Fourteen Questions about the Greenberg/McCain mess
Screengrab of Index Page, Sept 14th. Copyright 2008 Jill Greenberg
So, I read these various articles about the Greenberg/McCain photo session. Who knows what is true, what is rumor, and what is exaggerated. First, here are several background Links, to give you the story:
PDN article, (as of Sunday noon, with 142 comments, many of them incredibly hostile)
American Digest, strikes back
Unrelated YouTube video featuring Greenberg
Greenberg has a supporter in the crowd. Leslie Burns-Dell’Acqua justifies the Greenberg tactics because editorial rates are low. (Update, Monday the 15th: She now appears to be backpedaling. This will be interesting to watch. And she’s a photographer career consultant? Wow. Why not write to her and express your feelings?)
—–
So here are the questions I’m left with, see below. I’m fascinated with this story.
1. If Greenberg was so intent on making a political statement, why did she speak to the press about this, which to me, dilutes her photographs, and puts the focus on her personally?
2. Can a photographer be both an “artist” and a “commercial photographer”, simultaneously? Can they toe the line between the two disciplines?
3. If Greenberg was truly being an “artist”, why didn’t she submit ONLY the second setup, which was the bottom-lit frame, as opposed to her formula-lighting commercial solution? Wouldn’t a true artist submit only their “best statement”?
4. How will this affect commercial photographers in the future? More doubt? More scrutiny? More required publicists standing there, insisting on “seeing a Polaroid” before they allow the photographer to begin the session and shoot film?
5. Could this force more commercial photographers to shoot digital and tethered, so that the publicist or handler can stand there, next to the Digital Tech, and see what’s being shot, and be powerful enough to immediately pull the plug on the session if the light is bottom-lit like that?
6. How does the Picture Editor feel about this? Were they complicit in this? Was this an attack? Did Greenberg discuss this second setup with the PE, in advance?
7. How does “embargo” work in this situation? Did Greenberg work a deal to use the second setup before the normally-applied embargo expired?
8. How does the Editor and the Publisher of “The Atlantic” feel about this situation? Are they pleased with the attention, or they embarrassed that they got end-runned?
9. Does the publicist/handler of McCain, that was there at the session, still have a job? Are they now in therapy after being berated and called on the carpet for being too lax?
10. Don’t you know that, tomorrow morning, in many magazine offices, there’ll be lawyers called into action to revise and ammend the Photographers Agreements? I’m not sure how they’ll restructure the wording, but you know there will be some hand-wringing about this topic.
11. Is it right that Greenberg would take a job, with the vision being her formula “ringlight-fill-with-hotter-keylight-with-two-sidelight-hotter-rims” but then consciously make the choice to “leave his eyes red, and his skin rough”?
12. How will this affect her future work with agencies? Since she’s in LA, maybe it’ll elevate her in the liberal marketplace? The new “bad girl”? The new “female Serrano”? Or, could it kill the more traditional commercial assignments, due to corporations’ fear of scandal?
13. Why in the world would Greenberg take the images even further, by having her Retoucher add shark teeth to McCain’s mouth? And weirdly, these are outtakes from the “commercial version” that she gave to The Atlantic? Is this appropriate, or even legal?
14. Don’t you think that newly-revised Photographers Agreements will stipulate that “no frames can be held back”, and that the magazine must know about every frame that was shot, during their allotted time period, in order to cover their behinds? And that Embargos will get even longer than they currently are?
—–
Disclosure: I’m a full-on Obama supporter; I’m a commercial photographer; I’m trying to be as objective as I can with these questions, (even though I really disagree with Greenberg’s approach and behavior, in that I think it will affect all editorial photographers negatively, worldwide, from now on).
Update, Monday Sept 15th: The Atlantic editor drafts letter of apology to McCain, and refuses to pay Greenberg, and explores legal action.
Update: In a NYPost article, the Atlantic editor appears to create some distance between the magazine and Greenberg: “We stand by the picture we are running on our cover,” said Atlantic editor James Bennet. “We feel it’s a respectful portrait. We hope we’ll be judged by that picture.” But Bennet was appalled by Greenberg saying she tried to portray McCain in an unflattering way. “We feel totally blind-sided,” he said. “Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional.”
Update: Response from the writer of the McCain article.
Update, Monday Sept 15th: Fox News District Attorney (posing as reporter) interviews Editor of The Atlantic. (I apologize for linking to anything related to Fox News).
