Meg Bitton, a photographer renowned for her portraits of children, is receiving backlash online for posting images of youngsters — some allegedly aged 11 — wearing revealing outfits, smoking, and in t-shirts supporting cannabis. In an age of children growing up and being sexualized too fast, how far is too far?
Bitton is widely regarded as a respected children's photographer, with tens of thousands of followers across various social media pages. Over the last few days, though, a number of photographs have been circulating the Internet for all the wrong reasons. Many are deeming that some of her recent work is highly inappropriate, largely due to the overtly sexual nature, despite her subjects being children.
In one, two young girls are seen pressing themselves against each other, while one has her hand on some money that is tucked into the other's shorts. In a second, Bitton has positioned her child subject in the front seat of a van, wearing barely-there underwear and smoking on a cigarette. Another sees a child so young that she’s likely not even in double digits, bearing a top promoting the legalization of marijuana.
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1035185601664954369
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1035185739355619328
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1033579785241468928
https://twitter.com/WebbDawgTG/status/1033579348144611328
It’s an increasing trend, treating children like adults. Earlier this year, "Lil Tay" gained notoriety online and was giving TV interviews for simply behaving outrageously on Instagram at the age of nine. Meanwhile, celebrities like the Kardashians parade their offspring around in outfits tailored by high-end fashion houses. But these images feel incredibly distasteful and a step too far. Bitton’s subjects are likely old enough to be consciously aware of many of the themes portrayed in the photos. However, positioning them as the subjects within them is in poor taste. It risks putting incredible pressure on these children to be or behave a certain way before they’ve had a chance to figure out who they are as people or the consequences of such behavior. It blurs the lines of how it is or isn't acceptable to behave in front of a minor. And it certainly calls into question the legality of such images; many online are calling it gross at best and pedophilic at worst.
Setting aside the sexual aspect of such images, there is nothing realistic about these photos. They aren’t artistic, documentary style images that capture the livelihood of innocent children. They depict something unrealistic and forced. When was the last time you witnessed 11-year-olds in such pants, gallivanting in the streets, and leaning close to each other in a provocative manner? Never, I hope.
Bitton’s response, written within the comment section on Facebook, was:
Too young for what? To be embracing each other in shorts and tops? Too young to be out at night? Too young to explore? Too young to feel? What are they too young for? What is disgusting?
She claims she is simply depicting a normal child’s evolution into adulthood. Thankfully, the Internet disagrees. Sexualizing children is never justified.
At the time of writing, her Instagram is set to private.
That's why I deleted my comment, Lisa. A bunch of intellectual bottom feeders, engaging in a self-reinforcing moral panic, and who are unable to entertain more than a single thought which has been drawn for them.
I mean, we have such egregious offenses as an article of apparel promoting cannabis. The horror. Sure, not the core offense objected to, but let's just throw that in.
Won't somebody please think about the children.
But then the author of the article is still a baby at 26. One would hope that when he grows up that he'll learn nuance and objectivity.
We're bottom feeders because we think it unwise to dress an 11 year old like a two bit hooker? So does that mean you approve? Just asking....
If you had a pot promoting t-shirt on, I'd commend you since I think it should be legalized everywhere, but to have an 11 year old promoting something that is still illegal in most locations is pathetic in the extreme.
We are thinking about the children...are you? Is it somehow avante garde to be in favor of using an 11 year old in such a way? What am I missing here? Please explain the logic beyond the shock value.
No. You're an "intellectual bottom feeder" because you are trapped inside your own moral panic, lensing your entire worldview through it, and are incapable of thinking your way out of a wet paper bag, or any form of intellectual rigour or cogent argument.
Savvy?
No, observing that those who are unable to concurrently hold and analyse a hypothesis which is competing with the hypothesis that they favour are not exactly intellectual powerhouses is my fundamental point.
The fact that you seem to be incapable of comprehending what I'm saying supports my inference.
It's super complex stuff...if you're an idiot.
Given that you consistently demonstrate your intellectual inferiority and insecurity, I'm feeling pretty comfortable right about now.
