On Jill Greenberg - "I don’t think what she did was wrong"
I read, every day, Leslie Burns-Dell Acqua's blog - Burns Auto Parts. Leslie, a consultant that helps photographers market themselves and grow their businesses, has a lot of good advice, and she and I traveled the country as a part of the ASMP Strictly Business 2 seminar series, and I think she gave good advice.
When Leslie wrote:
- "Ms. Greenberg is entirely clean in this"
- "Ms. Greenberg more than fulfilled her obligations to her client. I don’t have a problem with her making her own art on the side. As for how she has handled the press herself, I really don’t think that matters too much. She will be, at most, a blip in this election"
- "the act itself, I don’t think it’s half as bad as some think"
- "Read what I have written again–I have said that I don’t think what she did was wrong"
I thought that Leslie had gone off her rocker.
(Continued after the Jump)
Please read Leslie's posts - IN FULL - Greenberg; and when people began critisizing her position, penned "What I Represent"; and then again today "Creative Freedom". While she makes some relevant points in there, she maintains her positions on Greenberg - it seems.
Daryl Lang over at PDN, in his piece "Fallout From Jill Greenberg's McCain Images" asked "Who wants to come to Greenberg's defense?", and I doubt you'll get any takers, save for Leslie - and she's narrowed her defense and isn't wholly defending everything Greenberg has done. The extent to which I would defend Greenberg would be to say she had a right to make two setups, and license that image separately from her Atlantic work, provided it's within the parameters of the contract she signed. yet, that's where my defense ends. As I said in my first piece - "one for thee, one for me", is often the way a photographer tries out new styles, but that wasn't what Greenberg was doing. She appears to have had malice and forethought in her actions - and didn't leave it at that - she appears to have had malice and forethought in her statements to the press not only of McCain, but of her client.
I can't square all that with the position that Leslie has taken, and is maintaining - "I don’t think what she did was wrong."
What do you think?
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
23 comments:
I think that you should just leave this alone and realixe that this boils down to opinions. If Leslie Burns-Dell Acqua wants to defend Jill Greenberg's actions, that is her right, just as it is your right to condemn them. (And Atlantic's right not to hire her again.) You do not have to agree with everyone, and discussing this ad-infinitum will not change someone whose opinion is opposite form yours. What will be the verdict here? Jill Greenberg is not on trial, and you are not the judge.
"What will be the verdict here? Jill Greenberg is not on trial, and you are not the judge."
No, but that will come soon enough.
Basically, she betrayed a trust. She misrepresented her intentions and yes, hse is playing to the bad boy of photography attitude right now. Hope she enjoys her second fifteen minutes of fame.
It is having an impact on the industry. (Go ask Brad Trent if you think clients are not running for cover over this)
Every picture editor and art director in the country and many around the world know of her betrayal.
She will feel this for years. Her lack of ethics will catch up with her at one point.
Right is right, wrong is wrong. Their is no gray line here.
She's not alone in her view, no matter how stupid you and I know it is.
http://www.lightstalkers.org/in-defense-of-jill-greenberg
What she did may not be illegal, but I do feel it is very unprofessional.
I feel that she is abusing the opportunities she's been given and using her work as a platform to state her personal political opinion. In a way, that doesn't make her any better than McCain.
I fail to see how Jill's actions affect your bottom line, John.
You seem to have a personal agenda to keep pouring salt into an already gaping wound, rather than let it heal.
Is business really that slow? Are your book sales down? Been following your blog for some time and the overall negativity strikes me as odd, especially coming from you.
TG -
Actually, I wrote this during a brief break in the middle of my third assignment this week, and book sales are doing just fine, thank you for asking.
The agenda I have is how this will impact the future of photography - contracts are being re-written, and it's just gotten tougher to be creative on a shoot and have a subject be ok with that. Trust has diminished.
Jill's actions may affect others' resales with longer embargoes, or more copyright transfer demands. Note - I said *MAY*.
Jill's actions have spilled over from being discussed amongst the trades to being in mainstream news outlets, both print and TV.
To presume that her actions will not affect many others is to be naive, at best.
I think some people are letting their political leanings rather than intellectual honesty color their opinions. A rather well-known photographer on EP has been defending Greenberg, too. To her credit, she admitted being a friend and sharing her political views. Judging from comments I have heard in the past from Leslie, she, too, is sympathetic with Greenberg's politics. We can't do the experiment, alas, but I would be amazed if either of these people would be defending someone who pulled a similar childish stunt with the Democratic presidential nominee.
I can truthfully say that if someone who shares my political views did such a selfish, unsophisticated thing, I would be even more offended and angry than I am with Greenberg because I would not want to be associated with it. As it is, it's bad enough that someone with the same profession would do it and hurt us all.
Thanks for being a voice of reason on this topic, John. Pity that emotions seem to trump professionalism for some of us.
John,
You honestly believe that the actions of one photographer are going to have such a huge impact on the profession as a whole?
Rewriting contracts? Happens all the time - you in fact show that in your book.
Tougher to be creative? Baloney! It's always been tough to be creative, so nothing's changed.
If, in fact, the actions of a single photographer were indeed potentially as detrimental to the profession as you suggest, why, the industry would have gone belly up years ago.
Yes, contracts get modified all the time. They often get modified in reaction to past experience. We now have a very public example of a photographer with a certain level of notoriety behaving in a manner seeming unprofessional. Will it alone drive draconian changes in contracts? No, of course not. However, each instance of unprofessional conduct that we do as an industry provides a nudge in the direction of more restrictions demanded by our clients. A more prominent example just results in a stronger nudge.
All IMO, naturally.
