Mark Tucker : Journal

What I’ve Learned from this Greenberg/McCain fiasco

Posted in Uncategorized by marktucker on September 16, 2008

(Disclosure, up front: I have no axe to grind with Jill Greenberg. Actually, I love the Monkey images, I even love the children images. And her straight-up commercial work is very strong and viable; she has certainly carved out a niche in the commercial marketplace, which is hard for anyone to do. Another reason I’m writing this is to somehow connect with younger photographers who are just now starting out — sit up, read about this situation, and learn from it. And don’t repeat it!)

These are the important topics that I think should be learned from this situation:

1. First off, decide who you are. Are you an artist, or are you a commercial photographer? You need to know, because The Rules are really different. There are only a few I can think of that walk the line between the two successfully; maybe the illustrator Brad Holland, and the illustrator/photographer Matt Mahurin. If you stretch it, maybe Geof Kern, Frederick Broden. But for 99.9% of the people out there, you’re one or the other.

If you’re an artist, you work on your own dime. You get your imagery however you can. You do your work, and then you take it to galleries to sell, or you sell direct. You’re self-motivated, and self-financed. When you do a piece of work, it fails or succeeds solely on your own personal vision. For the most part, you never accept commissions from commercial clients. (Actually, you’d be embarrassed to; and your friends would laugh at you and call you a SellOut).

If you’re a commercial photographer, you’re paid by a client, like a Hired Gun. You get a Creative Fee from someone. You get your Expenses covered, (maybe). You’re working, at least in some way, as a team. You’re legally in bed with another party; in this case, The Atlantic magazine. Your reputation, and their reputation, is at stake here. Together. Intertwined, for as long as the job lasts.

In this Greenberg/McCain thing, unless there’s a whole other sub-story going on, I would imagine that The Atlantic was hiring Greenberg for her slick/commercial formula lighting. Simple as that. Look at her site — she has a proven track record. You’ve got the ringlight fill; you’ve got the two hot rims; you’ve got the kicker Key; you’ve got the desaturation; you’ve got the Photoshop adjustment Layers. It’s a formula; let’s not bullshit anybody — she’s just another commercial photographer in LA, with a studio, accepting commissions from Corporations. She’s no “living on the fourth floor in downtown LA, above Wolfy’s Diner, with no air conditioning, looking down on the homeless in cardboard boxes, doing her “personal work” and slaving away about her “personal view of the world that just HAS to get expressed”. Bullshit — let’s get real here.

So in this case, The Atlantic thought they were simply hiring a slick commercial photographer for a cover shoot, and hoped they’d get that slick lighting portrait that she does for everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. On a commission job, don’t screw the Subject, unless the Client is in on it. If it’s an Attack Piece, that’s fine, no problem. But make sure the magazine is in on it. When you’re working for a commission, I just can’t justify going off like that, and I’m talking about that awful bottom lit portrait; not even the horrid stuff that she did later, in Photoshop. McCain showed up, he stayed his alloted time, and he thought he wouldn’t be screwed.

3. Since Greenberg delivered the “safe solution”, with the formula lighting thing, she pretty much loses any right to claim “I’m an Artist”. because, really, she just “bent over for The Man” and did her formula lighting. Her “true artist statement” was either the bottom light screw job, or the stuff that she did later with the type added. If she was a “true artist” she’d not deliver the safe portrait, but ONLY deliver the Hatchet Job. So let’s be clear — she did not perform as an artist.

4. As far as the reduced embargo period, well, The Atlantic screwed themselves there, by agreeing to it. They’ve got no one but themselves to blame. Everyone, including myself, has tried to reduce the embargo period; sometimes you get it, sometimes you don’t.

5. You don’t pee in the pool. If you’re a commercial photographer, your actions can affect every other working photographer out there. Imagine the paranoia right now, if you were McCain or Obama, and you were walking into a cover shoot, as we get nearer to the election. Can you imagine the trepidation and doubt? And what about celebrities too — it’s hard enough to pull off a shoot like that. So when you go off and pull something like Greenberg did, if affects EVERYONE after you. The Ripple Factor is massive.

6. The thing that bugged me was her admission that she “left the eyes red, and the skin rough”. Please, if you’re going to take a commercial commission, at least do what’s in your commercial portfolio. Don’t shortchange someone, just because you disagree with their view of the world. Either that, or turn the job down.

