Atlantic Monthly Disavows Greenberg

Above: an illustration from the New York Post.

The Atlantic Monthly magazine, after hiring controversial photographer Jill Greenberg to shoot a cover portrait of presidential candidate John McCain, has stood by its choice of cover shots but disavowed the photographer, after it transpired that Greenberg used the access to McCain the magazine granted her to create various egregiously sensational political statements on her website. Apparently she "deliberately took a sinister photo...of John McCain, then Photoshopped it on the web," according to the New York Post, which ran both photos and played up the various grotesqueries perpetrated by the photographer.

The New York Post article quotes Atlantic Editor James Bennet as saying, "We feel totally blind-sided. Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional." The magazine ran an official disavowal on its website, saying, "we expected her, like the other photographers we work with, to behave professionally," adding, "obviously...we will not work with her again."  

Perhaps she feels that she is primarily an artist and free to express herself regardless of the situation, but James Bennett is correct. Jill Greenberg's actions in this instance give all professional portrait and editorial photographers a black eye. (I'd be interested to hear editorial, newspaper, and assignment photographers in our audience give their opinions of the ethics involved.)

_______________________

Mike

Featured Comment by JM Colberg [responding in part to comments left by others]: "Folks, Alfried Krupp was a convicted war criminal. You can say whatever you want about John McCain, but that he is not. So let's all be adults, shall we? That aside, Greenberg's actions are irresponsible, juvenile, and idiotic. For a good explanation why (in the form of 14 questions) see Mark Tucker's blog."

Mike adds: Jörg's own piece about it is good too.

Featured Comment by Damon Schreiber: "I view this controversy with bemusement. Some of the discussion here seems to veer off on the wrong track (referring to her work as journalism for example when it's anything but), but there are certainly many interesting questions raised. Like most others, I don't find her political commentary clever or illuminating, but in general I don't feel any moral outrage over what she did. In essence, she did what she did—it was her choice, and her career to enhance or ruin.

"If it does result in further scrutiny of other portrait photographers, or more explicit contracts, I suppose that's unfortunate, but portraits will still be commissioned as often as ever. If there's a benefit, it's opening people's eyes to the fact that a photographer owns her own work whether or not it was commissioned for a magazine cover.

"I'm most curious to see the effect on her career. My guess is that it won't suffer in the long term. She's good and reasonably unique at what she does (I think that's true whether or not you enjoy her work), and she's obviously not afraid of stirring things up and dealing with the fallout. My main regret is that her political commentary was so embarrassingly ham-handed that it will do nothing to help her case."

Featured Comment by Mick Ryan: "I think JM Colberg's featured comment—a reaction to others' comments about the Arnold Newman portrait—is both partisan and a fallacy. The comparison is between one photographer and another—not one subject and another. Just because one subject is a Nazi and the other a conservative politician doesn't make it okay in one circumstance and not the other. It's either a photographer's right to shoot the subject as they see fit or it's not. Demonizing McCain is no more wrong than shooting him from a low angle to make him look heroic."

Comments

[Ken Tanaka]

A remarkably juvenile and unprofessional act. Greenberg does have a rep for being self-absorbed and self-important but this still surprises me, given her lengthy and broad experience.

Clearly, given her apparently irrepressible political emotions the right thing for her to do would have been to simply decline the assignment rather than pee on an important client who trusted her.

In any line of business trust is the most valuable asset to earn and darn near impossible to recover once it's ruined. What a silly woman.

[Doug Plummer]

I agree that this is unprofessional conduct, but The Atlantic should have known what they were getting into, given Greenberg's previous work. I think it is fallout from hiring someone known for their fine art work for an editorial assignment, which is all the rage these days.

Long ago I took an event gig for the local Republicans, where Henry Kissinger was to be photographed with various big donors. I took the assignment because I needed the money, and justified it by telling myself, hey, I've never photographed a war criminal before. I kept my views to myself and delivered the job, but it left such a nasty taste in my mouth afterwards that I vowed to not debase myself that way again. It's basic behavior as a professional--your views are beside the point, and if that's a problem, don't take the job. That's how I learned it.

[Chris Y.]

I don't know what is more incompetent, her attitude toward her professional responsibility of her attempt at political commentary.... both are childish and embarrasing. The cover looks high-level good, and McCain is just giving it to her. Kids... whataya gonna do?

