Miley Cyrus...

RebekahR84

Anyone see her on SNL? "Miley, why do you always stick your tongue out?" "It's how I smell."

CLASSIC!

Leave the girl alone. If you don't like her, change the channel.

vtmoon

I think it's ridiculous the way people are freaking out. She's not doing anything Madonna Kesha gaga ect haven't done but some how people lose their **** when she does it. Madonna simulated *kitten* on stage and made out with Britney ... Totally cool... Gaga wears a meat dress and imitates people with disabilities in one of her videos.. Totally cool. Miley tweerks and sticks her tounge out everyone freaks. It's kinda funny

She is the victim of the Disney success. Happened with Britney Spears too. Young performers gather a huge following from being a successful Disney star, so when they try to move on they expect that level of success to follow them in anything they do. Sadly, they are still perceived as what they became famous for, and instead of embracing it and gradually breaking away ( like Harry Potter), they try to go to extremes by doing things to distance themselves from the brand that made them famous.

Hopefully, she doesn't flip out as bad as Amanda Bynes.

Gradually breaking away as (Harry Potter) did. Are you referring to when he appeared on stage naked at 17 in "Equus"? Pretty sure I can recall tabloid's stating; "Daniel gets his wand out" & so forth.

Are you really comparing theatre to an award show? I'll skip this one because I don't feel like trying to writing an essay.

When I was talking about gradually breaking away, I meant from the brand not from the art form. If Miley would had gradually switched away from her Disney brand it would've worked out differently (there are a lot of people who think this is what she wanted). she is pretty much entwined with that brand through music, tv, film, consumer products.

Radcliffe was doing work outside his Harry Potter before the movies were over and he was going all over in order to minimize being tore casted after Harry Potter was over.

Ah yes, the good old high art/low art dichotomy.

Utterly useless.

Eh so is culture, if we want to look at it from a 2D perspective it's all lines.

CollieFit

Who? :huh:

AestheticStar

I think it's ridiculous the way people are freaking out. She's not doing anything Madonna Kesha gaga ect haven't done but some how people lose their **** when she does it. Madonna simulated *kitten* on stage and made out with Britney ... Totally cool... Gaga wears a meat dress and imitates people with disabilities in one of her videos.. Totally cool. Miley tweerks and sticks her tounge out everyone freaks. It's kinda funny

Agreed. Probably 'cause she's a "Disney" star. It seems like as soon as any Disney star tries to mature or shed the childhood image, they get bashed, instantly. Kind of lame if you ask me. Although I do think she is trying a bit too hard, but it's her choices & her life.

I do think she would look prettier if she grew her hair out.. I think it's cute if she wears it down, but I kind of thought her having more length to her hair looked better. I didn't like her at first, & then her music grew on me, & then I looked at her more, & thought she was pretty cute... My friends shame me for it.. Lol.

ldrosophila

What's a miley and do I want one?

BL_Coleman

Gross. She looks like a child to me. A child trying WAY too hard to be one of the grown-ups.

oh the irony...

:huh: Totally unnecessary IMO.

Well, I guess I open myself for childish insults by posting my own pics on my profile, especially if I have an opinion that others don't agree with. C'est la vie!

I think your makekup looks lovely. And honeslty who gives a "flying ****" some people never grow up after HS ( and learn that appearances do not make a person)

BeefyBFit

This thread is why Miley is awesome....

Lisa1971

I hope her and Justine Beiber disappear from the face of the earth, sooner rather than later.

:flowerforyou: :drinker:

Lisa1971

Personally, I think people are being way to judgmental and harsh towards Miley. She's an adult, she's legal, just leave her alone. Is she hurting you? No. Just shut up, you all sound like catty highschool girls the way you go on about her.

Yes, she is an adult. But she is being self destructive by selling herself like she is. I like to call women out who encourage men to view us as objects.

Says the woman showing plenty of skin in her pictures...

And this woman looks AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!