—-
Final Thoughts, (and then I never want to hear the word Greenberg again)
Mark,
I couldn’t agree with more on all accounts. I am pro-Obama and always wanting what is best for photographers and the industry and I think Jill Greenberg has done one of the most destructive moves for both editorial/commercial photographers and has done nothing to help the Democratic side. She has provided even more fuel for the far right to band together even tighter.
It doesn’t help photographers, especially female photographers, to be the ones at the center of very negative news stories and controversies. That’s directed to both Annie and Jill. They just need to chill, make good work (which is questionable at times) and find better outlets for pushing the limits.
I see photo contracts being rewritten right now that will go into effect very soon for any projects involving celebrities, politicians, high level CEOs and many more who are in the public spotlight. Remember there are 10 lawyers for every working photographer.
(sarcastically) Way to go Jill, great job!
Today I am embarrassed to call myself a photographer. Sad. And in my opinion, a possible career ender.
i can hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time:
- amen to everything Mark said
but then on the other hand
- what Jill did to McCain is NOTHING compared to what McCain will do to the country (and the world) if elected
I feel that Jill Greenberg’s need to talk about it (and rub her hands gleefully about how deceptive she was) reveals her true purpose, which IMO is standard procedure for Greenberg: self-publicity.
Next month, when a client insists on reviewing every single portrait image I make and wants to force me into deleting all of the outakes — I can thank Greenberg’s self-indulgence and stupidity.
The published cover was effective enough and subtle in communicating her version of the truth. She should have believed in her own work, rather than degrade it. For many of us that will vote for Obama, one of the things we appreciate about his campaign is that he has taken the high road and maintains a sense of decency in the bilious stew that is contemporary political culture.
After reading this and Jorg Colberg’s blog on this issue/story, nobody should be tricked like that. It is entirely hurtful to photography on all fronts (images, photographers, tools, etc.) and a lot will probably happen detrimentally to photo shoots for a while. It’s unavoidable that the reaction to this will be resoundingly “That’s not funny.” Photographers will have more red tape and scrutiny and a lot of trust is broken here (not that people weren’t already afraid of cameras). This image does little for political commentary, and less for photography’s reputation. But I do have to admit that I did chuckle a little at first when seeing the picture and reading the story behind it. I feel like any “that’s not funny,” situation, when some time has passed it’ll be hilarious.
To show a world leader or politician in an unflattering manner is within the photographer’s prerogative. What Greenberg did is, instead, juvenile and stupid.
As Wayne said, the original photograph, with Greenberg’s usual, cliche style, was unflattering enough. But I think even the lighting from below (minus the bragging and snide comments) would be an acceptable thing to do. Instead, she chose to do what the average teenager would have done in her place, given a camera, a few minutes with John McCain and a Photoshop license. Like the hypothetical teenager, I think she’s just crying for attention.
[...] barrels of digital ink are being spilled because of this story, but what really chafes my hide is [...]
I was going to write about this on my blog. Mark did it right, along with Jon Romer (http://jonroemer.typepad.com). John Harrington also wrote a blog entry about the article.
The only things I can say is this may either be career suicide or career enhancing.
In my opinion, I think she acted unprofessional and unethically. Her actions will impact this industry a great deal. She truly stepped far over the line.
Only time will tell to see if she has to pay the piper for her actions.
Loved the photos.The ones with text had the most factual copy about McCain I’ve seen in years.Obama takes the high road but we need folks like Jill doing work behind the scenes.Ethics have lost us two elections.I will worry about ethics after election day.
The American Digest shows one of her chimps taking a spiritual dump atop McCain’s head, just for those that haven’t seen it.
Answer to question #7. I feel as though she willfully violated the principle of fair embargo in every aspect, and did so in the most offensive way she could muster.
I think it’s clearly a calculated action. It’s not as though she doesn’t know better. It’s her taking the gamble that being a really bad girl will net her far more commercially than an editorial photo of a political candidate. This might well make main stream media. Next stop PerezHilton.com.
She must understand that she has put other photographers in peril. That publicists will be demanding all the files from the shoot -that art directors and editors will simply never be able to take the chance that they’ll get burned by photographers who might be equally unscrupulous.
Back in 1963 Arnold Newman(you all should remember him)photographed Alfred Krupp, I think for life magazine.
He was photographing him as an industrialist but lit him like the Nazi war criminal he was. Had Arnold had photoshop who knows what he would have done.
