article is extremely harsh towards Leibovitz, and I don't think it's author has ever seen Annie work or payed much mind to the fact that Miley willingly had this picture taken. From what I saw of the film, Annie is very respectful and willing to change the way a picture is being taken if her subject isn't comfortable. As for the rest of the article, I think the author is almost putting too much attention on miley with the description of the photo, probably turning miley into more of a sex symbol than the photo itself. I agree that the picture is revealing for a 15 year old girl, but it's a beautiful shot, and a respectful one. If Miley or her parents had a problem with it, I don't think we'd have been able to see it.	I feel like this article was a more realistic response to the controversy, and definitely put things into perspective, especially with it's commentary on disney's own work with Cyrus. I agree with this article's statement about how this picture is more thoughtful and artistic than the other pictures being taken, and I agree that this is a picture of more class. Despite that I don't agree with the beginning of the article that discusses the conditioning of young girls as if it's ok to do that. I don't think it's correct to say that this cultures obsession with youth gives us the excuse to exploit young girls.	I was kind of confused by this article. I feel like it kind of covered the controversy rather than responding to it. I think Miley Cyrus should commit to her actions rather than trying to take everything back and change her mind, though I can see where it would be stressful to get tied up in situations like that.
MS	My initial thoughts of one i first saw this photo was that of maybe say somewhat shocking, and maybe a little too revealing, but shortly after that initial shock has passed away. Ive seen it previously before this digital class, just in a previous class. Yes I am aware of the controversy.	- Times: Th London times response i think was very critical and seemed to be an outraged outburst of a person who thinks to show skin is an offensive mark, but they saw just the outer shell and not what the meaning of the photograph might actually mean, and if they were to think and not react so quickly could have judged this more intelligently. - Germaine Greer: Germaine Greer seems to have taken a step back and began to analyze what the picture actually meant and to that Annie Leibovitz was not portraying miley cyrus "in a skanky way" that germaine greer had quoted from Annie. Her response was much more systemic and was much less quickly to react with such a harsh reaction.	This image has been misinterpreted by those who were quick to react and harshly saying that they are not a fan anymore because of this. The way that she was portrayed was not in a bad way but, perhaps teh way that miley may feel. She I'm sure is exposed to alot and different variety of people and things and annie, by taking this photo she wanted her to look as if she is older and wants to break out her shell.	The role of the photographer can be viewed in many ways and there is not one set way of the thoughts of the role of the photographer. They do however have the power to display a certain subject in a certain way and are responsible for the way of portrayiong there subject.	Very interesting.
MS	I have not seen this photograph before nor was I aware of the controversy. I'm guessing the controversy was because Miley Cyrus was so young when this picture was taken. I think the image as a portrait is beautiful. The only thing I would be concerned with is the fact that this portrays to young women that they should all be this beautiful and have the perfect body and show it off to others.	I think people are just going way overboard with their criticism. I do agree that young women of Miley's age should not have photographs like this one in a magazine but like one of the articles said that nudity with people of all ages has been around for centuries. People in general just need to face the fact that sex sells and it will never change.	I truly do not think Annie Leibovitz meant anything bad when she shot these portraits. She was pretty much doing what any other photographer would do to get work. I don't think this portrait of Miley is so bad. It is sending the wrong message to teenage girls but I don't feel Miley was too young to be photographed like this. It's not like she is totally nude. The only skin showing on her is the back and you see a lot more skin than that on the beach.	After taking pictures for the people assignment, I am totally turned off to taking pictures of people. I would not want these photographers kind of responsibility.
MS	Initial response to this image-gross. She looks anorexic and used up. I have seen it before...people FREAKED when the image was released and it popped up everywhere once people got worked up about it. DEFINITELY aware of the controversy. If she was not a famous person and therefore her age known, I wonder how upset people would have been. Would they still be as upset if she wasn't Disney's princess and 15? And it's not like she wouldn't have had people present to represent her interests, ESPECIALLY being that she is a minor. Also, someone had to make the decision to publish the photograph...	BRAVO TO GERMAIN GREER! She hit the nail DIRECTLY on the head. Hers is the best response I've heard (read) to date concerning the photograph. Completely true and well written. And again, as pointed out, Disney could have said no. Her parents could have said no. MILEY could have said no. Give me a break already.	I still think the image is unflattering, but not for the reasons everyone else is so worked up about. The first thing I am hit with when seeing the image is the sight of her ribs. She looks hungry. The makeup just looks smudged, as if she is too weak to clean herself up or get dressed because she is so hungry.	The role of the photographer, in my opinion, should be to capture an "honest" photo. One that gets to the subjects "essence" and shows their true self and feelings. They should have control of the shoot, from the subject, to the background, to the props, but they should still share it as allowable with the subject to try and get a photograph in their style but that portrays the subject.