Fine. If it makes you feel better.
Now, kindly go away, and take your utterly mediocre images with you.
It was more polite than 'garbage' or 'shit'.
Now, fuck off, you ignorant, uneducated, moron.
Congratulations. You are Hugh Janus.
You are not educated. You are not clever. You are nothing more than a troll.
I gather I can't block you, but I can make a formal complaint.
Seriously, fuck off.
He is not worth the energy...
Oh, I just realised, you're that idiot who saw fit to pretend you had read The Tragedy of the Commons, and then ridiculed it.
As I said, you haven't read it. The thesis of the essay is not "forced birth control and eugenics and seizure of individual freedoms".
Where on Earth do you morons come from?
Yeah, sure you did. I'm guessing you just made use of Google. You can't really backtrack at this point.
Anyway, you really aren't worth my time, or anyone else's.
Oh, this is the part where you try to pretend that you are educated.
Wealth of Nations is completely different subject matter.
Piss off.
You mean the work of fiction that I read a year after my mother remarried, when I was 8.
Are you seriously this much of a loser?
Yeah, I'm going to pretend that I've read a work of fiction to make myself look intellectually superior.
The funniest thing is that you think I'm kidding. You're the only one here who pretends they have read stuff.
I. Don't. Care.
But what sort of fucking moron thinks that destroying our own habitat is clever.
No. Really.
Just how stupid would you have to be to believe that destroying natural capital in exchange for synthetic capital is a winning proposition?
Oh yeah, the same person who doesn't comprehend the properties of exponential growth
Again, I don't care what you do. I made no secret of the fact I think your work is crap.
You want to troll, then put up with the halo effect (google is your friend)
I have to say it's pretty ironic seeing will howell call someone out on speaking the truth. This is the man who pushed Broncolor is made by Godox in the godox/profoto/bron article. He even told the Broncolor rep he was wrong! Classic!
Sorry william, at this point I can only conclude that either you think everything is a joke or you really have a moronic IQ. You have actually been offered a tour of the facility by the Broncolor top brass. Will Prentice has set you straight numerous times. Yet you still, to this day, spread false information about a company on the fstoppers site. You are lucky that the Swiss are not overly litigious. Having this in print, over months and months, even when provided with proof from the company is not a smart move... awaiting vapid, bull$hit response that tries to turn everything into a joke...
Well, you confirmed that you are simply an idiott. I'm not here to educate you- I am simply calling you out for being full of $hit and spreading lies that can hurt a company's reputation. Some of us care about reputation. Some of us ruin our reputation by posting trolly slander in a major photography site. In life we have choices. I will forward this off to my contact at Broncolor...
Once again William you are wrong. I am not a distributor for Broncolor. I would love to work for them but, alas, I am simply an artist who uses their gear along with a bunch of others. Your innaccuracy continues to astound me. That's why me thinks you are doing it on purpose...
Actually Soros was made in Hungary.
Lisa Holloway has actually been caught up in her own scandals for sexualizing kids.
That's a pretty hefty accusation there, 'Ceri G'...any evidence to back that shit up? I notice you're posting under a fake name. Shocker.
Really??? I would love to see this article you speak of! Kindly share!!! Since you know so much it seems.
Verbally attacking the author is a proficient means to getting your point across.... good move mate! NOT.
Observing that the author is young, and therefore possibly incable of objectivity by virtue of his age is applying the "principle of charity".
Now, I could have simply called him an idiot, that would have been attacking him.
Idiot.
Looks like we've found one of the pedophiles Meg caters to! Anyone defending this needs to have their hard drive collected and search history analyzed, end of story. This isn't about art or telling a story, it's about making money off the backs of children and not giving half a shit what happens with the photos. Meg is sick, anyone defending it is sick, and I'm so proud of those standing up against this.
Your words certainly give the impression that you are defending the exploitation of children whether in stills or film.
Regardless, I do apologize for my remarks concerning your fitness as a mother. That overstepped.
