(1) John McCain, photographed for the Atlantic Monthly, 2008; (2) inset: Atlantic Monthly cover, October 2008; (3) monkey portrait. Photographer: Jill Greenberg
All of these portraits are by Jill Greenberg, but one of them is getting a bit more attention than the others. Guess which!
Before this week, Greenberg may have been best known for her "monkey portrait" series, which was recently released as a book
Monkey Portraits
Jill Greenberg
Someone at the Atlantic Monthly must have been impressed with Greenberg's work too, because the magazine hired her last month to photograph senator and presidential candidate John McCain. She accepted the commission, but with an apparent ulterior motive. During the shoot, she manipulated the lighting for a horror-show effect, used unflattering angles, and generally tried to make McCain look as bad as possible (all without his awareness - or his handlers', apparently). Predictably, the Atlantic rejected most of these sinister photographs, choosing a relatively benign photo for their cover.
So far, not such a big deal: the Atlantic's editors got a bunch of politically incendiary, unusable photos, and probably realized it was a mistake to hire Greenberg in the first place, since she couldn't or wouldn't suppress her political agenda long enough to complete a commission for a mainstream publication. But here's where it gets bizarre: Greenberg edited and distorted the remaining photos, posting them with provocative captions on her website (which has been up and down, presumably due to surging traffic - if it's up, go look under Names: John McCain). Here's a screenshot from the site, depicting McCain with pointy teeth and blood dripping from his mouth:
John McCain; photographed/digitally edited by Jill Greenberg, 2008
As far as I'm concerned, this is gross unprofessionalism. Greenberg could have vented her ire at the senator from Arizona by photoshopping photos taken of McCain in public settings, but instead she exploited the Atlantic Monthly's reputation to trick him into sitting for his own character assassination. It doesn't matter how you feel about John McCain, or what you think of his recent campaign strategy. Jill Greenberg violated the trust of her subject and the trust of her employer, while reinforcing the common perception of a sinister liberal bias in the media. Thanks, Jill!
The Atlantic was predictably horrified - the editors said,
When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics--instead, we assess their professional track records. We had never worked with Jill Greenberg before (and, obviously, we will not work with her again).
They're being a little disingenuous, because Greenberg has been extremely candid about her political agenda. Along with the 2004 monkey portraits, her portfolio includes a series called "End Times," which generated criticism in 2006 for its depictions of sobbing two- and three-year-olds. (It turned out their parents were present when the photos were taken, and the crying kids included Greenberg's own daughter).
Greenberg explained that the crying children represented the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." The titles of the portraits? "Four More Years," "Grand Old Party," "Torture," etc. Uh-huh. I don't think she's exactly a McCain supporter! In fact, given all of this, you have to wonder why in the world McCain's handlers let him sit for Greenberg.
No artist can perfectly divorce their own feelings from their work. Still, Greenberg should have been enough of a professional to do a reasonably objective photo shoot - or to decline the commission entirely. Greenberg's defense appears to be that she's an "artist." The NY Post quotes her,
The pictures speak for themselves. I took the opportunity to create an image which shows my feelings about the Republican administration and possible continuation of the policies of the Bush/Cheney White House.
Elsewhere, her husband has been quoted as saying
She feels bad that the Atlantic has been dragged into this. Her beef is not with them. She's an artist who is expressing herself through the medium she expresses herself through.
It's true, artists have done far more offensive things in the name of generating debate. But is this really "art"? Perhaps the most idiotic thing about it is that the "vampire McCain" photo is so glaringly juvenile! It's not artistically daring or iconoclastic, it's something a bored teenager would do during study hall! One of the other photos attributed to Greenberg, which has been captured on blogs and other sites, depicts a monkey excreting on McCain's head. Shouldn't we be better than this?
Moreover, it's hard to see how Greenberg could more effectively undermine the democratic party she supposedly supports. How could she fail to foresee the fallout of her actions? The photos are already being used as fodder by right wing bloggers to generate outrage and hostility, and further, as evidence that the mainstream media is out to smear McCain by any method available. I'm assuming this is the opposite of what Greenberg intended. But perhaps all she wanted out of this was publicity for herself. If so, she's succeeded.
In sum, I think any credibility Greenberg had as a photojournalist or portraitist for mainstream media is long gone. She's done a lot of damage to the idea of an objective media in the process. And I won't be able to look at those monkey portraits again with the same delight. Shame on you, Jill.
More: This YouTube interview with Greenberg shows her work process, "End Times," and "Monkey Portraits."
- Log in to post comments
*Is it just me, or do the eyebrows on McCain and the monkey look kinda similar?
*When I first scrolled down and saw vamp McCain my first thought wasn't "haha!/*roll eyes* how juvenile"... my first thought was "AGhh!"
I think she did an ok job with the creepy factor, actually.
*As a journalist, she should never work again. As an artist, she is interesting.
Wow, I was not aware of this, but I couldn't agree more with your assessment. I LIKE risky artists who push the envelope and aren't afraid to be in your face and make folks a little uncomfortable. But this is truly beyond the pale, and Jill Greenberg has no business calling herself a photojournalist, or hiring herself out as one. She can't be both an in your face artist, and a professional photojournalist at the same time. The two spheres are very, very different.
and I agree the McCain as vampire pic isn't even especially good...
That's not intended to be a vampire: Those are shark teeth.
Bloody hell, thats terrible, even the photoshopping is bad.
What on earth was she thinking?
Its hardly the most difficult thing in the world to get images of McCain to manipulate for a laugh if thats what you want (I do it all the time these days -
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-american-gothic.html )
The vampire McCain picture is completely amateurish and looks like it was done for an audience of 12 year old boys.