The problem is not the disconnect between “artist” and “commercial photographer”, but rather between journalism and editorial photography. People have been getting away with twisting the truth a photo communicates by labeling it as editorial photography for far too long. These things, what Greenberg does, they are not photos. They are illustrations–the flattering and the not so flattering ones. They do not communicate truth about what was on the other side of her lens, and that’s where the distrust with photographers started and where to begin when laying the blame.
What Greenberg did was a hideous abandonment of trust Atlantic placed in her, but Atlantic is not blameless for ever purchasing and peddling that kind of visual imagery to begin with…
In all matters of journalism, whether hard news or opinion, we need ethical standards to ensure that photographs are communicating truth, and it begins with photographers and publishers we can trust as truthful people.
Jill Greenberg was never and is not that kind of photographer. She calls herself “manipulator” ffs. No surprise from me, and I won’t pretend I’m appalled that a photographer of her sort misused her position to further her own career and/or agenda.
Just this week, I wanted to post an outtake from an embargoed shoot on my blog, and due to the gray area, I checked in with the assigning editor for permission (and received it…which I appreciate).
Although I consider Greenberg’s actions immature and damaging to our already low reputations, I certainly DON’T THINK WE AS PHOTOGRAPHERS SHOULD ENCOURAGE STRICTER EMBARGOES!
I understand SOME embargo terms, yet others are gratuitous income (and promotion) killers. So I am mystified when it seems like many of you are arguing to encourage even stricter embargoes.
Full Disclosure: I am an Obama supporter, AND I tend to want to be liked and respected too much to do anything negative like that to a subject like McCain. But in many cases this psychological weakness gets in the way of better (but not necessarily MEANER) photographs.
Richard,
Good to talk to you again. I’m not sure I understand your post — in all the things I’ve read about this Greenberg situation, I don’t think I’ve read anything that suggests or supports longer embargoes. I think what I’ve read is simply a FEAR of them, in that Greenberg’s actions in this matter will now trigger a new paranoia with clients, that some unscrupulous photographer might want to hold some outtakes back, and do who-knows-what with them. Possibly to smear or embarrass.
We’ve all been in that situation — where we’ve been given a half-hour with someone important, and we try to get two or even three setups off in that allotted time. The supplemental income sure helps, when the Fee is $500 plus expenses.
No one, to my knowledge, is proposing longer embargoes. My position in this matter is that hopefully other photographers reading about this situation will clearly learn that there is a distinct Ripple Effect that comes when you behave irresponsibly with editorial assignments, and that it affects all working photographers negatively.
If we were attorneys instead of photographers, there would certainly be some talk of disbarment amongst some in our profession. Let’s keep the spotlight, the focus, and blame clearly where it belongs.
Mark Tucker
I began following this controversy a couple of days ago and there is a common thread that I have began to note. The defenders of this absurd and stupid activity generally seem to defend it, not by discussing the action itself but because it happened to John McCain. Not the lack of ethics or professionalism exhibited by Greenburg. Sadly, I believe that it will be safe to say that Greenburg will benefit hugely from what she has done and the fallout will be felt by other more professional photographers. McCain and his handlers went to that shoot expecting professionalism and ethical conduct. There was none to be found.
For anyone to defend this action because of their political beliefs is disgusting.
I say this as a life long member of the democratic party who can only say, is Barack Obama, this empty suit, the best that we could do?
I sure as hell aint no fan of Insane McCain- but for all her lighting expertise, ya think she could’ve come up with something a bit more original than this low light cheap shot that any high school student with a hand held strobe could’ve managed. Think of the recent Time cover of Putin, or the more classic Alfred Krupp by Arnold Newman mentioned above (see below) which is the same basic lighting technique- except a thousand times more memorable and revealing (and I severely doubt he would’ve resorted to, let alone needed, any photoshop buffoonery to further his point)…
http://www.wac.ucla.edu/bishop/People/Arnold%20Newman/Adams.pdf
I would first like to emphasize that the name of her web site is: “manipulator.com” – Greenberg is known for exploitative photographs (her crying babies series, for instance) and images that are manipulated digitally. It’s what she does.
I’d rather call Greenburg an illustrator…
Regarding the manipulated images and slogans posted on Greenberg’s web site:
I don’t condone Jill Greenberg’s actions at all. I think they are extremely unethical and unprofessional.