Theres nothing more disgusting than a minion who is on board the kiddo abuse train. These images are unacceptable. Rolled up $100 bills in booty shorts.... please. Let's place you in those shorts, take a picture of it and show it to the world. How will these children feel about these images when they are adults? VOMIT
Taking pictures is not abuse or molestation. Get some sense. Nobody were harmed during the process, until proven wrong. This is plain bigotry. "Dressing like a hooker" doesn't imply performing a quickie. It's the Sally Mann controversy all over again…
How do you know? Are you that child? It is damaging to the notion of childhood innocents. These images are a perversion of innocents. BTW.... The scene was set up to display child prostitution in a glamorizing light. THERE IS NO DENING THAT. It wasn't just the fact that these young girls were dressed in skimpy clothing ...... they were captured in the dark of the night ... by a dock .. with a creepy flannel wearing man. You only see his back. This is not bigotry .... this is drawing the line in the sand ... against artist who are willing to compromise the innocents of children .... for their own selfish purpose. CALL ME BIGOT ALL DAY EVERYDAY ..... whatever it take to protect children against sexualization. In the court of law sir... taking provocative images of children is a crime. It is considered child pornography .
Child pornography is a crime that deals with some of the harshest and most serious laws that a person can face. This is serious. If news channels catch wind of these images .... it's will be devastating for her. The majority of the photography community is outraged.
How do you know? Are you that child?
And btw, it's not porn.
Provocative images are no porn, hence no crime. You are just making up a cause to defend to get some importance and feel good about yourself. The representation of something is not a performance of that thing. Showing it is not encouraging it. You have to get some notion of the difference between the representation/depiction and the actual depicted thing.
I don't need this particular matter to feel good about myself. That is a very strange accusation. I am speaking against perversion of youth. My efforts are selfless. Have you ever thought a person can just be disgusted, without having an alternative motive? I believe these images are in violation of federal law. Thats all there is to it.
Oh good grief, Lisa, you're in the same basket as Meg Bitton. You post photos of your daughter and glamorize handguns. Meg has dressed these CHILDREN up, given them props and TOLD them how to pose. She then posts the images, waits for the uproar, deletes the images, pulls people to her page where they NOW see only "pretty" pictures and advertises her courses. Disgusting. If anything? There should be an investigation into possession of alcohol/drugs by a minor. THAT SHE HANDED THEM. Not to mention, if an adult takes a sexually explicit photo of a minor and THEN shares it on social media/via text message? Then that adult has crossed the line into child pornography. Feel free to back up your friend all day long...you're quickly becoming the minority. There are many MANY positive messages that Meg could use her platform for; however, she's chosen THIS.
Oh no! The horror! Kids who are taught how to properly handle and use a firearm. Clutch your pearls! Get your smelling salts! 😂
Oh how cute. You assume I don’t support the right to bear arms. Actually what I DON’T support is GLAMORIZING guns, alcohol, weed, and sex using CHILDREN.
Another jealous NOBODY. Who has time for this?
If people like you and Meg are “somebody”? Then I’m perfectly content being a NOBODY. :)
Have a good one, Lisa!
They're nobody, too, outside of the industry. Inside of the industry, a group of momtgraphers like them and they make a few bucks being terrible human beings. I'd rather be a good person than industry famous, which truly means absolutely nothing. But, whatever makes them feel good about themselves I guess. Even when it's at the expense of others.
Oh look, another useless, anonymous keyboard warrior! Good on you. Jealousy runs thick in the comments section. lol
Jealous? bwahahahahhahahaa Whatever makes you feel better.
Lisa help me out...and I have been a loyal fan of your work, not a hater. What are people jealous of? I don't understand why you would think people are jealous because they have a concern about something. What would they be jealous of, your talent? What do you mean?
😘 😂
Hope you finally got rid of your 2 year "non-compete" clause in your workshop T&C. Bet you had fun trying to enforce THAT! Hahaha. That was truly comic, especially with the breast-feeding mermaid. Classic internetz photography bizness dizpute. I guess everyone's a "talentless whore" these days.