7. The “cunt thing” and the “wife thing” and the “Roe V Wade thing” and the “shark teeth thing” — absolutely unbelievable. So bizarre, it’s almost like a cry for help or something. Again, if you’re gonna be an artist, then be an artist — go find a stock image of McCain, license it legally, or buy it out, and then go to town with Photoshop, and add all the shark teeth that you want. But DON’T take an image from a commercial session and do that, when there’s a client’s reputation at stake.

8. Don’t screw your Client either. Don’t drag your Client into your own Personal Hell. Your client paved the way for you to be there; your client is paying you some kind of fee plus expenses; your client is getting you ACCESS to this famous personality; your client is trusting that you’re going to deliver the style that’s in your book, (and not on your gallery’s wall). Your client has a pre-existing relationship with the subject; your client will need to continue to assign stories, long after your little End-Run-Shenanigans have been done.

9. Karma. You’ve just got to wonder about that concept here, and how it will come into play.

10. Who knows — maybe she’s brilliant. Maybe she’s the next Damien Hirst? Maybe this was some back-room plot, planned months in advance, to move her out of the doldrums of commercial photography, and into the glamorous world of Fine Art. Maybe this was the publicity fuel to launch her into the national spotlight. If so, I wish her the best. God knows you need scandal and drama to succeed in that world. Maybe she makes bank like no other commercial photographer. Time will tell. Maybe by week’s end, she plots a window-ledge dramatic fake-suicide scene, covered by news helicopters in LA, saying she’s collapsed from all the pressure. It’s covered live on local news, like the OJ chase. And she’s already arranged for a Reality TV crew to be there, having worked the deal months ago, and this is Episode One of her new Reality TV show, of which, of course, she’s Executive Producer. It’s called “What It’s Like To Be Inside The Body Of Jill Greenberg”. Months later, the ad campaign launches her new scent, called “Anger”, and women from the westside of LA flock to the Beverly Center to be first in line for purchase. Who knows — maybe we’ve all been hoodwinked. (I doubt it).

38 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. [...] What I’ve Learned from this Greenberg/McCain fiasco [...]

  2. Brooks said, on September 16, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Oh, if only we were being hoodwinked.

  3. tamara said, on September 16, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Great reminder for us all. Thank you. I particularly like your no. 10 summary. I guess I feel in her case that it was all the time a selfish ploy in the end rather than trying to shock the masses into seeing the evils of the GOP.

  4. BDR said, on September 16, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    very well stated. agreement on points 1-8.

    regarding 6, I think that’s one my biggest gripes. they paid her commercial look, and she took it 90%. i have never seen a greenberg image left with red eyes and raw skin. imagine if the gwen stefani cover was like that.

    atlantic paid her for her portfolio work, and she didn’t deliver it. i’ve always thought that any job you take, even if it’s one you don’t believe in or don’t want to do, once you’ve committed, you give it 100%. if you have issues and aren’t sure you can do it on par with your best work, then don’t take it.

    still floored by this whole deal.

  5. conrad said, on September 16, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    well said. even though few know what the letter or spirit of the agreement was between ms. greenberg and the atlantic and the mccain campaign, I’m totally disappointed that someone in my field would do something like this and then brag about it. thanks, ms. greenberg, for pissing in the pool.

  6. Chris Hensel said, on September 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Mark,

    Cogent article, great points, but I like the subversive hijacking of the magazine and subject anyway.

    And as usual the Right Wing uses this to show John McCain as a victim and portray The Left as a pack of loonies.

    I still like it.

  7. Richard Cooke said, on September 16, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    I want everybody to stop and take a deep breath and answer this honestly – if the lights were on the other face, if a partisan Republican had attempted this childish stunt, how would you react? If any photographer brave enough to dare leave Obama’s eyes red or god forbid his skin blotchy how loud would the outcry be? This mythical photographer would probably never work again – certainly not in any blue states. And with as mean and vindictive as the left is this poor misguided soul would certainly receive death threats and probably need to enter witness protection.

    Since the Atlantic left McCain’s eyes red they must assume at least half of the blame.