Besides the lack of professionalism that Greenburg showed, what I think is even more unprofessional is the adolescent finger pointing that does Greenburg when she said that the Atlantic is irresponsible for hiring her. Way to throw a client under the bus for something that they did not have any control over. Make your art, I don't care but do not blame someone else for your actions.
there are an enormous number of people at the link you provide at pdn coming to her defense. i'm confused--you suggest no one has or will.
dishonest? stupid? don't know how to update a blog post?
look, it's not a question of her right or wrong--you are responsible for this post, you've lied by co or o-mission, and you don't seem to care. ironically while essentially accusing someone else of doing the same.
thinking is hard. writing is easy.
I just checked Jill's site, and the opening image has been replaced with a headless chicken and the words "the photos of mccain are temporarily off the site while legal discussions are underway."
Interesting...
I'm not so concerned with WHAT she did, but HOW she did it.
Artistic license is a wonderful thing if it is not thrown in your face in such a childish, ham-handed way.
If she had only presented the images without the verbal vitriol.
"You honestly believe that the actions of one photographer are going to have such a huge impact on the profession as a whole?"
I absolutely do believe this will have impact on the industry.
Both those that have condemned and cheered Greenberg's methods had indicated The Atlantic should have Googled Greenberg before hiring her. Then the magazine would have been aware of her political leaning.
I ask you, do you want YOUR political beliefs and affiliations to be a factor when a client is making a hiring decision?
I know I don't.
"there are an enormous number of people at the link you provide at pdn coming to her defense. i'm confused--you suggest no one has or will."
Depends on what you're looking for. There are the rabid McCain haters who can't separate their disdain for the man long enough to think rationally about what's been done, only clap gleefully like school children over an unflattering cartoon of an unpopular teacher. But for those who have any standing in the industry I think the support is pretty thin.
Arguing over contracts is only one factor. Access to political figures is as important. There is no contract if you can't get at the subject.
Politicians of both parties have become increasingly paranoid about the press in general, and photographers specifically, over recent decades. When getting behind-the-scenes pictures and candid portraits of Kennedy and Eisenhower could be done on a handshake, now -- thanks to Greenberg, who has now given them "proof" that photographers cannot be trusted -- it will take an act of God.
It's not just that Atlantic, felling justifiably burned, is going to be less generous in allowing art to be made on their time. The subject isn't going to show up at all.
Jill Greenberg just hit the teacher in the back of the head with a paper airplane. After doing it she bragged all the way down to the principal's office. That's great for her, she will pay for it. The thing is, now the teacher is looking at everyone else in the classroom up and is wondering who will let the next one loose. That teacher is going to be more strict about talking in class, passing notes, chewing gum, etc. because s/he's just been burned.
Whether or not I agree that the teacher is a piece or dirt or not I still don't feel that I should be guilty by association. I make a very concerted effort to be politically and culturally neutral in my appearance and mannerisms while on a job. I certainly don't agree with the viewpoints of many of my clients and that's fine. I'm there to make pictures, not friends. I also don't necessarily agree with the politics of the usher who rips my ticket stubs at the movie theater- doesn't mean that I'm not going to see the film.
I wonder if JG ever actually tried to have an honest interaction with McCain as a person, not as a candidate. On most of these shoots you don't have time to chitchat, but you certainly can get a sense of who a person is if you're at all interested in learning. If she had tried to get a sense of him as a human (and not a potential political catastrophe) if she's have made her art in the same way?
have you read on PDNPulse: "How Jill Greenberg Really Feels About John McCain" its really interesting. She says . “It’s definitely exciting to shoot someone who is in the limelight like that. I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.”
Cheers,
Marie
Thanks for leaving the stinking turd in the pool Jill. It is up to us to clean up your mess.
While I think it is unfortunate that Mr. Trent has incurred a new dynamic to his negotiations I still believe it's all about whom is in the driver's seat. If you want to do something for pleasure, do it. If altruism for one's industry is a priority than do what you can to help foster amicable working relationships and pathways for the future suppliers like yourself. However I think there are no victims in this industry Just VOLUNTEERS. No one is forced to enter into a contract. No one is forced or coerced into a working relationship as a supplier. One person went down in flames, I don't feel that she has in anyway discounted my ability to provide professional services. Let me ask you all a question: Do you really think Jill Greenberg owes any one in this industry, photographers in particular, an apology? I don't. I still am an individual with my own ability to act responsibly according to my own ethics. Are the same folks who lambast her the same ones who begrudgingly take work for hire jobs or accept sub-par reuse rights for stock assignments? The damage done by those actions are, IMHO, far more devastating to our industry than Ms. Greenberg's individual actions regarding ONE client.
I am amazed that so many feel that this will have no effect on them. It is like saying "Even though I am an American, I am a nice one so these people with guns who swear to kill all Americans will see my inner qualities."
Greenberg has a right to be an idiot. Unfortunately, the turd she drooped sinks up the room we are trying to stand in.
As a Democrat, I am upset that others will use this as an opportunity show us as foolish children who are unable to demonstrate the maturity necessary to run this country.
Thanks for nothing Jill.
Jill is automatically better than McCain. She hasn't killed 3,000 young Americans for an oil war, she hasn't demanded that taxpayers cough up $700 Billion to bail out her rich pals.
If she did this to Hitler in 1935, she'd get an award in 1945. Wait 10 years and if she hasn't died in a camp it could still happen.
I kindof feel like if a guy did something like this, it would really be applauded like some punk rock thing. I'm tired of poeople acting like women should always be thoughtful and nurturing - even in photography. She did something that woke people up, something guys shouldn't have such a huge monopoly on. probabaly there are some male photographers out there who are jealous they aren't Jill now. I don't get the "she's made it harder for all of us" now baloney. it was a punk rock statement. She shot the Walmart candidate the way she saw fit.
lensjockey
Post a Comment