Is Easy Bad? [Jill Greenberg and John McCain]

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,081
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Well, at least she manipulate photos she took herself and not by others.

I am reminded of the photo taken by Yousuf Karsh of the WWII German industrialist (Kulp?). He purposefully lit the his face from underneath to make him look as evil as he supposively was (slave labor, etc). Haven't heard a word of censure about that image. Sorry, tried to find a copy of the image online, but could not.

Vaughn
 

Anscojohn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
2,704
Format
Medium Format
It was of Alfried Krupp. But I do not think it was Karsh; I think it was Newman.
 

k_jupiter

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
2,569
Location
san jose, ca
Format
Multi Format

I think you are thinking about Krups but I can't get to anything here at work. They want to save me from myself and pornography.

There is a difference between making an image in a particular style and abusing your employers trust for your own political pleasure.

tim in san jose
 

bill schwab

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
3,751
Location
Meeshagin
Format
Multi Format
keithwms said:
I find it rather astonishing that there isn't some legal clause that photographers sign before they are hired for such things.
Click to expand...
There is in most cases. For any such assignment I did for magazines, my contract always specified that I not use the images resulting from the shoot until anywhere from 30 - 90 days after initial publication. This is most likely why the magazine feels they have grounds to sue. Otherwise, the images belong to the photographer and after the agreed upon time can be used for other editorial purposes. What surprises me is that the McCain people allowed her to photograph him in the first place. They must not have done their homework.
 

Lee L

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format
It's Arnold Newman and Alfried Krupp. Krupp was a metals and munitions manufacturer, not the Krups that makes kitchen appliances.

Lee
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Threads merged, title updated.
 

Gay Larson

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
1,209
Location
Oklahoma
Format
Medium Format
I agree that this was certainly not ethical. If she had taken a photograph of him in a public forum and then manupulated it, she could have used it all she wanted. Of course she would have gotten a lot less publicity and it appears she is a publicity monger. To blind side both the magazine and the subject is insane. I looked at her website and could not find the photos except the cover.
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
SuzanneR said:
They hired a photographer who behaved at best, like a childish brat, and at worse... completely unethically. She was there representative.
Click to expand...

Well I don't even care if that was ethical or not! Her biggest crime was that it was, as you said, childish, and also utterly cheap, primal, first degree, badly done, shallow, wanky, self-congratulating, me-me-me-me-me level of protest.

Goddamn it, where are the stylish protesters? I'm so surprised that she did something like that because her photo are so worked out, slick and shiny, that I don't understand why she gave in to such a useless posture.

For the record, John McCain can kiss my Canadian behind, so I'm in now way offended, but I don't see the point of at all of what Greenberg has done.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,081
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Thanks everyone, guess I should have taken a photo history class...

And thanks Michael for supplying the photo....Newman did a good job. Jill's third one of McCain comes close.

Vaughn
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dave Wooten

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
2,723
Location
Vegas/myster
Format
ULarge Format
Was she given access to do the portrait shoot to produce a specific product? She has a feature in FOCUS mag this new issue, animal portraits, they look kindly and human, due to photoshop. Maybe there is now a new market for wedding photographers to manipulate the bridal portraits and put them on the web. I dont know...if only Karsh had had photoshop, maybe his portraits would have stood the test of time and and his work given at least a modicum of respect...Kennedy as godzilla....dead ringer for the poster market or rock band cover.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nemo999

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
277
Format
35mm

Just for my own information - do you recognize the function and validity of political caricature in any form? Or do you think that people such as Hogarth, Gillray, Cruikshank and Heartfield, whom I mentioned earlier, and for that matter the creators of the British "Spitting Image" TV show, later copied in many other countries, should be taken out and shot for the crime of irredeemable vulgarity?
 

mcfactor

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
183
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Format
Med. Format RF
The unethical thing would have been to help mccain by presenting him to the public in a normal light when she felt otherwise. At least she had the guts to show how she really felt. She didnt let herself be used to advance the career of a politician she dislikes.
 

nickrapak

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
740
Location
Horsham, PA
Format
Multi Format
If she took the shots for her personal use and clearly stated as such, the issue would not have been as big. The fact is, she was hired by a company to do a cover shoot for that company. That she used those images for personal gain (other than that related to the company) and to espouse her political beliefs is, although probably not illegal, INCREDIBLY immoral.

I understand that many of you are Obama supporters, so I pose for you this question: Would you be equally nonchalant if a photographer for Newsmax took a cover photo of Obama, and then subsequently modified another shot, portraying him as Stalin. Granted, you might not have a problem with that, but I know people that wouldn't have a problem with any immoral modifications of truths, as long as it supported their view.
 

mcfactor

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
183
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Format
Med. Format RF
breaking a contract, in-itself, is not immoral. She didnt claim that the photos on her site where "real", they were clearly doctored. Again, she followed her political beliefs and stood up for herself. We all know that someone else airbrushed the actual mccain cover in order to make his skin look smoother. is that not dishonest? or, at the very least, false?
 

k_jupiter

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
2,569
Location
san jose, ca
Format
Multi Format


Then she shouldn't have taken the fucking job.

tim in san jose
 

catem

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,358
Location
U.K.
Format
Multi Format

Good satire is clever, humorous, and often cruelly incisive (and the sign of a healthy society in my view). I don't think Greenberg's effort at photochopping is clever or funny, more like clichéd and silly. Also, Spitting Image (the original puppets) were brilliant on a technical/visual level (also Hogarth et al) whereas Greenberg's work is pretty crude (to put it kindly?) in comparison.
 

SuzanneR

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
5,977
Location
Massachusetts
Format
Multi Format

Yes, of course I do. I just don't look for it in the Atlantic.

And good satire, as Cate says, adds to the debate in a humorous and meaningful way. My problem, here, is that she is one of the irksome people who dumbs things down for her own glory.

As Arnold Newman's photograph of Albert Krupp has been mentioned... here was an instance where a photographer was hired by a magazine... Newsweek? to photograph someone who the photographer saw as evil.

Newman, unlike Greenberg, used his head. He made a portrait of an industrialist... classically... and still made the man look like the devil. That's a brilliant picture, and he didn't have to draw blood all over the picture like a bunch of bathroom grafitti to make the point. That is the sort of satire that will bring insight to readers, and, oddly enough, not embarrass the assigning rag.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Soeren

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
2,675
Location
Naestved, DK
Format
Multi Format

Maybe the contract was send to him on E-mail
 

eclarke

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,950
Location
New Berlin,
Format
ULarge Format

The basic fact is that all "news" is edited, you can trust it to the point of humor and no farther...EC
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
eclarke said:
The basic fact is that all "news" is edited, you can trust it to the point of humor and no farther...EC
Click to expand...

If that's where photojournalism is now, then it's very sad. Surely everyone here can see that this is not good for professional analogue photography. Not good at all.

JG's gloating on pdn was just disgraceful; she actually described tricking McCain et al. by setting a diffuse light not to fire. That is professional? Well, at least she didn't squirt stage blood on him during the shoot, that's about the only way she could have gone any further.

Infantile. I remember penciling horns and black teeth and Hitler moustaches on fellow classmates' photos... when I was 8 or 9.

Almost equally disgraceful though, IMHO, is the fact that some people are so blinded by hatred of Bush that a very basic question of ethics is lost in the noise. And who actually benefits by this? Guess. Suffice it to say that today's political propagandists understand the knee-jerk reflex very well.
 

Gay Larson

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
1,209
Location
Oklahoma
Format
Medium Format

Then she shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…