  8. daniel sheehan said, on September 16, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    I think you nailed it with #10

  9. JM Colberg said, on September 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    I just can’t believe how childish these discussions have become. Over at APE, people talk about how “great” it is that Greenberg has “balls” and that it’s “fun” and that McCain “deserves” it: What happened to people behaving like adults? Has that all gone down the toilet? It doesn’t even have anything to do with “left” and “right” or “liberal” and “conservative” – it’s basically about whether you think that behaving like a bratty 6-year old is just the way to go. Unbelievable!

  10. Ryan said, on September 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    Partisan Republicans do this kind of thing everyday. As an Independent, I find Republicans and Democrats to be quite similar in there approaches to winning elections. Although Republicans (as noted in the last post) generally whine more about being picked on.

    Anyway, to the issue at hand.

    I’m not certain what the fuss is about. She was hired to do a job (i.e. photograph McCain). She did the job, and provided the client with the product that they asked for. Then she used the images that she owns (and that McCain willingly posed for),and created an artistic statement that reflected her political views. Keep in mind that Jill is not only a commercial photographer, but also a fine art photographer represented by respected art galleries. So the fact that she used her images as an artistic expression, really isn’t very surprising. Especially given this countries current political and financial environment…and the general feeling of frustration among many Americans. FYI, although I am employed, and have not lost my house, I am cognisant of what’s going on in our country.

    Furthermore, if the man who is running for President can’t surround himself with handlers looking out for his best interest, then I think that is probably indicative of how he would run the country. It would have taken very little research to determine that based on her previous work (and political leanings), she might not be the best person to photograph McCain. Yet do to incompetence, his staff placed him in a situation that left him open to this fiasco.

    Although I don’t agree with everything that Jill does, I commend her for risking her livelihood to stand up for what she believes in. And don’t blame her for “pissing in the pool.” Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Although there may be lengthier contracts as a result of this, other photographers wont be held accountable for her actions. So if you think that you’re not getting work because of Jill’s actions, you might want to look at your portfolio for the real reason.

  11. Bruce DeBoer said, on September 16, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Nice take Mark. It occurred to me as I was reading that Paparazzi are one step up the food chain from what Greenberg did, generally disliked as they are.

  12. anonymouse said, on September 16, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    ok, let’s see.

    1. looking over greenberg’s site, you can see she has had 10 art shows over the past two years and has more coming, plus many major collectors. ipso facto she’s an artist. she’s also a commercial shooter. you have created both a false dichotomy and even within your FD she still has achieved what you claim she hasn’t. and the evidence was not hard to find. what’s up with that? if you are dishonest or lazy on point one, what else might we find? also, do you have inside info about why the atlantic hired her? perhaps they liked her monkey portraits, or her crying children. calls for speculation, your honor.

    2. john mccain is a public figure–he can handle brickbats, slings and arrows. he doesn’t need your whiny defense. and as a public figure, and especially as a political one, he is owed not one whit of respect. he works for us–it’s a shitty job, but he volunteered.

    3. here you go defining what makes someone an artist, or someone who has committed art. i don’t know what expertise you bring to the subject, but you assert where you should be asking. your assertions absent expertise have no value.

    4. whiny jealous photographers of the world unite! (although this will be the only time you unite–by any chance have you ever had the opportunity to underbid one of your fellow photogs?)

    5. it’s hard already. you have to deal with it. i’m sure it will be harder for some, but you know what? a lot of these people aka subjects need exposure, and will negotiate to get it. i bet you 1000k you are wrong on this point.

    6. the magazine liked what she did. they stand by it. they ran it. i’m sure that’s in writing as well. or if it isn’t, how did this end up on the cover? and why did i see their publisher say they stand by the cover on fox today?

    7. your opinion on what greenberg should do to create art embarrasses you. no one, and i mean no one, gives a flying fuck about you as art critic. whether or not you like the art is one thing, but to try to tell someone how or with what medium they should do “art” is just pathetic. get an art career and then get back to us. i promise not to mewl about how what you did was or wasn’t “art”.

    8. in general i agree with this point.

    9. karma–isn’t that the concept that bad things happen to bad people? i’ve never quite had a grip on that–how does it work? does a three year old kid in the congo getting macheted to death have bad karma? because according to devout hindus, the answer is yes, that kid had it coming for some past life experience. what a stupid idea. but from you not so surprising.