MS	I have seen this before. My initial response to this photograph was how clear it looked, but thats just me looking at the technical aspect of it. I was aware of the controversy, but did not agree with what people were saying about it.	I think the Times critique is outrageous. They are saying this picture is exploiting a 15 year old girl as a sex object, and that our de flowering boyfriend just took the picture. Thats so outrageous. I agree with Greer, she says that we teach girls from a young sage to flirt and use their sex appeal to their advantage. Greer says that when someone paints someone naked everyone loves it, but once its photographed everyone goes crazy. She makes a great point.	I think this is a very powerful photograph. Technically it is a stunning picture, its so sharp. But for people to say that its "skanky" it crazy! Girls show more of their body at the beach in a bikini, then she is showing in this picture. I think people just look for a reason to cast down others, just to make themselves feel better as a person.	I think the photographer holds a lot of the responsibility of their work, i mean it is their work. The talent also holds some responsibility though, at least in staged photography. They always have the option to say no to a shoot that the photographer wants to do. Yes the photograph was Leibovitz's idea, but Miley had the final say.	I think all the bad publicity this photograph has is not needed at all, its an awesome photograph.
MS	I don't think that this photo is necessary at all. i dont think that young girls, or any one really needs to be influenced by this. to me.. its not the face that she is almost naked. its the fact that the first thing you look at when you look at this photo is her bones. you see how skinny and pale she is. in todays society kids are so influenced by the people they look up to. they'll do anything to be like them. this is the reason why so many young girls are struggling and dying because of eating disorders. because they see pictures like this. and it they feel like they need to look like that. they need to be "that skinny" to be pretty. they need to look like her to fit in, and to be liked. i dont like this photo.	i agree with the times article. i don't know if i believe for sure that leibovitz is like a dirty old man trying to seduce young girls. in the article they say that miley cyrus was a victim. and i don't think thats true. she could of said no. but i agree that this photo is very influential to young adolescents. the second article talked baout how todays society girls are taught from a very young age to flirt. and dress up as mini whores. and that this picture isn't bad becuase 15 year olds know about sex. just because other magazines, or ads, or other people say its okay. doesn't mean that it is. leibovitz taking this shot isnt helping anyone. its demoralizing society more and more. its just adding on the the pressure that is on young children. and they dont need that.	i still really like leibovitz work. i think she is very talented. and a great photographer. i liked all the work we saw in the movie. but i still think that this picture is totally unnecessary. shes not helping society in any way by putting this picture out.	i think that photographer has a very important role. the fate of both the subject and the photographer is in the photographers hand. even if the photographer is payed, and asked to shoot someone a certain way. if something goes wrong, it all goes back to the photographer. the fate of the picture is in the hands of the person behind the camera.
MS	I have never seen this image before seeing it today, nor was I aware of the controversy. So to me I understand why some people might be taken back by this image and find it offensive, but to me its not that big of a deal. I get that the message its sending is wrong but I dont think that when a young girl sees this that she is going to want to be photographed like this in fact most young girls probably feel the same way about this image as adults do. I understand why people are upset with them image but to me if I saw it in a magazine I would probably just turn the page. We have to realize that it is a professional artistic photo.	After reading these critiques of the photo it seems that at the time everyone thought the photo was really artistic, but after being printed and interpreted by thousands of people everyone had a change of mind. Its funny that even her parents thought the photo was artistic and acceptable at the time and approved of it but after seeing how people interpret they feel different. The fact that Miley became embarrassed after it was printed and interpreted kind of says something about the honesty of pop culture. If she thought it was a good photo and felt comfortable while shooting it why does she care how it is interpreted.	I think the photo is very artistic, however it does explore the idea that there are many ways this can be interpreted. Perhaps that was the goal while shooting it, I mean anyone can interpret something to make it look bad. For instance the photo of Lebron James with the blond model, does this mean Lebron should never be on a photo shoot with a blond because it can be compared to the king kong photo. Photography can be interpreted many different ways and although I dont necessarily agree with this photo i can see the art behind it.	I think that the role of the photographer in a shoot is important. I think that the photographer is responsible to bring ideas to the table but to make sure they have the consent of the subject. I think that its important for the photographer to make the subject do more then simply what is told. The photographer needs to get the subject to release some kind of energy or feeling that goes with the environment and message of the photo.