Loasaur

Meh. I just think she's disgusting. Lady Gaga is disgusting too. So is Madonna. Just because one person does it, doesn't mean it's acceptable. She acts like a stripper to sell songs and gain attention. That makes you gross, no matter who does it. But that's my opinion and people may have others and that's totally allowed. I just don't think that kind of..."personality," "attitude," what-have-you is particularly appealing. It's revolting.

katierj1983

I don't understand the big discussion. Who cares what she does? There are more important issues going on in the world.

anemoneprose

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But I sincerely feel a woman should not be ashamed to use her sexuality in any way she likes, including for a living.

This is just a bunch of people whining that someone else is not fitting their expectations for how other people should act, going as far to invent reasons it is "dangerous".

And it's also pretty damn typical, this "look at the crazy youngsters" thing. Look at what Cato had to say about Julius.

Here's where I think you don't get it. I bartend topless. I am in favor of legalizing prostitution. I have no issue with a woman using her sexuality for profit. But there's a difference between being empowered and being objectified and there's

If you'd like further reference, there's a wonderful film entitle Miss Representation that has lots of information (scientific, political, historical) as to why sexualization of women in the media has a negative impact on women as a whole. You have to able to see the big picture. It's not about policing her sexuality. it's about the underlying social impacts.

And that's not the only side to feminism. Not sure why you would assume I am ignorant or trolling. I sincerely disagree, and am well informed.

I have an opinion that is in conflict with yours. I don't see evidence for social harm here. And I also think she's playing her culture like its an instrument, and I find it interesting and thought provoking. Sort of a performance art. And I love the way she lays on themes of innocence and debauchery by reminding us all that we knew her as a child. She's an adult now, and every adult was once a child.


I think the prudish attacks are the real danger to women.

Do you think a person capable of the response made to Sinead O'Conner could create the kind of thoughtful art you're suggesting here?

Gaga, yes. Miley, no way. I don't think she knows what she's on about. She feels like being sexy and seen as sexy; she wants to not be a 'baby' anymore, & change perceptions a bit. Maybe she chose her shorts. Great, I can see how you might interpret that as being 'empowered', in a sort of Spice Girls way.

If there's art, you're creating it, through your analysis; it is not coming from this girl.

I love it. Arbitrary dfinition of who can be an artist, applied retroactively to determine if something fits an arbitrary definition for art.


To answer your question, yes, someone capable of creating great art can be a total douche.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Sure, you can be a douche and make great art (e.g. Wagner).

I do not have an entirely arbitrary definition of what counts as art (but I didn't make that explicit, true). I think a lot of people would say that intentionality is an important determinant - that the puted creator had at least some specific intentions around an event/piece, and executed them. (The actual response to the work, obviously not subject to its creator's control.)

I don't think Miley re this event meets this standard. I think her response to Sinead O'Connor shows yes, douchery, but also limited intelligence. I don't think someone with that kind of constraint could think of the kind of art you want to say she's making.

edit: is she doing good PR? yes. Is PR art? maybe i'm not the one to answer that, but it seems to stretch the definition past any meaningful distinction.

pcastagner

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But I sincerely feel a woman should not be ashamed to use her sexuality in any way she likes, including for a living.

This is just a bunch of people whining that someone else is not fitting their expectations for how other people should act, going as far to invent reasons it is "dangerous".

And it's also pretty damn typical, this "look at the crazy youngsters" thing. Look at what Cato had to say about Julius.

Here's where I think you don't get it. I bartend topless. I am in favor of legalizing prostitution. I have no issue with a woman using her sexuality for profit. But there's a difference between being empowered and being objectified and there's

If you'd like further reference, there's a wonderful film entitle Miss Representation that has lots of information (scientific, political, historical) as to why sexualization of women in the media has a negative impact on women as a whole. You have to able to see the big picture. It's not about policing her sexuality. it's about the underlying social impacts.

And that's not the only side to feminism. Not sure why you would assume I am ignorant or trolling. I sincerely disagree, and am well informed.

I have an opinion that is in conflict with yours. I don't see evidence for social harm here. And I also think she's playing her culture like its an instrument, and I find it interesting and thought provoking. Sort of a performance art. And I love the way she lays on themes of innocence and debauchery by reminding us all that we knew her as a child. She's an adult now, and every adult was once a child.


I think the prudish attacks are the real danger to women.

Do you think a person capable of the response made to Sinead O'Conner could create the kind of thoughtful art you're suggesting here?

