Is Easy Bad? [Jill Greenberg and John McCain]

[k_jupiter]

I love the "ignore thread" feature on this Website!

That and $1.85 will get you a large cuppa coffee down at Starbucks. I have my own ignore tool and I don't need a forum to give it to me.

Of course, if the ignore tool does work as well as you say, you won't see this.

tim in san jose

 

[Early Riser]

No, it has made her even more famous and thus more desirable. She may not work for a republican again, but i see no problem there^^

In most cases the assignment of a photographer comes down to the Art director or picture editor of the publication. In some cases the editor in chief may step in but rarely. If you are an art director and you hire someone after they did what Greenberg did, and she does it again on your assignment, what do you think happens to your job?

But who knows? Infamy works in the art world just as well as merit so she may spark her art career.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Those magazines and celeb's who crave attention of any kind may hire her.

There's a lotta bucks in that trade.

Seriously, though, while she's alienated some editors and markets, I think she has a history of using scandal to her advantage, and this only raises her profile.

 

[SuzanneR]

There's a lotta bucks in that trade.

Seriously, though, while she's alienated some editors and markets, I think she has a history of using scandal to her advantage, and this only raises her profile.

Yeah.. and maybe she doesn't want to shoot editorially anymore, and decided to go out with a bang!! Far more money, as you say, in the celeb trade!!

 

[gr82bart]

My observation is that many Obamaphiles are after Hollywood celebrity so she's in good company.

Regards, Art (I had to digress ...)

 

[Joe VanCleave]

True, but then no one ever assumed that it was anything else, as far as I can find out. But there has always been a popular conception of (film) photography as "honest" by the public at large. It isn't (or at least, doesn't have to be,) but eggregious manipulation was usually pretty easy to detect and roundly condemned when discovered. It seems to me that widespread use of digital manipulation has changed attitudes in general -- ordinary people don't seem to have the same assumption of veracity when they see a photograph as they used to. I wonder whether it seems this way to anyone else.

Mike

A recent US Supreme Court ruling held that the news doesn't have to be factual. So the "popular conception of (film) photography as "honest"..." is just a quaint notion, and doesn't synchronize with contemporary business ethics (sic).

The other question to ask is "What moved?" Meaning, if western culture is engaged in outright, blatant photo manipulation for the sake of propaganda, like the USSR and ChiComs did/do, then perhaps that means there's an ongoing convergence of cultures. Photography is not changing as much as the west is become more, er, 'security conscious.'

~Joe

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

She pre-negotiated a 2 week embargo. Probably with the full intention of pulling this stunt. It is common practice for a photographer to use "out takes" of a commissioned shoot for other publications, but at a much longer embargo period. Some good info on this here http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/09/16/jill-greenberg-is-not-afraid-to-dump-all-her-clients-at-once/ and here http://marktucker.wordpress.com/200...ons-im-left-with-in-the-greenbergmccain-mess/

Personally I think what she did was unethical, for sure. It seems that in the photo editorial world she is done. No one will trust her again. She may still have a future in commercial work but I think it will take some work/time. Galleries are probably beating her door down. Just my opinion of course.

D.

 

[DanielOB]

People that still work in "photojournalism" with cameras are just shea* on two legs, unable to do anything usefull to anyone or comunity, and of prity low inteligence. Change over for them is a long past, but they found no useful their head and hands. She is nor first nor last that did it, and that things will be around as long as such "journalists" are. No wonder.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[nyoung]

For my money, the scandal is not so much what she did but fact that an "artist" of her ilk can comand a paycheck. The lack of any kind of finesse, skill or vision in the work - yes I visitied her site when this story broke a couple of days ago - reminds me of the "trash artists" of the late 70's whose work - consisting of "found objects" glued to a board - found its way into galleries of that dark, desperate and banal period.

 

[snegron]

As far as I'm concerned she is an embarrassment to photography. The stunt she pulled with the crying toddlers a few years ago should have been enough for her to be taken off any respectable publication's list of photographers. This recent action by her proves that her only talent lies in nauseating people with digusting images. If it weren't for the controversial manipulation of her subjects, her work would be amateurish at best, with no technical merit whatsoever. It will be very obvious that any publisher who uses her for a shoot again will only be looking to sell magazines fueled by controversy instead of truth or professionalism. My personal boycott will be to not purchase any product or publication that features any pictures taken by this woman who pretends to be a photographer.

 

[Aurum]

.....For my money, the scandal is not so much what she did but fact that an "artist" of her ilk can comand a paycheck.....

Ever heard of Damien Hirst.?
The sums that idiot can get in the name of "Art" truly are disgusting, along with most of his "creations"

Wikipedia page

 

[eng1er]

People that still work in "photojournalism" with cameras are just shea* on two legs, unable to do anything usefull to anyone or comunity, and of prity low inteligence. Change over for them is a long past, but they found no useful their head and hands. She is nor first nor last that did it, and that things will be around as long as such "journalists" are. No wonder.

Huh?

 

[Saganich]

Her only offense would be to stock holders if magazines didn't sell. Who else matters?

 

[keithwms]

Her only offense would be to stock holders if magazines didn't sell. Who else matters?

Anybody who has invested a career in the proposition that journalistic photography fairly represents a subject. If we throw that out, then why not just let the cartoonists illustrate the news.

 

[doughowk]

Southeast Museum of Photography Exhibit

For those interested in hearing her viewpoint, the Dead Link Removed has a reception Oct 4th for her exhibit.

 

[Steve Smith]

If we throw that out, then why not just let the cartoonists illustrate the news.

Have you ever seen a UK court report where cameras are not allowed?




Steve.

 

[keithwms]

Have you ever seen a UK court report where cameras are not allowed?

Steve.

Yep, we have that here as well. For the Gitmo cases, all we get is a cartoonish depiction. I suppose the original intention of that was to protect the jury and not disrupt the proceedings.

I think somebody needs to make up a website where we have a photo of JG and we get to add whatever we want, in etch-o-sketch fashion, and post it online. Why should she have all the fun?

 

[kodachrome64]

Too bad this is a political issue. If this did not involve politics, it would be a much more sensible discussion and I imagine there wouldn't be very many people saying "good for her" and "who cares?". Pretty sad.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

How come she is being discussed here? She shoots digital, not film.

 

[Gay Larson]

For those interested in hearing her viewpoint, the Dead Link Removed has a reception Oct 4th for her exhibit.

I wouldn't walk across the street to see her work.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I like Damien Hirst's spot paintings. Actually, I like most of his stuff, even the preserved animal ones.