MS	It truly is a beautiful image, looks almost Victorian, antique or angelic, an image on a Gaelic ceiling perhaps. I have seen it before in the news and magazines etc. I was aware of the controversy, it was a while ago so I don't really remember. I hate Miley Cyrus so I tend to ignore and avoid stuff that has to do with her.	I believe that the Times critique was a little to radical, judgmental and harsh on Annie.Yes, it was wrong to portray a young girl this way, but I don't think its that big of a deal. There are a lot worse images out there, this isn't that big of a deal. If Annie claims its for the artistic style and presentation then she probably acted for the best, and the sake of a good photograph. I agree with just about everything that germaine and Leibovitz said about doing it for the sake of the natural, and beautiful, artistic feel.	It's a nice image, strong emotion and depth, nice lighting, but knowing its of a 15 year old girl whose half naked, has tussled hair, and smudged make-up turns me off instantly. Its inappropriate and gives the viewer the idea that shes too young for this sort of picture and that she has just wakening up from a sex filled night.	A photographer must have both control and responsibility, otherwise how can he/she take a respectable, profound, or strong emotional photograph. A photographer must connect with the subject, learn about it, study it, and figure out how to portray it through a photo, while giving the viewer something to think about in the picture. The photo must tell a story. A photographer must control the subject, manipulate it, and mold it until its perfectly the way the photographer wants it. Some photographs will inevitably anger some people, but overall its what the photographer wanted and the photographer must take responsibility for it.	I like giving my opinion on controversial issues.
MS	I have seen this photo before. I think that this is a beautiful image, however I think that it should have waited a few years though. I do not believe that a girl at the age of fifteen should have even been given the opportunity for this kind of sex appeal. It should be what people think of when they see an image of a fifteen year old girl. I know that the would be no way that my parents would have been okay with this idea (still now and I'm twenty-two!). I wonder what her parents were thinking. Obviously, Miley's father was there considering he was in a few pictures with her that day.	Well, I think that the second one stood out the most. I feel that Miley regretted taking the pictures after they were published, but had fun during the shoot. Then to make matters worse, I think that she tried to make Annie look like she was wrong by doing it. I think that Annie probably should have thought before doing it, but at the same time if Miley's parents said that it was okay, it probably would have been enough for most people.	I still think that this shot was beautiful and I do understand Annie's reason behind shooting it. I think that the public does over react about most things and then feeds off of it. I think that this was probably a valuable lesson learned on Annie's part.	Well, as for responsibility, I think that the photographer is fully responsible in the long run. I think that the photographer is the one that "pushes the button" in order to take the picture. In Miley's case, I think that her parents are somewhat to blame as well. She was fifteen at the time and all she knows is that this is a way to get attention, but now she knows that it was the wrong kind of attention. Hopefully this is the last of the negative attention that she gets and that she doesn't end up like Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan.	I hope that everyone involved in this learned a valuable lesson from this whole thing.
MS	I have seen this photo before and I am aware of the controversy about it but I do not believe it is a horrible images. Yes, she may be young and this photo is revealing but in a way it is a really well done image that really shows a side of Miley Cyrus that seems sad in a way more than shameful.	I believe everyone misinterprets the photo taken and try to make it something its not just to have something interesting to talk about. The critiques take things to far and over react to an image that is supposed to be beautiful until they take it and manipulate it to be something worse. I believe the critiques were to harsh and pushed things to far.	I think this is a very beautiful image that really captures the subject. In a way a relationship was created and a design for the photo was decided. The photo is just art nothing more or nothing worse. This images really portrays how well Annie can photograph people.	I believe as a photographer your role is to show the truth of a person or an area that is happening. Making connections to what your photographing to make them real and truthful to make a better image. I believe sometimes things can be taken to far where the image can hurt some people but if your trying to show the truth or just portray an image that is beautiful you cannot help if some people misinterpret the image and find it to be something that it is really not, which in the end destroys art.