Gaga, yes. Miley, no way. I don't think she knows what she's on about. She feels like being sexy and seen as sexy; she wants to not be a 'baby' anymore, & change perceptions a bit. Maybe she chose her shorts. Great, I can see how you might interpret that as being 'empowered', in a sort of Spice Girls way.

If there's art, you're creating it, through your analysis; it is not coming from this girl.

I love it. Arbitrary dfinition of who can be an artist, applied retroactively to determine if something fits an arbitrary definition for art.


To answer your question, yes, someone capable of creating great art can be a total douche.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Sure, you can be a douche and make great art (e.g. Wagner).

I do not have an entirely arbitrary definition of what counts as art (but I didn't make that explicit, true). I think a lot of people would say that intentionality is an important determinant - that the puted creator had at least some specific intentions around an event/piece, and executed them. (The actual response to the work, obviously not subject to its creator's control.)

I don't think Miley re this event meets this standard. I think her response to Sinead O'Connor shows yes, douchery, but also limited intelligence. I don't think someone with that kind of constraint could think of the kind of art you want to say she's making.

edit: is she doing good PR? yes. Is PR art? maybe i'm not the one to answer that, but it seems to stretch the definition past any meaningful distinction.

I'll just point out that there are many many examples of scantily clad young women with "poor taste", but few who inspire so much attention and discussion.

And As a performer and therefore arist, I don't feel creation of art can happen without annaudience in the first place. I think all art is essentially a kind of cooperative endeavor.

pcastagner

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But I sincerely feel a woman should not be ashamed to use her sexuality in any way she likes, including for a living.

This is just a bunch of people whining that someone else is not fitting their expectations for how other people should act, going as far to invent reasons it is "dangerous".

And it's also pretty damn typical, this "look at the crazy youngsters" thing. Look at what Cato had to say about Julius.

Here's where I think you don't get it. I bartend topless. I am in favor of legalizing prostitution. I have no issue with a woman using her sexuality for profit. But there's a difference between being empowered and being objectified and there's

If you'd like further reference, there's a wonderful film entitle Miss Representation that has lots of information (scientific, political, historical) as to why sexualization of women in the media has a negative impact on women as a whole. You have to able to see the big picture. It's not about policing her sexuality. it's about the underlying social impacts.

And that's not the only side to feminism. Not sure why you would assume I am ignorant or trolling. I sincerely disagree, and am well informed.

I have an opinion that is in conflict with yours. I don't see evidence for social harm here. And I also think she's playing her culture like its an instrument, and I find it interesting and thought provoking. Sort of a performance art. And I love the way she lays on themes of innocence and debauchery by reminding us all that we knew her as a child. She's an adult now, and every adult was once a child.


I think the prudish attacks are the real danger to women.

Do you think a person capable of the response made to Sinead O'Conner could create the kind of thoughtful art you're suggesting here?

Gaga, yes. Miley, no way. I don't think she knows what she's on about. She feels like being sexy and seen as sexy; she wants to not be a 'baby' anymore, & change perceptions a bit. Maybe she chose her shorts. Great, I can see how you might interpret that as being 'empowered', in a sort of Spice Girls way.

If there's art, you're creating it, through your analysis; it is not coming from this girl.

I love it. Arbitrary dfinition of who can be an artist, applied retroactively to determine if something fits an arbitrary definition for art.


To answer your question, yes, someone capable of creating great art can be a total douche.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Sure, you can be a douche and make great art (e.g. Wagner).

I do not have an entirely arbitrary definition of what counts as art (but I didn't make that explicit, true). I think a lot of people would say that intentionality is an important determinant - that the puted creator had at least some specific intentions around an event/piece, and executed them. (The actual response to the work, obviously not subject to its creator's control.)

I don't think Miley re this event meets this standard. I think her response to Sinead O'Connor shows yes, douchery, but also limited intelligence. I don't think someone with that kind of constraint could think of the kind of art you want to say she's making.

edit: is she doing good PR? yes. Is PR art? maybe i'm not the one to answer that, but it seems to stretch the definition past any meaningful distinction.