[Boris]

When I first read about this, I thought to myself: this is so wrong.

But after some thinking I totally changed my opinion.

Photography, especially editorial photography is an interpretation of reality, not the reality itself.

How is it good that you make someone look more heroic than he is, but it is bad to make him more sinister than he is?

I would consider it more dishonest, that Greenberg did just do the thing asked, but totally put away her views.

[Bill Stormont]

Arnold Newman created a chilling portrait of Alfried Krupp for Newsweek Magazine in 1963 that features harsh sidelighting similar to Greenberg's "sinister" McCain portrait. (Go to the Arnold Newman Archive to see this and other color photos taken by the photographer, arnoldnewmanarchive.com.) Krupp's family business was steel, for which they employed slave laborers to manufacture armaments for Hitler's Third Reich…Newman, in taking the photo, said he felt the man's malevolence and so depicted him in that light…an artistic interpretation.

Greenberg's harsh depictions of McCain fall woefully short of Newman's Krupp picture because she has chosen to rely on Photoshop, instead of insight, to administer her artistic and visual opinions. Given her Web site's name, manipulator, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by gimmicks? And remember, this is the lady who made babies cry and called it art.

As to whether she has dirtied the water for her working peers, that remains for them to judge, but at the least her actions will add to the media-bashing coming from the Right at a time when we can't afford distractions.

[BWJones]

Agreed. Whether you agree with his politics or not, this was an egregious breach of professional decorum aimed at furthering her own means rather than simply abiding by the trust The Atlantic placed in her. The question I have is what was her motive? Personal gain? Political statement as an artist? Well Ms. Greenberg, if it was politically motivated, you can say what you want, but please be honorable to the profession and stay off my side... we don't need your "help", politically or professionally.

[Ctein]

Dear Boris,

The issue is not one of 'reality' but professional responsibility. When journalists start acting substantially outside their roles and make people distrust their motives, then they lose access to the information. They can't do their job any longer.

We're not talking about tone and shading, ala point of view, even at the Fox News level of distortion. Submitting unflattering photos to Atlantic was not unprofessional (although they might choose to not use them). Building a web site 'art project' around the shoot was, because it stepped entirely outside the bounds of what she was expected to be doing, as a journalist.

It's substantially the same as why you don't want journalists acting as undercover spies (or spies pretending they're established journalists), and why you don't want journalists to be required to reveal their professionally-gained knowledge to the government.

Person X will not talk to reporter Y if they think reporter Y will use that for blatantly non-reportage purposes. They may not expect to be reported on fairly or objectively, but they do expect the context will still be something resembling journalism, or they'll reject the reporter.

Greenberg blew that. And she knows better-- she's done editorial work before. She just decided, "Screw the rules of the job."

pax / Ctein

[Robert Edelman]

Mike, I was thinking of contacting you with this story earlier, but as usual you are on top of things. I received my copy of The Atlantic two days ago, and happened I read the article on John McCain last night. I thought the photo on the cover was a bit more manipulated for my taste, but that it showed McCain as a strong or "bedrock" personality, and not at all unflattering or adverse to him. It is a cover that is designed as all magazine covers are, that is, to attract readers to buy it.
There was a link to the story on Yahoo to a Fox News interview with James Bennett. I was appalled to see how some nasty blond woman (I do not know her name as I rarely watch that propaganda) on Fox News went after Mr. Bennett. The Atlantic did nothing wrong here, and was also a victim of Jill Greenberg. Among other things, this woman on Fox attacked Mr. Bennett for not doing a Google search on Jill Greenberg before hiring her! Mr. Bennett replied that The Atlantic does not hire people based upon their political beliefs, and that Greenberg was hired as a professional photographer who had done work for other publications. He stated that he was composing an apology to the McCain campaign, although personally, I do not think that The Atlantic had done anything wrong. He also stated that Greenberg had not been and would not be paid, and that The Atlantic was looking into what legal remedies might be available. Mr. Bennett handled himself as a gentleman and in a professional manner, yet this offensive woman on Fox kept on berating Mr. Bennett until, clearly exasperated, he finally stated that The Atlantic had already taken responsibility, and what more did she want?
The Atlantic is, I think, about 150 years old, and offers balanced and in-depth views on a diversity of topics. It also publishes readers' comments on its articles, some of which are critical of the articles. It is a great publication to read a variety of opinions on a variety of timely subjects. If more people took the time to read publications like The Atlantic and spent less time watching crap like Fox News, they would be better informed. I felt bad for Mr. Bennett, not only because he had been betrayed by Jill Greenberg, but because he was unfairly and unnecessarily attacked by the woman on Fox News. I am willing to bet that, in retrospect, he regrets presenting himself to Fox News, and if so, I would not blame him. I think that Fox News owes Mr. Bennett an apology, although I suspect that will never happen.
As for me, I am going to extend my subscription to the Atlantic.