    10. don’t quit your day job. you aren’t going to be selling any reality shows any time soon.

    as for greenberg’s art career, either it will continue to take off or it will crash and burn. time will tell. you, on the other hand, will have no part in those decisions, despite your oddly fascist predilection for defining the term art as your way or the highway.

    last, don’t use quotes around things that aren’t quotes. it looks like you are putting words in people’s mouths when you in fact aren’t. that’s dishonest.

  13. [...] best posts on Greenberg come from Mark Tucker with a list of ten things learned from the controversy, “First off, decide who you are. Are [...]

  14. Art Director said, on September 16, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Ok, here are my thoughts as an Art Director.

    I hire the photographer.

    I know what they will deliver.

    I am at the shoot…I confirm what I know they will deliver.

    I know the retoucher, and I work with photogrpaher/retoucher on the final image.

    I get the image approved by the 3,000 people who need to say “YES”.

    The image is printed and everyone is happy….

    Hmm.

    No one is making noise about the TIME magazine cover with Palin and all her chin hairs…

  15. anonymouse said, on September 16, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    still awaiting moderation, eh?

    little baby is afraid of some serious intellectual ass-whuppin?

  16. Brad Trent said, on September 16, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    “…She’s no “living on the fourth floor in downtown LA, above Wolfy’s Diner, with no air conditioning, looking down on the homeless in cardboard boxes, doing her “personal work” and slaving away about her “personal view of the world that just HAS to get expressed”…”

    Mark. please…stop! I just pissed myself!!

    BT

  17. kit said, on September 17, 2008 at 12:29 am

    Ryan,
    You’re an independent, voting for?
    Never mind, I think I get it.

  18. Eric Schwabel said, on September 17, 2008 at 1:09 am

    This is the woman who said her “crying babies” portraits were about the Iraq war… So I don’t know why anyone is shocked by this behavior. It’s simply the progression of her BS. It sucks for those of us pulling along a living in ‘zee industry, we already have to deal with PR people who don’t trust anyone… But I think it also solidifies what a lot of us thought of Jill Greenberg as an “artist.”

    The bigger issue is of course magazine imagery is simply going to continue on it’s downward spiral into mediocrity if editors, subjects and the dreaded LA PR chick can’t trust their photographers.

  19. Beerzie Boy said, on September 17, 2008 at 9:04 am

    God knows, I can’t stand McCain, but this crass publicity stunt is simple-minded, bottom-feeding garbage, even by her low standards. (I think her work is a one note tune, a boring one at that.) This kind of pea-brained hatchet job gives the left a bad name. It adds nothing to the discourse.

  20. [...] (Wed., Sept. 17) -=- Mark Tucker, a commercial shooter,  has a great “lessons learned” about this whole fiasco. It’s gotten a lot more interesting since last [...]

  21. Corey Perrine said, on September 17, 2008 at 10:20 am

    You forgot to ask in the first point: Are you a photojournalist? You know shooters bound to ethics.

  22. JM Colberg said, on September 17, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    @anonymouse: It’s pathetic and cowardly that you only “dare” to write your supposed “intellectual ass-whuppin” anonymously.

  23. marktucker said, on September 17, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    OPEN LETTER TO MR. ANONYMOUSE:

    Since you took the time to respond to each of my numbered items, and since you seem to take a slightly different position from mine, I respectfully invite you to write up a more thorough, (maybe slightly less inflamed) response. This is not a set-up. I appreciate you taking the time, and I’d like to hear more from YOUR perspective. I will publish the post as a separate blog item; not as a Comment, and you can write to me anonymously. I will not reveal your name, email, IP Address, or identity. You don’t even have to reveal yourself to me.

    You obviously are passionate about this, and I think you could offer more insight into another view. I am dead serious.

    I hope you take me up on the offer. I think it could be very interesting. It might even be fun.

    – Mark Tucker

  24. August Miller said, on September 17, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    I have read most of the comments and diatribes written about this unfortunate situation and I think your comments and those of Stobist.com creator David Hobby hit the nail right on the head. I couldn’t agree with you more. I have been a news and magazine photographer and editor for over 25 years and your comment about “don’t pee in the pool” couldn’t be more true. This selfish act of self expression by Jill Greenburg will end up hurting a lot of us as the ripples move outward.

  25. vivi said, on September 18, 2008 at 9:26 am

    I’m a PR consultant and there’s a lot of buzz among my colleagues about controlling the photography of clients now.

  26. memomachine said, on September 18, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Hmmmmm.