I don’t think the consequences of her actions should pummel other photographers either. Maybe hiring her for that job was the equivalent of hiring a paparazzi to take a portrait of the presidential candidate. Or… an illustrator. It’s a risk the magazine took. Since the printing press was invented, editorial illustrators have often portrayed political candidates and others in a negative light. Comedians and so-called “news” channels do it daily.
The assigning editor was likely already familiar with her work, and the fact that she does so much manipulation in post. Perhaps the magazine or McCain’s advisors should have outlined a small cause or provided their own photo release about the further “manipulation” of the images, a fair and simple way to manage his political image.
I’ve encountered agreements that try to control my rights to the images, to protect a celebrity on an ad campaign. I didn’t shoot for them. I’ve also been on shoots with musicians, whose managers step in to control the creative process, to protect their clients’ image. In that particular case, I felt it hindered the creative process. It wasn’t an ethical issue, just how the setting reflected their music style.
I shoot with a journalistic style and don’t manipulate my images in post. I portray realism. And I’m shooting a documentary about prostitution. HOWEVER, I also have an ethical foundation for what images I am willing to allow the client or the public to have access to and whether or not/how I retouch flaws.
The Atlantic ran it. And they could have retouched anything they felt unflattering or contrary to their brand. And it seems they stand by the image they printed.
The personal use of McCain’s image in digitally manipulated illustrations is unfortunate. But I think the responsibility falls on the three parties: Greenburg, McCain (only if a photo release was involved and that he signed it), and the person(s) who assigned the job.
Isn’t this instead, an issue of defamation of character?
[...] Fourteen Questions about the Greenberg/McCain mess So, I read these various articles about the Greenberg/McCain photo ses [...]
[...] UPDATE: Here’s a great discussion of this as well on Mark Tucker’s Blog. [...]
[...] piece, here. And read Mark Tucker’s thoughts. He’s rather [...]
[...] If you have no idea what I’m talking about Mark Tucker has links to all the coverage and several questions of his own (here). [...]
Legal – yes – highly unprofessional and lame – also yes. I’m a staunch Obama supporter but I don’t think this is the right way to treat anyone. If I were the editor of The Atlantic I would think not twice but three times before bringing any sensitive project into Greenberg’s studio.
No politics here, just best business practices.
So where are you all on the veiled threats she has been receiving in blog comments (“her contact information is on her website . . . .”)? Given the toxic atmosphere around political speech, I would be worried about enabling something far worse than a forgettable photograph.
If the people at the Atlantic (publishing almost as long as photography has existed?) a. didn’t know the reputation of the photographer and b. didn’t care about any terms and conditions (ie, risks), I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. If they are upset about the image they chose for the cover, that’s one thing, but the outtakes?
[...] does the best job of looking at the issues raised by the controversy in a balanced way. He asks fourteen questions about what the fallout will mean for photographers, publishers, and politicians. His post also has [...]
Seems to me that Jill Greenberg represents some kind of Democrat death wish if you ask me.
Are we sure she wasn’t in the pay of the GOP to do this?
Did Greenberg’s contract with Atlantic Monthly stipulate what she was allowed to do with outtakes?
What she did was unprofessional because she didn’t put her client’s needs first.
That said, this episode forces the Atlantic and the McCain camp to acknowledge how much editorial bias goes into constructing and selecting photographs for a magazine cover. Yes, it’s bias if you set out to make the candidate look good. The fact that the campaign and the magazine are freaking out implies that there was an understanding that the pictures would depict McCain looking very good.
It would be a major scandal if we learned that a print reporter for the Atlantic Monthly and the editors of the magazine colluded with John McCain to write a positive article.
Somehow, there are different rules for photographs. Visual puff pieces are the norm.
As a photographer I find what Greenberg did totally unprofessional. She has insulted all of us.
I also find that most radical political statements tend to be juvenile in nature. Her photographs are just like going to a poster and drawing a big moustache with a marker. Tsk, tsk, grow up Ms. Greenberg. Oh I forgot, you are the one who likes to take lollipops away from children to make them cry..for money.
What we have hear is someone who does nothing but discredit the profession and the art of photography.
So add moron to unprofessional and juvenile.
Just my opinion.
[...] Opinion of another Nashville Photographer, Mark Tucker [...]
[...] completely lost it… but it’s kind of badass at the same time. Read about the drama HERE or [...]
[...] was interested in this wordpress blog which approaches this topic from standpoint of professional photographers. I have to admit, it [...]
“(I apologize for linking to anything related to Fox News).”
LOL. I’ve enjoyed reading your point of view on all this.
