|
September 16, 2008
"fittingly called The Manipulator"
Michele Catalano takes a close look at the Jill Greenberg affair in a piece titled "Unrepentant Photographer Turns McCain Into a Monster": What has become of journalistic integrity? As if it wasn't already on its way to a slow death, its demise has been shoved forward a few steps thanks to the Atlantic and photographer Jill Greenberg.In its defense, the Atlantic explained that "When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics." Fine. No one is asking them to. But Catalano points out something I also objected to -- it's not so much Greenberg's politics that are at issue, but the fact that this was not the first time she engaged in deceptive tactics to advance her political views. Too bad Jill Greenberg has a history of behaving unprofessionally.I'll say. "Laid back" is a kind way of putting it. Here's Greenberg in her own words, explaining in an interview why it's OK to make children cry to promote her greater cause (linking Bush and the Iraq War to End Times): ...Maybe getting kids to cry isn't the nicest thing to do, but I'm not causing anyone permanent psychological damage.It was hard work too: We would book 12 or so for one day, and see who we could make cry. At the end of the day I was not in a good mood. I don't like making little kids cry.You know what? I probably wouldn't enjoy making little kids cry either. I've never given it much thought, but if I decided to make little kids cry in order to promote my favorite cause, it wouldn't surprise me if people thought that raised questions about, you know, my integrity. (Being that I'm male, I might not get the same sort of pass, either. But that's another topic.) Little wonder she rationalizes. It's all about the "strength" and "beauty" of the "images" (may Godwin forgive me for thinking about Leni Riefenstahl): ...That was one of the things that interested me about the project--the strength and beauty of the images as images. I also thought they made a kind of political statement about the current state of anxiety a lot of people are in about the future of the country. Sometimes I just feel like crying about the way things are going.I don't know whether she cried or not, but she certainly seemed upset by the criticism directed at her. So upset that she switched her subject material from sensitive children to insensitive bears -- which she compared to bloggers: After my "End Times" series, with children crying, I wanted to do more work with children, but I needed to take a break because I'd gotten such crazy backlash from people who think it's a scandal that children cry.I didn't know that bears were known for randomly misguided rage. They do have their instincts, and of course they can be dangerous. While I'm not sure how "randomly misguided" or rage-filled the attacks on her were, mine was pretty specific. But I think she's missing the point when she characterizes her critics as "people who think it's a scandal that children cry." The point was never that children cry; it's that she made them cry. Michele Catalano mentions Greenberg's attack on a fellow professional photographer, Thomas Hawks, who described her retaliatory tactics: First she tries to discredit me as an insane person with personal problems who she doesn't even think has kids (even though in my blog post about her I clearly state I've got four children, have photos of my four children up on flickr and elsewhere on my blog etc.) She tells this to a professional publication American Photo (whom I've asked for a retraction from and who never contacted me to verify her claims even though they pulled quotes from my same post that referenced that I had four kids).Wow. She makes bloggers look like lambs by comparison. (Perhaps she identifies with the bears more than she lets on.) She doesn't seem to mind using the First Amendment to her own advantage and use children to assail Bush and link him to the far right, but heaven forbid that another photographer dare criticize her! (A classic example of "free speech for me, but not for thee!") Michele Catalano concludes with the hope that her latest crooked manipulation is her last: By bragging about how underhanded, dishonest and childlish she behaved in regards to the shoot, Jill Greenberg brought on herself everything she deserves, including but not limited to some very bad publicity. This is not the first time she gave professional photographers a bad name; hopefully it is the last.Considering the woman's smarmy, sanctimonious self-righteousness, I doubt she thinks she has done anything wrong. In her mind, it's all for a higher cause. (And not about her, of course.) Jill Greenberg can make children cry, demand her critics be fired, and use her photo assignment from the Atlantic as an opportunity to literally demonize McCain by making him into a profane, blood-dripping monster. This all fits the profile of a bully. But then, when people don't like it, she quickly becomes the victim, and they're bullying her. Catalano observed that her web site is "fittingly called The Manipulator." It's a perfect fit. Greenberg chose the name well. posted by Eric on 09.16.08 at 09:30 AM
Comments
I looked at those pictures and for the life of me cannot understand why she had to make them cry. They are toddlers. They'll do the crying anyway at some point during the day. It's obvious she doesn't have children. Donna B. · September 16, 2008 06:22 PM If she wants to impress me she could make some Saudi kids cry, then post about it on Al Jazeera. I won't hold my breath. She does have children, the boy is named Zed, as in Zed's dead, baby. dr kill · September 16, 2008 06:27 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Barney Frank Frankly Not Frank
ACORN Is Not About Nuts A Man And His Mouth I hate football! (But when in Rome....) Macsmind Hacked - Obama Plans To Disarm America Bracelets, NCOs, and improvised explosive devices No justice! No peace! And this means you! new hood, old friends For Sarah It Wasn't Broke
Links
Site Credits
|
|
But I think she's missing the point when she characterizes her critics as "people who think it's a scandal that children cry."
That's a kind way of putting it. Greenberg reminds me most performance artists I know. Their life is their art. They can do anything they want at any moment, including destroying other people's moments, because it's art. If you don't approve of her making children cry, it's because you hate art and you're censoring her.