Reactions to doctored outtakes from Jill Greenberg’s shoot of John McCain for The Atlantic have been overwhelmingly negative, even in the—allegedly overly liberal—photographic circles. Though the photographer is no stranger to political controversy, this reaction is markedly different from the reception of her last statement-art, the 2006 series “End Time.”
This series of child portraits was criticized as pornographic by some and praised as brave by others. The idea was born when Greenberg took a photo of a friend’s crying boy and thought the image was an apt metaphor for her anti-George Bush political views. Greenberg then shot a series of similar portraits, forcing some of her toddler models into tears by the standard sitcom method of taking away candy. The work was released in a gallery exhibit, with captions such as “not another four years” and others that verbalized the photographer’s distaste for the current administration’s policies.
As with most political issues, the general public was polarized. The loud child-abuse outcry was easily dismissed, as Greenberg conducted all shoots in the presence of each child’s parents. More cogent conservative objections were aimed at the ethical and moral aspects of capitalizing on child suffering, a very real phenomenon in many parts of the world. Naturally, those who shared Greenberg’s political views dismissed such concerns as puritanical and praised the artist for publicizing such worthy issues with her work. A good time was had by all.
In the creative community, “End Time” garnered critical accolades for the portraits’ eerie dichotomy and masterful technique, admired even by the conservatively inclined. It did not seem to matter which side of the issue you fell on, because the work itself had merit: it was entirely original, conceptually strong and well executed—qualities entirely lacking in Greenberg’s retouched McCain images.
This would-be political statement accomplished little in a way of inspiring an informed political debate or supporting the agenda of Greenberg’s party. Even if you share the underlying sentiment, this was certainly not the first time McCain was burned in effigy. His views on war and his marital history have been well covered by the media. It was not the first time his picture was Photoshopped in a less-than-flattering fashion. Unlike “End Time,” Greenberg’s McCain manipulations are too sophomoric to produce either a change of political allegiance or artistic admiration.
Though the supposed scandal is fueling the blogosphere, it is not exactly mainstream front-page material. A couple of lines in one of The New York Times’ blogs is about as prominent a placement as this story is going to get: Greenberg may be an industry star, but she does not have the celebrity pull of, for instance, Annie Liebovitz. This latest publicity spike might get Greenberg passed 30,000 Google hits, compared to Liebovitz’s millions.
There are some who say that Greenberg’s actions have hurt photographers. The argument is that this incident will make it more difficult for photographers to secure portraiture assignments and retain rights to the resulting images. That seems to be a stretch. In truth, Greenberg’s actions do not really reflect on The Atlantic; one could easily argue that the magazine stands to benefit from all the free publicity.
The Atlantic says it is considering a lawsuit and will not pay Greenberg. Both raise interesting ethical and legal questions. Greenberg delivered on her contract; can the magazine justify not paying her? While gaining access to McCain through a client and under false pretenses can be characterized as unethical and unprofessional, is there anything about this incident that could be legislated?
Yes, Greenberg made a political statement. Perhaps the seven people who have yet to pick a side will be swayed by her portrayal of McCain as a conflict-prone philanderer. Perhaps a couple of photo editors will take another look at their photographer agreements. But in all? Move along, ladies and gentlemen; there is nothing to see here.