[Joe]

Whatever her personal politics, it is unbelievable that she could have been so unprofessional as to have degraded our profession so completely with her 'petulant child' attitude and behavior.

Her first responsibility was to her client who trusted her, hired her, and gave her access. Her second responsibility was to maintain the integrity of this profession.

As a photographer with an axe to grind, she should have just turned down the shoot instead of behaving like some coked-out lunatic. Truly unbelievable.

[John Camp]

Three things:

1. This has nothing to do with commentary or free speech or art. When she hired on to do a straight portrait, she essentially committed herself to acting in some particular professional way; that' s implicit in the contract, so she violated a trust. I don't want to hear about it not being explicit, because many of these things *must* be implicit -- there are simply too many possibilities to cover in an explicit contract that outlines every possible form of behavior. The client *must* assume professional behavior on the photographer's part.

2. It might be a goof -- she might've been playing around, and in a kind of brain mishap, thought, "Hey, this is pretty cool," and put it up on her website. That happens. Remember the LA Times photographer who Photoshopped an Iraq war photo? No need to do it, people were completely happy with his performance up to then. He just...f*cked up.

3. But then, what about the famous Alfred Krupp photogaph taken by Arnold Newman, I think for Fortune Magazine, in which he deliberately made Krupp look like the devil, without Krupp realizing it? Newman betrayed the subject, if not humanity. Of course, the magazine got to choose the photo...

http://www.12thpress.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/newman.jpg

[JeffH]

I read an article yesterday which quoted here bragging about taking the 'sinister' photos of McCain by tricking him into thinking she was using multiple lights, when in fact she was using only one low light source. I had no idea how demeaning the photos were until I viewed them on her site this evening. Very unprofessional on several levels.

[David]

I'm shocked...it's a blindside ambush job, a sissy coldcock.

She obviously didn't have the balls to say that she didn't want the gig.

I've turned away a few jobs where the subject was a person or a product with various associations that i didn't agree with. If Jill had real balls she would have just said that she wasn't interested in propping up a guy who she had problems with. That said, I've also taken a few gigs with said associations that offered high profile oppurtunities to advance my career and pad the status of my book. As I've gotten older it's become easier for me to say no.

Commercial photographers are constantly shooting things that perpetuate the cycle of cultural and physical waste (a simplistic job description). As Captain Beefheart said on Zappa's Bongo Fury record in the song Poofters Froth, Wyoming, Plans Ahead (regarding the bicentennial celebration in '76)

"This is a song that warns you in advance, that next year, everybody is gonna try and sell you things that maybe you shouldn't ought to buy, and not only that, they've been planning it for years."

In so many ways...We whore ourselves out to ad agencies and companies that dont care about anything but the bottom line and spew out garbage that we don't need that is unhealthy and generally irresponsible.

Companies that create falsehoods and calculated rubrics as selling points. We photographers happily accept cash to illustrate these falsehoods and etceteras. We are part of that chain because the money can be good

If Jill Greenburg thinks that she is doing something politically and socially productive here then she's a darn fool, and a perhaps, displaying some megalomania.

Way beyond unprofessional..cowardly, stupid, inept, irresponsible, unprofessional and disrespectful to other working editorial photogs. Another word that leaps forward is hypocrite...I'm pretty damn sure that, during her skinny days, she took a few gigs that violated her political/social sensibility..She did it here and she's done it before.

Anyhow..i'm growing tired of her indulgence in the use of the diffuse glow filter for her gill lit images..

At this point, McCain hasn't proven himself as a Richard Nixon.

To Boris,

When you land a cover job for a high profile, high circulation publication, things change with regard to the definition of "editorial". The stuff of this cover had go through a few levels of editors before it ever hit the front page...

