09/15/2008
Photographer Ambushes McCain with Photoshopped Outtakes
Photographer Jill Greenberg, a shooter known for her efforts in retouching and Photoshop, was commissioned by The Atlantic to do a cover shoot for its October 2008 issue featuring the Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
The outtakes from the shoot, one of which you can see AFTER THE JUMP, have quickly spread around the internet and earned Greenberg condemnation from the Atlantic's editor and the writer of the matching article.
Said editor James Bennet: "We stand by the respectful image of John McCain that we used on our cover, and we expect to be judged by it. We were not aware of the manipulated and dishonest images Jill Greenberg had taken until this past Friday. When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics--instead, we assess their professional track records. Based on the portraits she had done of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger and her work for publications like Time, Wired, and Portfolio, we expected Jill Greenberg, like the other photographers we work with, to behave professionally. Jill Greenberg has obviously not done that. She has, in fact, disgraced herself, and we are appalled by the manipulated images she has created for her Web site of John McCain."
The writer of the article on McCain slammed Greenberg as "juvenile" and "repulsive" saying he was "appalled" by her actions.
As Jockohomo notes, it's not the first time photos have been doctored in such ways. And certainly not the first magazine cover controversy of the season.
One of Greenberg's images, AFTER THE JUMP...
The other images are at Greenberg's site.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:23 AM EST by Andy in Art & Design, Election 2008, Magazines, News, Photography, Poland | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well that's just gross.
Posted by: Michael W. | Sep 15, 2008 9:31:21 AM
Oh dear, he's smeared his lipstick!
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Sep 15, 2008 9:34:38 AM
Well that's just hilarious!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 15, 2008 9:36:40 AM
foolish for her to gamble with her long-term career to pull this stunt. I'm no fan of McCain (at least not v.2008), but I am repulsed by this too.
Posted by: Dan B | Sep 15, 2008 9:37:40 AM
Yeah, not cool. I can't stand the Republican platform, but this is a bit beyond the pale.
Posted by: The Milkman | Sep 15, 2008 9:46:21 AM
Not a very pleasant image to look at. Agree with him or not, this kind of unprofessionalism is uncalled for.
Posted by: Miguel | Sep 15, 2008 9:48:25 AM
Truth in advertising?
Posted by: jeffreychrist | Sep 15, 2008 9:50:23 AM
Yep, right on schedule. This is where is all starts to fall apart for us Dems. We allow these arrogant far-lefters to speak for the whole party and look like assholes.
Posted by: Mike | Sep 15, 2008 9:54:44 AM
I think I've found the cover for my holiday cards.
Posted by: David D. | Sep 15, 2008 9:55:50 AM
Censor the artist censor artist.
Whatever
I think it is great. She was/ is free to do whatever she wants. She was professional in doing the cover pic.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Sep 15, 2008 10:00:24 AM
since he has little experience with the internet mccain should have had one of his interns or staffers or kids check out greenburg's web site... this satire is completely in keeping with her manipulated work... the site is called the MANIPULATOR.
if the atlantic was given the option to run the "doctored" shot, i'm disappointed that they didn't--they would have seen a spike in newsstand sales for the issue.
anyone remember when magazines and journalism were about about ideas and different points of view rather than an unending barrage of vapid infotainment?
Posted by: my2cents | Sep 15, 2008 10:03:51 AM
I'm as sympathetic to John McCain as any other gay liberal Democrat, but the actions of the photographer here was simply appalling and she greatly damaged her reputation as a photographer. Now if she just photographed McCain at a campaign rally or some other public place where anyone was free to photograph him and did this, I think that would be fair game, but she was hired to photograph McCain by a client and now caused her client grief. That's just not good business.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 15, 2008 10:04:22 AM
MIKE, I laugh whenever I read the term "far left". If only. Thanks for the chuckle.