Lookee there. It took almost two days for commenters to (1) suspect the Republicans were really behind this and (2) suggest any nefarious behavior was probably McCain’s. I can hardly believe it took so long.
Highly unprofessional.
If she did not/does not like McCain, she should have passed on the job.
She deserves whatever comes from this. Positive or Negative.
Really interesting.
I belive that we are going to hear something more from Greenberg.
I would like to know the real facts, not rumors…
Otherwise we are going to make big judging mistakes…
[...] PDN Pulse / A Photo Editor / A Photography Bog / Mark Tucker [...]
[...] http://marktucker.wordpress.com [...]
There is no truth in photography.
There is only interpretation.
Just because you don’t use photoshop does not mean that your images are truth.
You still choose to stand in a certain place when taking the picture , you choose what type of camera set up lenses and film/digital to use. You compose the image, you print it darker or lighter and so fourth.
Wheather you call yourself the manipulator or not doesn’t mean that you are any less or more manipulative.
There can be no absolute truth of life in any still or moving image.
Jill Greenberg is an artist like all image makers that consider themselves so. Wheather her images are fine art or commercial art is for her to decide, as it is up to the artist them self to make that distinction.
She may have no doubt made it more difficult For magazines and other photographers in the political portrait spectrum for the moment, but it will correct itself and be buisness as usual in no time flat. It’s the Artists Job to push the limits, not to shoot the same thing over and over again and again. To be daring to effect the viewer and to push their own limits and grow creatively. As a photographer I constantly push myself to make something provocative and new sometimes uncomfortable…. even when I shoot editorials…It’s not constructive to have a conversation About Jill working or not in the industry. Jill can deal with that personally. I’m Sure she know’s pleanty of creatives, and that they will support her and give her work in the future if she wants it that way. Lets Not Crucify one of our own because she has the Balls to push the Status Quo. I celebrate that and And Know that the only real Road to creative growth in an industry regulated by monetary capitol is not always playing it safe.
With the trend in political advertising becoming SO nasty , misleading and you name it, this was bound to happen. It’s really no different than everything else that’s being thrown at us – except this one is coming from one of us. One person – not a political campaign. A photographer. I applaud her conviction but question the ethics. On a side note, I think I know of a few sources that would love to use it . . . .
It’s a frickin’ photograph. It’s not killing innocent people abroad. It’s not ruining the economy. It’s not trying to bail out AIG. It’s not weaking the U.S. dollar. It’s not underpaying teachers all over the country. It’s not not letting women have a choice about whether they want to have an abortion or not. It’s not putting thousands of people out of work and taking their homes. It’s not flooding coastal cities.
Seriously. It’s a frickin’ photograph of a guy. A guy who can do a lot more damage to our country than a photographer could ever imagine.
[...] looking bad.’ There is a good background story and discussion on Mark Tucker’s blog here. There is a lot of discussion about whether this was a good thing or a bad thing for her carreer – I [...]
Jill Greenberg has a big set of cahones and isn’t afraid to use them! Not only is her photographic vision bold, her love of America is even stronger. John McInsane is the real problem with this story. I think the editors at Atlantic should focus on the looming issue around a potential J. McInsane presidency. I will admit that she shouldn’t have boasted about doing what she did. I would have flatly said ‘that was the best I could get from the subject’.
She still rocks and I wouldn’t be surprised if this ended up being a career booster for her …. unless we let the bad guys steal another election.
I concur with Darrell Eager’s comments about how Arnold Newman approached the task of photographing a Nazi war criminal. Artist’s are one group of citizens that shouldn’t cave into the whims of evil-doers.
C’mon let’s call a spade a spade! or should I say let’s illustrate a spade like a spade.
She did go the extra step and leave off the pointy little tail and horns.
It is sad that some of these respondents show so little regard for personal ethics and professionalism.
I can only hope that potential clients may somehow read their remarks to discover their true nature(s) before entrusting them with any future assignment.
Otherwise ours will become an industry defined by jackals and flies.
It seems that many give tacit approval to this garbage because of their political views. I can hear the howls if it came from the other direction.
How about portraying Obama with a big, flat nose, big fat lips, a big afro, plenty of tattoos, smoking crack and doing his ‘ho’ from the rear? Don’t forget the diamond-crusted bling. Maybe a prayer rug too? Would that be just ‘interpretation’? Or maybe a ploy so the opposition can be accused?
By all means, let’s do call a spade a spade! After all, it would only be a frickin’ photograph!