[Ernest Theisen]

Ok so all that happened. Bad cover shot. Why make somebody look bad, anybody. So the cover is meant to say, "We The Atlantic Journal, don't like John McCain, so buy this mag and maybe you will not like him as well". So now the editors are saying "On what a bad thing she did, how awful, we are so sorry, we just did not have time to look at the cover shot before we agreed to send it to the printer." My survey shows that there are two other McCain supporters that read and respond to this blog on matters political. Hum... maybe I should sell my cameras and buy snow machine. E

[Julian]

Clearly unprofessional but what is worse is that the manipulations were unsubtle and banal. Compare what Newman did to Krupp. The subtext is there, implied, but it's still a portrait of an industrialist and stays within the conventions of that style of portrait. It is clear that Newman put a lot of thought into exactly how he wanted to portray his subject. How much thought does it take to Photoshop some blood around the mouth of a politician? It's just crass.

[John Addison]

Wouldn't there be something in her contract with Atlantic that would preclude this behaviour?

[ben]

I think it's brilliant. She obviously made a very conscious decision to do this, knowing full well that it would mean never working with John McCain or Atlantic again.

What does she get out of it? Some extremely exceptional shots for her portfolio (how often do you see an active politician bottom-lit menacingly?), the personal satisfaction of sticking it to McCain, and absolutely gigantic amounts of free publicity.

With this one photo shoot, she's given her personal brand an overdue makeover. She's referred to herself as "The Manipulator" for a long time, and now she's finally delivered on the promise of that name with something controversial and fearless.

Obviously Atlantic Monthly is loving it too, because they're sharing in the free publicity. Sure, they have to play dumb (gosh, we had no idea she'd do this!), and they can't hire her again for a while, but for one month, they have the cover that's got everyone buzzing. My guess is that other photo editors went straight to the phone to book her.

[erlik]

I might agree with her view of McCain, but really, she could have declined the job. This is the electronic equivalent of drawing horns and eyeteeth on photos.

OTOH, let's not call everybody a "journalist". The fact that she was (had been?) invited to shoot portraits for papers doesn't make her a journalist any more than cooking dinners for my friends makes me a professional cook. People like James Nachtwey are photojournalists. People like Jill Greenberg and Annie Leibovitz are not.

There's an interesting text about photojournalim by Mark Hancock at http://markhancock.blogspot.com/1996/01/what-is-photojournalist.html.

"A photojournalist is a visual reporter of facts."

Greenbergs and Leibowitzes are not dealing with facts. They are... spin doctors, so to say. They are expected to create a positive image of a person they photograph, not a simple factual photo. In that I agree with Boris.

[Paul Amyes]

I think she's done McCain a favour. The furore surrounding the shot will buy a lot of column inches and air time for free. It will also help make up some people's mind to vote for him out of sympathy. Remember there's no such thing as bad publicity these days, all you need is a good spin doctor.

[Ben Rosengart]

I'd probably be pissed at Ms. Greenberg if I were at The Atlantic, or in favor of John McCain. But ... I'm neither. And I understand the dismay, but come on, does no one see the humor and chutzpah in this subversive act?

Has Greenberg ever called herself a journalist? Or does she think of herself as an artist? An artist who approached John McCain with a respect alien to her sensibilities would be almost as suspect, to me, as a journalist who didn't.

[David]

I just hope she is not prescient.

[Winsor]

Yeah, she is guilty of a breach of professional responsibility. Terrible that she tried to make him look like a monster just because he supports an illegal invasion and continued occupation of another country based on a pack of lies and which has resulted in 4000 of our own dead, about a million Iraqis and several million refugees.

Odd that no one mentioned the image of McCain selected by the magazine that makes this doddering, mean and dishonest old man, who has to be helped down the ramp of his airliner by his wife, into a tower of strength and potency. That is perhaps more dishonest. At least Greenberg cannot be accused of being like the "good Germans" of WWII who were blind to the obscenity going on around them.

[aizan]

Does The Atlantic own the photos Greenberg took during the photoshoot?

Anyhow, these aren't as good as John Heartfield's photomontages.

[yunfat]

The correct answer is: Who cares?