    This whole issue revolves around trust and nothing else.

    Not professionalism. Not Republican or Democrat. Not liberal or conservative.

    Trust.

    Do you trust the photographer? Can you? If you’re unsure, do you risk it? Do you hire your own photographer and refuse any requests for photo sessions?

    *shrug* it’s pretty clear that in fact you cannot trust photographers. Not her, not you, not anyone. It’s also clear that the current state of contractual obligations between the photographer and subject is unstable and will be revised.

    It’s very clear to me that, were I a subject, I would demand a signed contract between the photographer and myself detailing the legal obligations and *ownership* of the photos. And the photographer would not own the photos, I would.

    Don’t like it? *shrug* that’s the way it’s going to be. Perhaps not right away. But there is where it’ll all end.

  27. memomachine said, on September 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Hmmmm.

    Oh and as an amusing note:

    The photo Greenberg took of McCain where his face is underlit?

    It’s actually been embraced by many Republican bloggers.

    http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001589.html

    There are a number of photoshops of this photo with various captions out there. It is, to this conservative, rather amusing really.

  28. Hope said, on September 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Think of it like a baker. You go to the baker, you buy a loaf of bread. Are you expecting someone to have spat in it? No? This is the same.

    You might also add that SHE looks stupid. McCain does not.

  29. CheapPaper said, on September 19, 2008 at 9:04 am

    I think you’re right on the mark.

    The essence of the controversy is simply that Greenburg’s actions were, in great part, dishonest.

    Under the category of Unintended Consequences, I suspect that in the long run, her actions will benefit commercial photographers who can assure their clients — either by reputation or by contract — that they will not be double crossed.

    Also under the category of Unintended Consequences, I think the Atlantic cover is going to benefit McCane. Leaving his eyes red and his skin rough presents a powerfully honest image that is rare in this age of Photoshop. Honesty is the image McCane is struggling to maintain. To wit, Greenburg’s actions will likely have an effect opposite from those desired.

    In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m voting for Obama.

  30. bigcooter said, on September 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    There is nothing to learn here.

    Nothing new.

    I see it everyday in Washington Square Park, the East Village, West Hollywood and Silver-lake. People making those 1970’s posterized images of Bush or Rumsfeld with doctored eyes and evil distorted faces that they stick on every light fixture and phone booth in the city.

    J. Greenberg did the same thing, the only difference was the Atlantic was dumb enough to hire her and give her access to the candidate and a virtual bus shelter to hang her opinion.

    Someone that makes babies cry, shows animals in tortured contortions and has to use follow up statements, like the babies cry because of Iraq, is going to pull something the moment they get the chance and the Atlantic gave her that chance.

    Don’t blame Jill Greenberg, she’s just an idiot looking for attention, like those dumb asses that steal cars in LA so the news crews will follow the chase for 4 hours. Anything for attention. The only difference is the car jacker gets jail time and Jill Greenberg will get face time with Larry King.

    Maybe that’s punishment enough.

    Blame whoever at the Atlantic signed off on this.

    Just do us one favor, don’t call any of this freedom of speech. Lying to someone is not free. There is a cost.

    You wonder why America trusts the media even less than congress and trusts congress even less than used car dealers?

    Pissing in the pool.

    Please.

    Photographers, magazines, newspapers and broadcast media have pissed in the pool for so long the water is toxic. Jill Greenberg’s latest tinkle won’t even register.

    In reality we don’t have anyone to blame but ourselves. If we don’t buy the Atlantic for 1 year then they’ll never do it again. Though given the fragile state of print journalism if we don’t buy any magazine for more than 3 months they will all go bankrupt and I doubt seriously if Congress will bail out the National Journal Group or the publishing industry.

    In the spirit of full disclosure I know it doesn’t matter who I vote for unless I move to Ohio, Florida or Michigan.

    Every other state has their minds made up and nothing will change that.

    So if Jill Greenberg was taking a piss it wasn’t in the pool, it was in the wind.

  31. Joe said, on September 20, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    After reading her un-repenting comments about this shoot, it is obvious that she is merely a shallow individual with a camera. A 15 year old could photoshop pictures like that into grotesque montages in a few minutes time. This was not talent on display, it was psychotic venom of the juvenile sort.

    What her axe is to grind, or her need for attention, one can only guess. Her pictures of screaming infants are beyond disgusting and suggest a counseling session may be in her near future.