Professionalism? Personal ethics? Where?
I love this type of stuff because it always has an opposite effect.
It’s like those 57 year old hippies that cruise around in worn out Honda civics, blowing huge plumes of blue smoke, one broken tail light plastered with Save The Whales and Buck Fush bumper stickers. They play directly into the hands of their sworn adversaries and take away from their cause, because when your that stupid you have no validity.
The voters setting on the fence in middle America will look at this stunt from the “liberal Canadian” and see it as a cheap shot. It may not move them to vote for McCain but after a few more Sarah Bernhardt rape comments it just might.
Then again, does Jill Greenberg really care.
I doubt it.
She got massive attention and as anyone that has lived in El Lay will tell you, 75% of the West Side population would set them self on fire for publicity, good or bad.
Next you will see the vampire manipulation photo hanging in a Soho or Santa Monica gallery and eventually some dumb ass developer will buy it for $300,000.
$300,000 is a better pay day than the $500 editorial fee.
This all works out for the best, other than the next time any of us are hired to shoot for a magazine the raw files are going to go into the publicist’s Louis Vittoun briefcase and we will be patted down by security to insure we don’t have an extra cf card hidden in our shoe.
For Jill, she’ll make a few bucks and once this becomes old news go back to frightening babies.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-10-01/contributor.php
I wonder if TM will ever hire her again?
I have to say I don’t exactly get it. If the photo is so bad, why did the magazine publish it? I think it gives him character. (And yes, Obama’s where my vote is going.) So if Jill hadn’t said anything then nobody would have noticed, right?
It reminds me of when the press declared that Edwards couldn’t be president because he yelled … and it stuck. I think too many people are swayed by meaningless non-issues.
Being a liberal conservative things like this push me more and more over to the right. I ride the fence on many issues but now I see so much hatred coming from “liberals” like Greenberg I just don’t want to agree with Democrats about anything. Now NObama is busted hiring a big time ad agency to spew “grassroots” lies about Sarah Palin. How low will they go? All the hatred and lies, I can no longer identify with any the Dems stand for. What if I shot NObama in a monkey suite eating is own shit for a magazine job? How would you left-wing radicals feel about that? Yes, it’s justifiable considering all the stuttering lies he’s told so far, but is it appropriate? Hell NO!! And I can’t believe there are actually a few idiots (moosehead and friends)that actually support this type of terrorism.
This stupid act by a once respected photographer is going to have an effect on all of us shooters, at least for awhile. I’ve already heard of photogs loosing new accounts and being grilled about “out takes.” Clients don’t have the money to make mistakes.
No matter Greenberg’s talent (which is considerable) her decision to intentionally lambast her subject and, in doing so, put her client in a terrible position speaks poorly to her character. Her statement that, “they were irresponsible” in hiring her “given her politics” shows an immature mind that is not trustworthy. I’ve met her before and the impression she left me with was that she was pretty coarse and rough around the edges. Clearly, that is evident in this McCain business, which I would say is the equivalent of a 14 year old defacing a book in the public library. Not a big deal, a cheap stunt, but either way she’s going to the principle. And you and I, like High School kids, are watching her go and we’re talking about it. This is what she wanted all along. Attention. She will get sentenced to detention come out of it fine and be working again, probably stronger than ever. Life will go on for her and it will go on for us. However, it is a shame that the kid who is the most aggravating and disturbing gets all the attention, while those of us who play smart, work hard, and follow the rules can easily be ignored.
One last thing to think about is that, Jill Greenberg comes from a lot of money. She doesn’t have to worry about her next job. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were like that too. Maybe we should all be unethical assholes?
[...] the set that is now been removed from her site but are available if you have the stomach for it. Mark Tucker a great editorial and commercial Photographer has posed a set of forteen questions about… 3. If Greenberg was truly being an “artist”, why didn’t she submit ONLY the second setup, [...]
Jill Greenberg is scheduled to be a presenter at AIGA’s 2009 Make Think Conference in Memphis. I overestimated AIGA as a professional organization.
[...] Re: The demystification of Jill Greenberg!!! here ya go demystify this http://marktucker.wordpress.com/2008…rgmccain-mess/ [...]
[...] I’m catching up on the buzz around this. Mark Tucker has Fourteen Questions the incident raises plus lots of links to comments around the [...]
[...] Posted by garibaldi here ya go demystify this http://marktucker.wordpress.com/2008…rgmccain-mess/ Glenn said she's cool, again. [...]