I chuckle when I hear the terms professional responsibility, and professionalism. All I read is jealousy and jealousy. Why do you care about someone else's job, or what the rules are, implicit or explicit? Oh, you say it affects you... it doesn't, you are just trying to control other people by referring to an unwritten social decorum you deem acceptable. Tough. Nobody is bleeding here. The girl just wanted the attention, you "professionals" are giving it to her.

So she broke some implicit contract to torpedo her career... is that what this is about? Well, guess what, it's her career... she gets to do with it what she wants. If you think one photographer can be so impactful as to affect your livelyhood you are sorely mistaken. Or did photographers overnight gain some mysterious power to control the universe?

Your clients aren't going to be affected... they aren't going to pick up on this and demand your memory cards after the shoot... they aren't going to add 5 pages to the wedding contract demanding you make them look good. You know why? Because you won't be eating in 6 months if this is how you treat them.

I admire what this girl did, even if it's sheer stupidity, she has chutzpah. If McCain and his handlers can be fooled into thinking photos taken with a single floor mounted flash could ever be flattering, what does that say about the future of our country in his hands? That's the trick they use at haunted houses during halloween for the guy in the dracula suit.

If the photographers’ own statements and actions weren't that of of a pre-pubescent teen scoring a "prank", I would have thought the McCain camp engineered this to engender sympathy for their candidate. Greenberg probably didn't think about that if her skills at motivating political change are as bad as her photos.

This is what happens when photographers editorialize, they get exposed for what they really are, and the mystery of their photos is gone, in a flash (pun intended). I can make a septuagenarian war hero look crappy any time I want, I live in Boca Raton, Fl. I just have to drive to the mall with my camera. Maybe Mz. Greenberg should come down here if she really likes this style, I could show her the ropes... my favorite spot is outside the local Walmart waiting for the Century Village bus to arrive.

On second thought, I think I'll stick to making flattering photos of my clients instead of becoming a Perez Hilton wannabee with an appetite for attention that makes Tila Tequila gasp in awe.

[Mike J.]

I'm surprised at some of the responses here. Ernest, it's not the cover shot anyone's objecting to. It's straight and perfectly appropriate. It's that she "freelanced" from within the context of the shoot, then took the outtakes and made bad political cartoons out of them. She took advantage of both her subject and her client. But there's nothing wrong with the cover they ran!

Ben, I doubt *very much* that the Atlantic is "loving" this in any way, shape, or form. I can almost guarantee you they are not. They are embarrassed and compromised by their subcontractor's behavior.

Mike J.

[JBHogan]

Errr, this is the USA, 2008.

Folks are worried about self-service, lack of forethought, or just plain greed?

How quaint.

[Mário Pires]

Professional assignments should not be used to make personal statements. The Magazine ordered the shoot, and using photos from that occasion for different purposes is really a bad idea. And the result is very bad by the way.

[Nicolas]

Well, most of the comments here omit a fact : the manipulated images are hosted on Jill Greenberg's site, named... manipulator.

For us adults, isn't it a sufficient warning that what we might see in a photograph could also NOT be the truth?

For me, I would have preferred to see this kind of manipulation on the Obama side (maybe because he appears a tad too gentle - maybe also because I feel more on the democrat side, and so it ensures my personal bias is not reflected in some other superstructure), but what Greenberg did is to shed light on, basically, what stands in a portrait, in the peculiar context of a presidential campaign.
Such a portrait can't convey anything but biased opinions, in a way or another, period.
Who here, among photographers, is naive enough to believe in photography as a neutral representation of the world? It's also the role of the photographer to fight against this tentative (among the TV-spectator crowds at least) belief.

That had to be said, and I am thankful to Jill Greenberg to hit that nail on the head.

[Daniel]

I like the 14 questions in mark tucker blog...

http://marktucker.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/fourteen-questions-im-left-with-in-the-greenbergmccain-mess/

Daniel

[Lambert]

That 'blood' looks more like lipstick to me.

[Ken White]

This sinister grotesque fits quite well into the history or our political imagery. Among other things, it offers a bit of comic relief that keeps us from noticing the state of our union. We can all cluck cluck, and forget about the lobbyist behind the curtain. Works for me.