  32. Morris said, on September 22, 2008 at 10:47 am

    I am not a professional photographer, so I have a question for those that are.

    Given that Greenberg was a top photographer, would she not have had a clause in her contract that Atlantic couldn’t touch up her photos, such as take out the red-eyes and skin blimishes.

  33. David said, on September 23, 2008 at 3:44 am

    Mark,

    You’ve written perhaps the first well thought-out piece on this issue that I’ve come across. However, I must take issue with your assumptions in point #1 on which a lot of your subsequent ideas are based. You show a blatant disregard for the way artists have worked for nearly ALL of recorded history. This idea of the autonomous, self-made, self-exhibiting, self-everything-else artist is a new phenomenon only widely seen in the last 50-75 years.

    Do you think Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel because he felt like it? No, he was commissioned. Did Bach compose because he felt like making music? No, he was commissioned. Rembrandt and Vermeer didn’t walk around Amsterdam looking for interesting people to paint portraits of. We can see their work today in musuems around the world because rich merchants called them up and said, “hey I need you to shoot a headshot for me” and they happened to be the best at the COMMERCIAL work they did. Many, if not most, of the art masterpieces over 100 years old you can think of were commissioned (or in today’s language “commercial work”!). Many of those pieces are also accompanied by stories of the artist subverting the assignment and delivering something ideologically or politically opposed to the viewpoints of the patron.

    So there has always been this conflict between artist and patron. Only recently has society created this safe and isolated world for “those wacky artists” to play in that is insulated from the rest of the world and operates with its own economy. Even there, the vast majority of successful art is commissioned (though the patrons are no longer the Church). The list of artists that exhibit in “art” venues and take “commercial” work is much longer than you suggest.

    You vision of the artist is a sure-fire recipe for a life of starvation, isolation, and irrelevance.

    I would argue that Greenberg doesn’t believe in that dichotomy either. All her work is on the same site, in the same portfolio, and is aesthetically consistent. There’s no Fine Art / Commercial distinction on her website. I’m not inclined to think that she is necessarily destined for the Art Canon, but then again I may not have thought that about a then obscure artist named Duchamp who painted a mustache on a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa. However, I do have immense respect for someone who refuses to conform to the boundaries you describe that dictate that one must either be a commercial OR art photographer.

    So while I thank you for writing something that steers clear of most of the rubbish written on this issue, I ask that you reconsider your position on that first dichotomy.

    Respectfully,
    David

  34. [...] Mark Tucker’s last thoughts on the matter [...]

  35. Volum said, on September 23, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    I think the photograph is fine. It shows precisely how McCain looks in person, and I’ve seen him many times up close.

    Mark Tucker and Vincent Laforte are crying up the wrong tree.

  36. [...] like Greenberg, drew conclusions from the Greenberg/McCain/Atlantic debate in the form of 10 rules to follow. A couple of highlights: “On a commission job, don’t screw the Subject, unless the [...]

  37. a young photographer said, on September 28, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Wow, so much outright hostility for anyone that straddles that fine (and increasingly irrelevant) line between art and commercial photography.
    Mr Tucker, what makes you the authority on what constitutes art? Or, for that matter, artists?

    This whole entry appears jealous of Greenberg’s creative whimsy, or a desire to have some artistic and commercial balance in photography – which, if we are to believe Mr Tucker – is nigh on impossible. There are RULES. Apparently.

    Sure, Greenberg could have been more tactful, or more commercially-minded, but that wouldn’t have garnered the shock-value and interest that this story has built.
    Following Mr Tucker’s rules would not have gotten Greenberg as far as she has come, and indeed that’s what separates photographer’s who work commercially and exhibit artistically from those such as Mr Tucker, no doubt.

    Whatever Greenberg’s specific motives were, the fact is that she has many gallery shows approaching, and will continue to do so. This, I’m willing to bet, is more artistic cachet than Mr Tucker is willing to accept or, for that matter, ever likely to have.

  38. Photographer said, on April 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    Most of the time you will find that religion and politics are very strong in peoples beliefs. There is a certain maintenance of professionalism, but when it comes to someone who is pro-war, that is absolutely disgusting and I wish that somehow the monkey shitting on his head did not have to be photoshopped – but was real.

    Good job, Greenburg. You are awesome.


Comments turned off.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 333 other followers