Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by PinkLotus at 10:50 pm on May 5, 2008 http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/ miley_slideshow200806? printable=true¤tPage=all I went on the search for said pictures. I mean no father would let their 15 year old daughter take nude photos. So, here is the truth... go ahead and look. BTW, I hate her music. But I hate for people's names to be dragged in the dirt. -- Posted by the raven at 10:51 pm on May 5, 2008 It's not a god damn scandal. Fuck. -- Posted by lucid dreams19 at 10:52 pm on May 5, 2008 not the end of the world. not as bad as many make it out to be. There not even that attractive pictures in my opinion. Shes still hot though :P -- Posted by Lauraaaa at 10:53 pm on May 5, 2008 OH GOOD, YOU HAVE CLEARED HER NAME FOR ALL OF HUMANITY. Who cares anyway? -- Posted by i who have nothing at 10:55 pm on May 5, 2008 that image couldn't have been taken without that hoe being naked.  unless it was photoshopped or something. -- Posted by PinkLotus at 10:55 pm on May 5, 2008 She is on a chair. If you look at the link you can see -- Posted by katiecat at 10:56 pm on May 5, 2008 They're not nude. They're by fucking Annie Leibowitz - the woman is one of the best photographers of the world. It's because North America are fucking prudes and they can't distinguish the beauty of nudity from sex. They aren't one and the same. I mean, in other cultures, they don't wear many clothes at all - there's nothing sexual there. It's just the human body, who cares? Nudity is beautiful and natural, but we so often forget that. It's sad. -- Posted by Trastie at 10:57 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from The Raven at 11:51 pm on May 5, 2008 It's not a god damn scandal. Fuck. this. She's just a whiney bitch who wants some free press. -- Posted by PinkLotus at 10:58 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 10:56 pm on May 5, 2008 They're not nude. They're by fucking Annie Leibowitz - the woman is one of the best photographers of the world. It's because North America are fucking prudes and they can't distinguish the beauty of nudity from sex. They aren't one and the same.   I mean, in other cultures, they don't wear many clothes at all - there's nothing sexual there. It's just the human body, who cares? Nudity is beautiful and natural, but we so often forget that. It's sad. I agree with you. I think that the human body is something beautiful. I mean, girls strive to wear a bikini right? So why is this picture so offensive? You just see her back! -- Posted by katiecat at 11:01 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from PinkLotus at 10:58 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 10:56 pm on May 5, 2008 They're not nude. They're by fucking Annie Leibowitz - the woman is one of the best photographers of the world.    It's because North America are fucking prudes and they can't distinguish the beauty of nudity from sex. They aren't one and the same.  I mean, in other cultures, they don't wear many clothes at all - there's nothing sexual there. It's just the human body, who cares?    Nudity is beautiful and natural, but we so often forget that. It's sad.   I agree with you. I think that the human body is something beautiful. I mean, girls strive to wear a bikini right? So why is this picture so offensive? You just see her back! Part of it is because she's only 15, which I understand. But it seems to be because she's a role model for young children - which just continues the cycle of prudish thinking. By bashing her, you're telling your kids that nudity is dirty and wrong. I hate how celebrities can't have their own lives without people whining about it. Like seriously, if you don't like it, then YOU be the fucking role model for your kids, you idiot. -- Posted by PinkLotus at 11:01 pm on May 5, 2008 I like the way you think!!! -- Posted by Deeznutz FYC at 11:05 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from i who have nothing at 10:55 pm on May 5, 2008 that image couldn't have been taken without that hoe being naked.  unless it was photoshopped or something. Damn, she ain't but fifteen nigga? That's one horny bitch. I'd feed her my dick still... -- Posted by Frenchie3477 at 11:07 pm on May 5, 2008 Link failed for me -- Posted by PinkLotus at 11:07 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from Deeznutz FYC at 11:05 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from i who have nothing at 10:55 pm on May 5, 2008    that image couldn't have been taken without that hoe being naked. unless it was photoshopped or something. Damn, she ain't but fifteen nigga? That's one horny bitch. I'd feed her my dick still... This is why art is rarely appreciated. -- Posted by katiecat at 11:07 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from PinkLotus at 11:01 pm on May 5, 2008 I like the way you think!!! Thanks, lol.   -- Posted by dreamweaver at 11:09 pm on May 5, 2008 From my understanding... her father was called out to do something, so he left thier agent in charge and that's when they got this brilliant idea to do this photo. Needless to say, when Miley saw the picture, she wasn't too happy herself. That's what I was told anyway. Personally, I don't see them as nude as it isn't. Like someone pointed out, you just see her bare back- woo hoo! Many Americans need to chill out and smell the roses. Yes, she is 15. But she is an artist and she is a teen. Don't tell me all non-celeb girls are these little innocent angels who has never taken photos of themselves half naked or even in a provocative manner. Is it really by Annie Leibowitz? If so, I'm rather surprised... I usually love her photography but this, I really don't like at all. It looks like she tried too hard to make it look like a painting from the 15th century or something. -- Posted by IamMelissa at 11:10 pm on May 5, 2008 she was dressed for fuck sake -- Posted by katiecat at 11:11 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 11:09 pm on May 5, 2008 From my understanding... her father was called out to do something, so he left thier agent in charge and that's when they got this brilliant idea to do this photo. Needless to say, when Miley saw the picture, she wasn't too happy herself. That's what I was told anyway. Personally, I don't see them as nude as it isn't. Like someone pointed out, you just see her bare back- woo hoo! Many Americans need to chill out and smell the roses. Yes, she is 15. But she is an artist and she is a teen. Don't tell me all non-celeb girls are these little innocent angels who has never taken photos of themselves half naked or even in a provocative manner.   Is it really by Annie Leibowitz? If so, I'm rather surprised... I usually love her photography but this, I really don't like at all. It looks like she tried too hard to make it look like a painting from the 15th century or something. Yup, it's Leibowitz. I agree with you a bit - I do like the shot, but the coloring looks a bit odd, like paint or something. -- Posted by JC at 11:12 pm on May 5, 2008 shes wearing pants -- Posted by SAMMYJS99 at 11:13 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from i who have nothing at 1:55 am on May 6, 2008 that image couldn't have been taken without that hoe being naked.  unless it was photoshopped or something. ur calling this girl a hoe?? hell, id bang her MILF mom. milf and "jail bait" - what a combo -- Posted by dreamweaver at 11:16 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 2:11 am on May 6, 2008 Yup, it's Leibowitz. I agree with you a bit - I do like the shot, but the coloring looks a bit odd, like paint or something. Most likely intentioned to be so. She's pretty good at that. Looks similar to Botticelli's work; Edit: Apparently, I wasn't too far on my guess on which artist Leibowitz was possibly going after to imitate. She was trying to imitate Vermeer, from what I found online about it. It was supposed to be her intrepratation of this painting; -- Posted by stephanie89210 at 11:19 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from Deeznutz FYC at 11:05 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from i who have nothing at 10:55 pm on May 5, 2008    that image couldn't have been taken without that hoe being naked. unless it was photoshopped or something. Damn, she ain't but fifteen nigga? That's one horny bitch. I'd feed her my dick still... look at the link shes on a chair with clothes on who ever put the pic up took out the chair part to make it look bad. look at the link. -- Posted by katiecat at 11:32 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 11:16 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from katiecat at 2:11 am on May 6, 2008 Yup, it's Leibowitz. I agree with you a bit - I do like the shot, but the coloring looks a bit odd, like paint or something. Most likely intentioned to be so. She's pretty good at that. Looks similar to Botticelli's work; Edit: Apparently, I wasn't too far on my guess on which artist Leibowitz was possibly going after to imitate. She was trying to imitate Vermeer, from what I found online about it. It was supposed to be her intrepratation of this painting; Ah, Girl with a Pearl Earring. Gotcha. -- Posted by dreamweaver at 11:39 pm on May 5, 2008 Apparently all this was done in the name of fashion. *shrugs* I'm an artist but fashion was never my thing. Sometimes I don't even understand what goes through some of these fashion designer's heads. Leibovitz said that the portrait had been misinterpreted: "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful." Linky: Times Online Article -- Posted by katiecat at 11:45 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from dreamweaver at 11:39 pm on May 5, 2008 Apparently all this was done in the name of fashion. *shrugs* I'm an artist but fashion was never my thing. Sometimes I don't even understand what goes through some of these fashion designer's heads. Leibovitz said that the portrait had been misinterpreted: "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."  Linky: Times Online Article Same. Fashion is weird. I do like the shot though - she looks very nice. It's just the odd coloring that I'm not really a fan of. But I guess that's what they were going for. -- Posted by PinkLotus at 11:46 pm on May 5, 2008 I don't like how she is pale white, like she is dying. As far as the photo, I think she had a wonderful pose. -- Posted by dreamweaver at 11:49 pm on May 5, 2008 Quote: from PinkLotus at 2:46 am on May 6, 2008 I don't like how she is pale white, like she is dying. As far as the photo, I think she had a wonderful pose. for the life of me, I can't help but think of another painting/artist did that this is rather very similar to. Vermeer makes sense but I can't help but think of another artist Leibovitz was imitating as well. This will bother me for awhile... lol. -- Posted by PinkLotus at 11:51 pm on May 5, 2008 lol, I think I know what you are talking about. I have it in my head... but its soo flipping vague!!!! ARGH.... google here I come. -- Posted by PinkLotus at 11:54 pm on May 5, 2008 http://www.antiquehelper.com/auctionimages/2052t.jpg Maybe? -- Posted by katiecat at 11:56 pm on May 5, 2008 Well, paleness was very common in the Victorian era. There's probably some painting from that time period - I think I may know what you mean. Pages: 1 2  Next