Good job, Greenburg. You are awesome.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.