I'll just point out that there are many many examples of scantily clad young women with "poor taste", but few who inspire so much attention and discussion.

And As a performer and therefore arist, I don't feel creation of art can happen without annaudience in the first place. I think all art is essentially a kind of cooperative endeavor.

KANGOOJUMPS

I love miley
and her tongue.

anemoneprose

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But I sincerely feel a woman should not be ashamed to use her sexuality in any way she likes, including for a living.

This is just a bunch of people whining that someone else is not fitting their expectations for how other people should act, going as far to invent reasons it is "dangerous".

And it's also pretty damn typical, this "look at the crazy youngsters" thing. Look at what Cato had to say about Julius.

Here's where I think you don't get it. I bartend topless. I am in favor of legalizing prostitution. I have no issue with a woman using her sexuality for profit. But there's a difference between being empowered and being objectified and there's

If you'd like further reference, there's a wonderful film entitle Miss Representation that has lots of information (scientific, political, historical) as to why sexualization of women in the media has a negative impact on women as a whole. You have to able to see the big picture. It's not about policing her sexuality. it's about the underlying social impacts.

And that's not the only side to feminism. Not sure why you would assume I am ignorant or trolling. I sincerely disagree, and am well informed.

I have an opinion that is in conflict with yours. I don't see evidence for social harm here. And I also think she's playing her culture like its an instrument, and I find it interesting and thought provoking. Sort of a performance art. And I love the way she lays on themes of innocence and debauchery by reminding us all that we knew her as a child. She's an adult now, and every adult was once a child.


I think the prudish attacks are the real danger to women.

Do you think a person capable of the response made to Sinead O'Conner could create the kind of thoughtful art you're suggesting here?

Gaga, yes. Miley, no way. I don't think she knows what she's on about. She feels like being sexy and seen as sexy; she wants to not be a 'baby' anymore, & change perceptions a bit. Maybe she chose her shorts. Great, I can see how you might interpret that as being 'empowered', in a sort of Spice Girls way.

If there's art, you're creating it, through your analysis; it is not coming from this girl.

I love it. Arbitrary dfinition of who can be an artist, applied retroactively to determine if something fits an arbitrary definition for art.


To answer your question, yes, someone capable of creating great art can be a total douche.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Sure, you can be a douche and make great art (e.g. Wagner).

I do not have an entirely arbitrary definition of what counts as art (but I didn't make that explicit, true). I think a lot of people would say that intentionality is an important determinant - that the puted creator had at least some specific intentions around an event/piece, and executed them. (The actual response to the work, obviously not subject to its creator's control.)

I don't think Miley re this event meets this standard. I think her response to Sinead O'Connor shows yes, douchery, but also limited intelligence. I don't think someone with that kind of constraint could think of the kind of art you want to say she's making.

edit: is she doing good PR? yes. Is PR art? maybe i'm not the one to answer that, but it seems to stretch the definition past any meaningful distinction.

I'll just point out that there are many many examples of scantily clad young women with "poor taste", but few who inspire so much attention and discussion.

And As a performer and therefore arist, I don't feel creation of art can happen without annaudience in the first place. I think all art is essentially a kind of cooperative endeavor.

Agree on your latter point (otherwise, why bother making/doing anything?). An artist (if successful in executing his/her intention) hopefully narrows the range of responses; the audience does the rest. But here, I think *a lot* of weight is being put on the audience to define the event as art.

E.g.s of commercial artists who've done the kind of meta/identity/event-art I understand you to mean (but maybe you would characterize it differently?), to me, would be Davids Bowie & Byrne; Serge Gainsbourg; Lady Gaga (absolutely); Madonna; Prince. I can't see Miley in there..

I don't agree that your first point should count towards the Miley circus being art. Lots of reasons for the attention (eg momentum, piggy-backing on the discussions around the Robin Thicke song; her background, etc)

pcastagner

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But I sincerely feel a woman should not be ashamed to use her sexuality in any way she likes, including for a living.

This is just a bunch of people whining that someone else is not fitting their expectations for how other people should act, going as far to invent reasons it is "dangerous".

And it's also pretty damn typical, this "look at the crazy youngsters" thing. Look at what Cato had to say about Julius.