MS	I have never seen this picture, and was not aware of the controversy.	They all seem to mention Disney more than once, which has invested a great deal in Hannah/Miley. The power of Disney cannot be over looked in any of these critics even Leibovitz's. So it's hard to distinguish a controlled controversy or pure outrage? Bad press can be more of a catalyst than positive at times.	She is becoming desperate? her latest photos are being used to spur more controversy than trying to portray her vision of a picture.	The studio or portrait shot is not my favorite. To go off on a bit of a tangent even thought a public place is considered fair game, can there be any type of line drawn, people should not have to fear leaving their home to be placed in a gallery, or an online publication without their consent. If they chose to have there picture taken then should they lose any type of veto on what should be portrayed just to sell, or on the assumption that it is an artists interpretation? This picture shows just that, should the subject have the final say? it is her/his body.
MS	Yes, I have seen this photo before. I think yes, it is a beautiful photo, but that doesn't matter as much as the ethics and truth of it. Why is it that we can apologize for art so much? Where'd decency go? I don't mean in all respects, I'm no stuffy, black-and-white, close-minded person. In this case, I'm talking about photographing a 15 year old girl as a sexual woman. She's not legal in any sense, and I don't really agree with photographing her as such. Even if you can't tell her age from her body, just look at her face. It's a baby face, a face of innocence. Leave it alone.	The Times critique shamed Annie Leibovitz for taking the semi-naked pictures of Miley Cyrus, and smirked arrogantly at her response that the photos were artistic. Germaine Greer pointed out that Disney markets Miley just as much as that the Vogue photoshoot with Leibovitz did, though in different ways, and it is just as shameless. At least Leibovitz's photos had class--and Miley constantly prostitutes herself on the runway and dirty pictures with her boyfriend as well, says Greer. Leibovitz denies that she has done anything wrong, saying that prostituting the teen through her photographs was not her intention at all, that she and the young star thought they were very artistic. Though later on Miley apologized to her fans for the photoshoot. I honestly agree with both the Times and Greer, which is a funny mix considering what they disagree on. However, I'm not sure Leibovitz had her eyes wide open when they did this photoshoot. I know that as artists, we are tempted and almost have to push the envelope--but sometimes, in some places, there are lines we should not cross.	I think that yes, Annie Leibovitz's photographs have class and an artistic edge that other photos of Miley on the red carpet or in the privacy of her own room do not. Though I still do not agree with the photoshoot itself. Look at that baby-fat covered face. To me, it's just sad--not sexy, and not something that belongs in a national magazine.	I think the photographer has the control and the responsibility to not hurt others with their cameras. Art can be made without hurting or exploiting. Creativity and open-mindedness is needed. If you can't do your art without doing that, you're not really an artist.
MS	Im not a big of her as an artist, but this is a spectacular photograph. It not like she naked in this photo, nothing is reviled. How come we can take naked pictures of babes and its cute, but this shot gets taken and everyone blows way out of proportion. Everyone needs to get with the modern times and stop bitching about her being a slut, to me it looks like she is expressing her inner self.	Critique number one can blow it out his ass if you ask me. He does nothing but bash on the photo. Who cares if this shot looks like she just woke up from a good night. It is one of the most artistic photos of our time. Critique number two has it just right. We jump all over this photo when there are much more risque photos of younger teens naked. People saw these and jumped to conclusion, calling her a slut. Thats not right.	This image is classic Leibovitz. She gets to the point out that this is todays society. People are becoming younger and more famous as the days roll by. It is key to keep up with times and she does just that. If Billy did not have a problem with her taking this photo than peoples opinions should not matter. Miley has no reason to be embarrassed, these are very artistic.	The photographer has total control over the situation at hand. Also they have the responsibility to make the photo as best as they can. They have the power to change the world.
MS	For a 15 year old it is a little provocative but it is a nice photo. I think that since her father was there and was seeing what was going on that their shouldn't be any problem with it, he could have stopped it at any time. I have seen the photo before and I was aware of the controversy.	Time- First off Miley is just say that she couldn't say no because she doesn't want to look like the bad person. Also, her parents were there they could off stopped it their selves. Germaine Greer- I agree with what she is saying that other artist have done "worse" in a way but since she is from Disney it is blown out of proportion. Miley doesn't even really care it sounds like. Leibovitz- I don't think she had to apologize at all because Miley was okay with it and her parents were to since they were their. Miley is just saying she was embarrassed because she doesn't want to lose her fans.	I think this image is a great image. And the light and the feeling behind it is great. The composition and everything is great to. It catches your eye because of the feeling behind the photo.	The photographer has control when it comes to taking the photo and they make the decision when it comes to what the photo is going to look like. So they do have complete responsibility for the photos that they are taking because it is their image in their head that they are taking the photo of. However, the person being photographed can say no and they don't have to have their photo taken, they do have the right to say no.