[Robert Roaldi]

Well, I am not bothered by the cover photo, and presumably neither was the Atlantic. Come to that I am not bothered by what some photographer does on their own site, especially when the site is called "manipulator". But using the pics that she collected during a paid portrait shoot to construct the manipulations was the wrong thing to do, I'd say. I don't see it as a great moral wrong, I don't think it castigates the profession, and doesn't make the magazine look bad either. It does make her look a little foolish though. This is the kind of thing they do in university newspapers that everyone ignores because they know the source.

[Alessandro]

She's great.

[Brian]

What I find interesting is that this is just another example of how all of American journalism seems to be heading towards frank sensationalism to sell. Please also see the discussion about the Fox News interview described above. Selling is more important than informing in this day and age. There is so much vital news and information that does not get to us while we are kept busy with more and more tabloid trash.

As an aside I seriously doubt that Mr. McCain is going to suffer politically because of her comic renditions of him or the so called sinister appearance on the cover. Whoever Jill Greenberg is she managed to preach to the choir on her views of McCain and to everyone else she just looks silly and very unprofessional.

[John Krill]

I love it!

[charlie d]

Why are the Palin in bikini and rifle pics funny and these not? Seems it would have been prudent of Greenberg to steal pics off of Flickr first? I dare say the sexism argument might be proven correct in this case.

Ho hum, ha ha...

[Steven Scherbinski]

I guess I don't see what all the hubbub is about. See accepted a contract job, and delivered on that contract. The Atlantic, as far as I know, has never said they were unhappy with the photo she delivered to them.

I also don't believe that Jill Greenberg ever said she was a professional portrait or editorial photographer, she calls herself an artist. Like a lot of artists, she creates controversy with her art. She succeeded in this case.

While I have to admit, I don't care for the photographs, nor most of her other work, it's obvious a lot of people do. She's had far more of her work in museums/galleries than me.

I've also seen a lot of other photographers use outakes from contract jobs for other uses. Are we saying now that all those photographers were wrong also?

In the end, she accepted a contract and delivered on that contract. As part of the contract was she supposed to deliver all the work to the magazine? Since I haven't seen it, I don't know. The Atlantic ran the photograph on the cover of the magazine. It seems to me that if they don't pay her, she has a right to file a copyright claim against them. I'm surprised that a bunch of photographers would support anything else.

[Geoff Wittig]

I think people here are confusing journalism with fashion. Jill Greenberg's work has consistently skated toward the shock/fashion/look-at-me side of the fence. Love it or hate it (and I'm in the latter group), she's just playing the game. Like Madonna arriving at a show opening in a topless outfit: there is no such thing as bad publicity. Getting some buzz is all that matters. And Greenberg has surely achieved that! Anyone expecting 'objective' journalism from a photographer who presents heavily Photoshop'ed sobbing toddlers as "art" is being a bit naive.

And spare me the outrage. This is the politician who is lying about...well, pretty much everything.

[Frank Petronio]

Being a conservative I was pissed off at Greenberg and as a photographer I thought her results were pretty lame, not much different than crap I pulled as a... sophomore. The actual cover portrait is ok-boring, about what I'd expect from her and probably what the staid Atlantic editors wanted.

But after thinking about it, what she did as far as manipulating outakes to make portfolio pieces and artwork is just fine. In fact that is the way it is supposed to work with editorial work, since the pay is so low, the best photographers will push a little harder to get something impressive for their portfolios and use the assignment to do work that is clearly their own, not some advertising or corporate art director's ideas. The whole idea is to generate secondary sales after an embargo period... so she worked her ass off in her 30 minute shoot and that's cool by me.

I don't know her terms w the Atlantic but provided she honored them, then she is in the clear and all parties benefit from the publicity. Even McCain gets sympathy, as Greenberg's photos will hardly sway any fence-sitters. In fact they demonstrate quite well the liberal elitist attitude and biases held by the art and media industries.

The losers here are other professional photographers who will face increased scrutiny and stiffer contracts from their clients as a result of her grab at self-promotion.

And, yes, I think she is vile, mean-spirited woman. But that's not a crime and it's hardly unexpected that there are some a-holes in the world.

I hope her (and Annie L.) get audited right out of business. That's reality too.

[Cyril]

I actually like the shadow picture (not the vampire one) better than the one they chose for the cover, which has Greenberg's trademark plastic-doll look.

It makes him look like a smily grandpa lit from below, not sinister at all in my book, but maybe we have different cultural referentials.