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Sep 15, 2008 10:08:48 AM
lol how silly. It would be one thing had this photoshopped image were on an actual cover such as the [supposed] New Yorker cover of Michelle and Barack Obama. However, this is on someone's personal website. In fact, professional photographers technically own the images they take under contract, thus nothing legally can be done. Personally, it is rather distasteful given her credentials, and had this been Barack or Hillary I would be upset (but it is rather amusing, not because it's McCain, but I get a kick out of any photoshopped picture, they always make me chuckle).
Posted by: CJ | Sep 15, 2008 10:10:14 AM
TYPO: I meant to state "[supposed satirical] cover of the New Yorker... my bad...
Posted by: CJ | Sep 15, 2008 10:12:17 AM
"why war is his answer" is the headline for the cover... this a is a great image to accompany that.
that's not the blood of obama or the democrats on his mouth, fellas... that's the blood of them TERRORISTS.
many republicans would/will love this image, as its their world view of diplomacy.
Posted by: my2cents | Sep 15, 2008 10:12:21 AM
Not necessarily PATRICK -- it all, and I mean ALL, depends on her contract. If she maintains ownership control of her outtakes as her own intellectual property (as is common in art contracts), she had every right to do this. As an artist she has every right to editorialize using her own artistic property, talent, and viewpoint.
It also depends if she is positioning herself as a fine artist or a commercial artist. So it still may have been dumb business, as no other image-conscious celebrity would hire her under those terms!
Posted by: Strepsi | Sep 15, 2008 10:13:07 AM
That's a bit much and rather tasteless.
What I don't get is... the photoshopped photo did not make it into print. What's the big deal? Ooops, some airhead sent it to the Internet under the guise of "joke". Sort of like the Bush/Bin Laden anal dominator pic that circulated a while back. Of course, that was funny. This is not.
I am more offended by the New Yorker cover portraying Barack and Michelle as a terrorists.
Posted by: Rad | Sep 15, 2008 10:17:12 AM
...I linked to a video of the jokers outside of the RNC hawking their wares of Obama on waffle boxes as political satire and even though I disagreed with their explanation of what they were doing, I felt, well, I HAVE to give them the benefit of the doubt, but now i'm supposed to be outraged at this image of Mccain on this photogragher's personal website? Fuck anymore benefit of the doubt, fuck the Alantics backpeddling, if the photographer doesn't care about the risk why should they release a statment? ...this is why the dems always lose against the repugs, they seem to be able to pull all this type crap and win while the dems are supposed to look the other way...
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Sep 15, 2008 10:38:53 AM
But it's perfectly okay to touch upphotographs of McCain, Bush and Cheney so they look better than real life on magazine covers.
Posted by: tobey | Sep 15, 2008 10:41:03 AM
It's not even an original concept! On her "Manipulator" website, under "Entertainment" is the original photoshopped photo of some other what ever.
This is getting more ludicrous by the moment.
Why do we even care? It's bad satire, ignore it.
Posted by: Rad | Sep 15, 2008 10:50:53 AM
Yeah, even though I am NOT a fan of Mc Cain's. That is a bit tacky.
Posted by: Allen | Sep 15, 2008 10:51:43 AM
I doubt this artist "is shaking in her boots" over her obvious strong point of view. As far as I am concerned, it is an illuminating portrayal of the blood thirsty, power hungry, war monger that he (Mc Cain) is.
Posted by: ken | Sep 15, 2008 10:55:11 AM
Some interesting points are being made here, and I seem to agree with all of them. Yes, it's tasteless and inappropriate, and it may hurt her career, but if she does retain the rights to the photos, she can do whatever she likes with them, and are they really any more insulting than the Obama Waffles box? I actually think the Obama Waffles box is more insulting, since it's clearly based on a racist representation, whereas these photos are portraying someone's impressions of McCain's positions. I hope the Dem talking heads make that distinction when they appear on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Posted by: Joseph | Sep 15, 2008 11:06:02 AM
This is agitprop at it's most incisive. Where art becomes a mechanism for social critique. I find nothing offensive about it at all.
Posted by: Bading | Sep 15, 2008 11:09:09 AM