MS	I mean it is a little prostitute-ish, in the way prostitution was done during the 17th-18th century with madam houses. I remember seeing movies and historical documentaries on art work that was done like this. Maybe the subjects were of the same age or older but it is very reminiscent of that era and subject. I was not aware of the controversy over the image but I am torn. When I first seen the image, I liked it, I mean it is a beautiful photo but then it is like she is selling being provocative and being a woman which she is not. But teenagers do not see themselves as children but rather young women- key word women. Why do females have to be cheapen to this particular identity of what they should be when in reality it varies. Im mean if she was uncomfortable she would have said no and the subject clearly rejects being seen as a Disney pop figure. This was her moving from Disney-fication. Im torn about this photo.	I completely agree with the Germaine Greer article before I even read it. Wow, we were really in the same ball park. The Times were very opinionated and it was a opinionated article aimed to criticize her for what Disney shaped her image to be. No wonder why Disney is so powerful that it can make or break your image. However, not everyone has taken a women's study course or are they open minded about this photo. The way Times compared her to Lindsay Lohan/Britney Spears and their issues with this photo is pure propaganda for their perspective.	I think that is was a photo that was staged but I think the lipstick was maybe what changed the photo. If the minor changes of lipstick and maybe the inch of the fabric draped could have changed the way it could have been seen by non-open minded people.	The role of the photographer is to capture the art of a person without alienating their who they are and the role that the photo will take on. Creating a understanding between the subject and photographer is very important to capturing an image.
MS	Initially when I first saw this photo I believe I held it in a mocking tone. An "Oh great, here comes Brittney Spears 2.0" or something to that remark.	To a point I agree with the critique by the Times. I think that Leibovitz should have been more aware of the fates that have befallen two past "Disney stars" and that Cyrus needs to easy out of her childhood inosense not explode into it with photos like that. However I think they were speaking heavy handedly with terms like "Leibovitz saw the shock potential, the lip-smacking titillation, in posing a star known for her wholesome, girlish role in Disney’s Hannah Montana as if photographed by her deflowering first boyfriend." I do disagree with Greer about using older works of art as examples to defend Cyrus' photos.	After seeing Leibovitz's video I'm disappointed that she was not more aware of past event with other Disney stars and not seen that she could avoided this. I also don't believe in Cyrus excuse about Leibovitz's pressure . She never seem to press her subjects in the video at all.	Again better awareness of past events would have made a massive differences.
MS	I haven't seen this photograph before, but I have heard about it and about the controversy. If i just saw this picture i wouldn't think anything is wrong with it because personally i feel like the human body is beautiful and she is young, but her body is covered up and personally what society has come to today her posing in a bathing suit would be less covering then the photograph above. I think that on the front of some magazines they show some female's butt, breast and other private areas.	After I read those critiques i can see where outside viewers are coming from based on her age and that she is a star for Disney which is a little children's television channel. I think that in some ways this photograph is too revealing based on the information of Miley, but in some ways i find it to be beautiful how Annie saw it when she photographed Miley during this shoot.	I am not really sure. In some ways i think it portrays the natural female body and even though she is a young teen she still has a beautiful body and Annie was able to capture it. In the other aspect I think that knowing that she is a star on Disney channel gives you an idea of what ages her fans are and they look up to her as a role model and might think that doing things that are risky like this is the cool thing to do and it's okay. If I had to chose one way i think i would chose that it is wrong just knowing about the audience that she appeals to and how old she is and the world we live in today you know that people are going to start rumors.	I think that the photographer mostly has to take the responsibility because she is the one who thought of shooting the photograph in this scene with Miley with only a silk sheet and red lip stick on and crazy hair. Annie maybe wasn't considering the audience that Miley Cyrus appeals to and the people that watch her and admire her. Also, I think that Annie had to put into play how old she was and in today's society how that was going to be seen. I think that the rest of the responsibility falls on Miley because she was the subject of the photograph and took her clothing off. Annie didn't now take her clothes off for her and force her to do it. In the one critique Miley said that Annie was convincing her that is was going to be a beautiful shot and that when she asked her she just looks like she has a puppy face and said ok. You can't give in to peer-pressure and if Miley really didn't want to do the photograph Annie couldn't have made her she had the choice to say "No."