As for the photographer taking pictures she was not "supposed to" take, well I guess photogs are not submissive wage-slaves and can think and act independently and unexpectedly. What a surprise.

Btw: for the rest of us living outside of the US, can you clarify what kind of mag Atlantic is?

[Mike J.]

Steven Scherbinksi,
Actually, I don't see how the Atlantic could refuse to pay her. She delivered, and obviously they used (and approved) her work. I don't know by what rationale they could refuse to pay her, unless she violated some part of the contract.

It's also possible that they could sue her (I also don't know that). But withholding payment doesn't seem like it would have a legal basis.

Mike J.

[Bron Janulis]

Didn't anybody from the McCain camp look at her site before she was given the job?

The level of "outrage" seems ...."overwrought".

Just who is the "manipulater"?

Bron

[Mike J.]

"Btw: for the rest of us living outside of the US, can you clarify what kind of mag Atlantic is?"

Interesting questions. It's about 150 years old, and was long known as a Boston-Brahmin literary magazine in opposition to the New York-based literary magazines. It's a supposedly general-interest magazine, but I remember once reading that its target market was readers who had advanced degrees and well-above-average incomes. Recently it was purchased by a tycoon and moved to Washington, D.C.

Interestingly (although not relevantly), the current owner, who is working hard to improve the content of the magazine, went to great lengths to hire Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote the article on McCain. (Goldberg was previously a writer for the New Yorker.) In the process, it's rumored that he bought a pony for each of Goldberg's children!

Mike J.

[charlie d]

Mike said:

It's a supposedly general-interest magazine, but I remember once reading that its target market was readers who had advanced degrees and well-above-average incomes.

I subscribe and I am a college drop out earning a less than staggering income!

It does seem to be a bit more provocative and less provincial these days. I have yet to read the piece on McCain. I went right to the article wondering if surfing Porn is akin to Adultery.

[Jay Moynihan]

"Arnold Newman created a chilling portrait of Alfried Krupp for Newsweek Magazine in 1963 that features harsh sidelighting similar to Greenberg's "sinister" McCain portrait. (Go to the Arnold Newman Archive to see this and other color photos taken by the photographer, arnoldnewmanarchive.com.) Krupp's family business was steel, for which they employed slave laborers to manufacture armaments for Hitler's Third Reich…Newman, in taking the photo, said he felt the man's malevolence and so depicted him in that light…an artistic interpretation."

I think the Newman shoot was for Newsweek Magazine in 1963. It was used by his client (the publication), and is in my personal opinion, artistically light years beyond the latest controversial image. It is generally considered one of the classics of environmental portraiture.

As far as all the ethics stuff goes, Newman's image was ran by Newsweek. I think it might have been a cover, but I could be wrong on that.

I would assume that Atlantic had a contract with her, did it address outtake usuage? Did McCain's handlers see the contract?

I feel uncomfortable attacking her, "professional vs unprofessional". I only know that I would not have published the ghoulish one if I was her. I would not have since it might reflect upon my client, and, it is a tacky image.

The only loser here though, was the viewer. It is an ugly image, that lacks all subtlety.

Winners:
Atlantic: free promotion.
McCain: Just another example of "liberal" deceit, trickery, etc. :)
Photographer: Boldness = artist?

While in a different catagory, does anyone remember the image from the 1990's "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano? A not very interesting image elevated to national attention.
Serrano entered the arts crowd, and the far right raised more funds. Whatever...

[Jay Moynihan]

Re Atlantic:
"It's a supposedly general-interest magazine, but I remember once reading that its target market was readers who had advanced degrees and well-above-average incomes."

Yes, aimed at a demographic similar to that of Harper, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and to some extent, Esquire.

[Jason]

I have to take issue with JM Colberg's argument. The fundamental motives behind Krupp's and McCain's portrayals are the same. The photographer held the subject in contempt and wanted to express that. It doesn’t matter what we think of each person to justify the act of making such an “in your face” editorial statement in a photo. They each made a statement about a person, using similar techniques (albeit to varying degrees of skill and only in the published photos). It’s up to you to agree with that statement or not. But each tried to do the same thing and it’s not like they made that clear to the subject when they shot them.