Sadly, even the quality of the photoshop is awful, that tongue doesn't even look real.
She seems to have taken Arnold Newman as her role model.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0312/an01.html
I disagree. Right wing bloggers etc always have and always will whine about perceived slights but you don't need to help them by agreeing w/ obvious bull. How on earth does The Atlantic Monthly *NOT* using bad pics of McCain demonstrate a Liberal bias? Liberal Media bias is just one of the right-wing's standard whines. Call it the Italian soccer player fake penalty gambit. Cry hard, cry often, eventually the ref will give the other guy a red card.
I also disagree w/ Sigmund's critique of the quality of the picture. I think it's rather well done and creepy as hell. When I saw it, one word popped into my head: Lovecraft.
Since Greenberg never pretended to be a photojournalist, AFAIK, how can her "photojournalistic credibility" be destroyed? She never had one and she never hid the fact that her own political beliefs were influencing her artistic choices. Was she asked to put her beliefs aside by the editors at the Atlantic? I seriously doubt it: they knew who they had hired and if they didn't know, they were just foolish.
As for the right-wing bloggers, do they really need this to generate outrage and hostility?
Aside from this, I agree that the vampire portrait is juvenile, but after 8 years of Bush rule, how would you depict the GOP politics if not as predatory (not to mention dumb, ignorant, violent and fascist)?
Those Monkey Portraits are art? They are so obviously (and poorly) manipulated they look like greeting cards. And, yes, the McCain Monster looks like 113th prize on Photoshop Phriday. If someone is going to go to the trouble of misrepresenting themselves to get a certain shot, shouldn't they feel obliged to produce something of value? This mediocre image manipulation certainly shouldn't be mistaken for art.
Humm. That Monkey Portrait book is actually not too bad. I doubt it's much manipulation and mostly good interesting lighting.
The McCain is however an extremely poorly done photoshopping.
I'm no McCain fan but this is over the top. I'm getting so sick of getting all the why McCain/obama/palin/biden is unqualified/evil/stupid emails from everyone from my mother to my boss.
They essentially are like this photo. Lots of slam little truth.
If conservatives portrayed B.O. this way, left-tards would be apoplectic. If conservatives portrayed B.O. next to an ape or a monkey, left-tards would be calling for McCain's head on a platter. You people are pathetic hypocrites!
'Comments are moderated': hum... I wonder if this site accepts opposite points of view or is only 'group think' accepted?
Desperation makes fools of us all. Now I know McCain/Palin are going to win.
I wonder how much work they did on the picture they decided to put on the cover--and how much they could do. That isn't lighting that lends itself to easy touch up.
Oddly, I think she did the opposite of what she intended to do. There are plenty of people who will see this cover as evidence that McCain is the "stronger" candidate. Of course, that might be why she took it that one step further.
Andy: given the tone of my post, which is critical of Greenberg's actions, your implication is especially unwarranted. I've allowed every comment on this thread so far, and will continue to do so, as long as they're not offensive or off-topic.
There are a couple of things wrong w/ your premise. Firstly, conservatives HAVE portrayed Obama as, among other things, a monkey and Aunt Jemima. Secondly, there are no racial connotations connected w/ vampirism or shark teeth like there is for the Obama examples. Thirdly, if you bothered to read the preceding comments, you would have seen that plenty of people disagree with Greenberg's actions.
I've been thinking about this "issue" for a while and I still don't think there's anything here to be outraged about unless two things are the case: (1) you are the Atlantic Monthly; and (2) you own the copyright to the images from the photo shoot at issue. Otherwise there is no issue here. If the photographer owns the copyrights, she's entitled to do with them whatever she wishes, whether you find it tasteless, juvenile, or brilliant. Any consternation to the contrary is unwarranted. (And I don't get the impression that this portrait photographer was a "photojournalist" whose credibility is at stake).
Oh no!!! Has my credibility as a photojournalist or portraitist been sacrificed by this celebrity double of Dubbya and Enis del Mar?
http://johnohab.blogspot.com/2006/03/brokebramen-mountain.html
John, many commenters are arguing that Greenberg didn't have any photojournalistic credibility to begin with (perhaps I should have said "professional credibility"). If she didn't have any cred, then I'm afraid you have NEGATIVE cred. So maybe the photo actually helped?
you should look up christian bale and kermit the frog :)
I like her portraits, though I didn't realize how much commercial work she's done. I admit it was unprofessional of her to use the commissioned photos to such ends, but she can post whatever she likes on her own website. Also, McCain is a public figure running for political office, and asking an artist to make a portrait of him is asking for a collaboration on a representation. Of course, the professional thing to do would have been a little less obvious, if not flattering. The man *is* over 70...
Even if she had foreseen fallout that would reflect negatively on her and her hopes for the election, I for one have had enough political softshoe. Why not have a little fun, eh?
And why all the criticism of her Photoshopping? I spend all day at work in Photoshop and I'm not unimpressed.
Annie, it's poor photoshopping because it's so obviously photoshopped. I have no idea how those monkey pictures fooled anyone - to me several of them look like paintings rather than photos, especially the eyes. The ones depicted above were especially bad - I actually could not believe they were photos at all. They look made by a talented artist with a graphics tablet.
To edit and touch up photos on the computer is fair enough, removing blemishes etc, but to alter photos in such a way as that it becomes obvious that they've been tampered with is just silly. I would much rather have seen the monkeys as they actually were.
As for the McCain stuff ... that's just unbelievably stupid.