Here's where I think you don't get it. I bartend topless. I am in favor of legalizing prostitution. I have no issue with a woman using her sexuality for profit. But there's a difference between being empowered and being objectified and there's

If you'd like further reference, there's a wonderful film entitle Miss Representation that has lots of information (scientific, political, historical) as to why sexualization of women in the media has a negative impact on women as a whole. You have to able to see the big picture. It's not about policing her sexuality. it's about the underlying social impacts.

And that's not the only side to feminism. Not sure why you would assume I am ignorant or trolling. I sincerely disagree, and am well informed.

I have an opinion that is in conflict with yours. I don't see evidence for social harm here. And I also think she's playing her culture like its an instrument, and I find it interesting and thought provoking. Sort of a performance art. And I love the way she lays on themes of innocence and debauchery by reminding us all that we knew her as a child. She's an adult now, and every adult was once a child.


I think the prudish attacks are the real danger to women.

Do you think a person capable of the response made to Sinead O'Conner could create the kind of thoughtful art you're suggesting here?

Gaga, yes. Miley, no way. I don't think she knows what she's on about. She feels like being sexy and seen as sexy; she wants to not be a 'baby' anymore, & change perceptions a bit. Maybe she chose her shorts. Great, I can see how you might interpret that as being 'empowered', in a sort of Spice Girls way.

If there's art, you're creating it, through your analysis; it is not coming from this girl.

I love it. Arbitrary dfinition of who can be an artist, applied retroactively to determine if something fits an arbitrary definition for art.


To answer your question, yes, someone capable of creating great art can be a total douche.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Sure, you can be a douche and make great art (e.g. Wagner).

I do not have an entirely arbitrary definition of what counts as art (but I didn't make that explicit, true). I think a lot of people would say that intentionality is an important determinant - that the puted creator had at least some specific intentions around an event/piece, and executed them. (The actual response to the work, obviously not subject to its creator's control.)

I don't think Miley re this event meets this standard. I think her response to Sinead O'Connor shows yes, douchery, but also limited intelligence. I don't think someone with that kind of constraint could think of the kind of art you want to say she's making.

edit: is she doing good PR? yes. Is PR art? maybe i'm not the one to answer that, but it seems to stretch the definition past any meaningful distinction.

I'll just point out that there are many many examples of scantily clad young women with "poor taste", but few who inspire so much attention and discussion.

And As a performer and therefore arist, I don't feel creation of art can happen without annaudience in the first place. I think all art is essentially a kind of cooperative endeavor.

Agree on your latter point (otherwise, why bother making/doing anything?). An artist (if successful in executing his/her intention) hopefully narrows the range of responses; the audience does the rest. But here, I think *a lot* of weight is being put on the audience to define the event as art.

E.g.s of commercial artists who've done the kind of meta/identity/event-art I understand you to mean (but maybe you would characterize it differently?), to me, would be Davids Bowie & Byrne; Serge Gainsbourg; Lady Gaga (absolutely); Madonna; Prince. I can't see Miley in there..

I don't agree that your first point should count towards the Miley circus being art. Lots of reasons for the attention (eg momentum, piggy-backing on the discussions around the Robin Thicke song; her background, etc)

Well I certainly wasn't saying she is as cool as serge gainsbourg!

But still somewhat interesting.

Also she turns I me on. That definitely helps.

getitamb

I think it's ridiculous the way people are freaking out. She's not doing anything Madonna Kesha gaga ect haven't done but some how people lose their **** when she does it. Madonna simulated *kitten* on stage and made out with Britney ... Totally cool... Gaga wears a meat dress and imitates people with disabilities in one of her videos.. Totally cool. Miley tweerks and sticks her tounge out everyone freaks. It's kinda funny

But she's no Madonna and she was a serious Trendsetter. Miley is a attention *kitten*

anemoneprose

Well I certainly wasn't saying she is as cool as serge gainsbourg!

But still somewhat interesting.

Also she turns I me on. That definitely helps.

lol

pcastagner

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2013/10/jimmy-fallon-miley-cyrus-the-roots-sing-we-cant-stop-a-capella/


Go on now, tell me she has no talent. This is just awesome!