I posted this on another site:

If you feel that Krupp's complicity equated to him the most sinister of Nazi criminals, McCain could be argued being complicit in the death of thousands of Iraqis – which I would think Greenberg agrees, given her stance. Indeed, it could be argued that McCain may even be a bigger player since he voted for the Iraq war and dropped bombs in Vietnam, just like Krupp worked people to death, further emphasizing her opinion of McCain as a warmonger.

I’m playing devil’s advocate: I disagree with that opinion of McCain but I think it would be safe to say that Greenberg does not and she makes that point clear in her series of photos and even more blatant in her amateurish photoshops, in case we just don’t get it.

So put aside the opinion of Krupp and McCain for a second. Greenberg holds McCain in as much contempt as you, I and others hold Krupp. Whether you agree or not with Greenberg is immaterial as to whether or not she can alter the lighting to create a mood for an EDITORIAL photo because she's entitled to her opinion. And, if Newman is entitled to his opinion, then isn't Greenberg entitled to hers? Both used similar methods in the final published product (change in lighting, pose).

You can debate the merits of Greenberg's opinion in her editorial photo, and accept or dismiss it and the publication that runs it. That's your decision and it's your responsibility to formulate a decision, AFTER the publication. But to say that she is wrong for altering the lighting and pose and Newman was not because one subject is viewed with more contempt by you than the other? That's not a valid argument.

However, saying that it's acceptable to portray someone in an altered environment based on your opinion of their character, then what one thinks of a person affecting how they're portrayed could be taken down to the most minute level, which is the basis of every argument (right or left wing) of bias in the media.

So hate the Atlantic Monthly for running it, but both they and Newsweek 45 years before made conscious decisions to run a photographer's alteration of conditions to make a statement (I would think the AM’s blurb supports this) in a news magazine.

Whether or not it's OK to do that regardless of the photographer or the subject is the real question.

I think the Atlantic Monthly is just backpedaling in this environment of flaps regarding media, bias, and manipulation.

[Gordon McGregor]

I find the Atlantic's protestations of innocence somewhat naive at best. Her previously most famous work are the sequences of crying children. All of those images are titled as political protests against the current Bush government (Titles like 'four more years'), war in Iraq, rise of the Christian right in American politics. The front piece to her 'end times' project is pretty clear in that leaning.

So they hire a high profile, already controversial and clearly politically active photographer and send her to photograph the potential successor to George Bush - then claim they are totally surprised by what she did. Not very high standards of journalism there, I think.

As to what she did with the photographs, well in many ways it is cheap theatrics - that seems to be the norm in American politics - but it also falls into a fairly well established tradition of portraitists manipulating their subjects to portray something that may or may not be there, that they want to show.

Karsh stealing Churchill's cigar. Avedon telling King Edward and Mrs Simpson about the dog he'd just killed. Newman's image of Krupp.

Like Greenberg, those photographers weren't journalists, showing, 'just the facts'. They were portraitists, bringing their own biases and views to the subject.

On the cover shot (not the manipulated shots on her site) she stated she left the 'eyes red and the skin bad' so she could be accused of more subtle failures there, too.

The manipulated images on her site are unsubtle, obvious and cheap shots. The deceit of setting up standard modeling lights but only firing the lower strobe seems more underhand too. It is all just a bit tacky - but it seems to be getting more of the press that she craves.

[Dennis]

I agree wholeheartedly that this is poor behavior on the part of a photographer hired to do a job - operating under that pretext to show the subject in a 'bad light' (and make the client look bad) for personal gain. (And I truly believe personal gain is what this is about; not politics). But I think that this breach of rules is part of the plan; that Jill Greenberg is willing to take risks, break rules, risk her professional reputation all for the sake of her 'art'. It's all marketing. To me, it stinks, but I suppose some people eat this stuff up. (As for McCain, he's in full "outrage" mode lately, offended at every other thing someone says or does, so this just fits right in).

[Tim]

What a load of sanctimonious rubbish from an awful lot of you.

Jill seems to be just a little bit bonkers and I totally respect that. A little madness goes a long way in our homogeneous, sanitised, corporate world.

Mr McCain likes to think of himself as a little bit of a maverick so I'm sure he can see the funny side.

Oh and don't mix mag covers with journalism. A mag cover is editorial in name only. It's advertising people !!ADVERTISING!!

[Hoainam]

Jill Greenberg: making cringe even the people who share her party affiliation.

Now I know how reasonably minded Republicans feel about Bill O'Reilly.