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.
Well I see this argumentation can also apply to movies, which are fake and not real even though they speak about it. We can attach to those photos a critique to western culture and society, beauty contests, glamorous fashion shows for children clothing and personally don't even see this as an extreme version of reality. You should see what family do in south of Italy for their communion, look for 'nemo nessuno escluso sposa bambina' on youtube, it's in Italian, but trust me, you don't need the audio. People are making a big deal out of nothing. If you want to make noise, start by writing articles about children that are really exploited.
Mauro I don't understand what you are saying. No one is going to take issue with a real presentation of what is. Photojournalism and photo documentary cover just about every life issue out there. No noise is going to come out of that. What is creating noise here is that Meg has selected a very real and painful life scene, a dark alley, to position and prop children up in what appears to be a very real life situation not to make a statement about this very real situation, but to sell an image. Just because it happens all the time doesn't mean it's okay. And it will continue to happen as long as the masses continue to be consumers to it. If she wants to make a statement about these very real life circumstances why is she not explaining it? If you are using people (minors at that) to make a statement about something whether in videos, movies or photos then you need be able to explain it so that your voice is being heard and in essence there is an actual reason to what you are doing. If you don't then people will draw their own conclusions about your motivation as they have here. The last time I checked most people who make movies, create fashion shows, and the likes can explain what they are doing and why. Whether we agree with it or not there is a thought process there and an end result.
Have you asked her about the why? an email? a message? And of course you are free to draw your own conclusion, theory and explanations, but this article is not trying to draw any kind of explanation, just a judgmental point of view. I guess that most artist, once they create the statement, they sell it, otherwise how are they going to eat? There are movie out there, totally masterpiece, but most of the people find those disturbing, 120 days of sodoma - by Pier Paolo Pasolini, is one of them. Has also been censored in the 78'. If you want the explanation, you have to dig, dig a lot, read and study the artist, and there is a lot inside that movie. Still most of the viewer do not even scratch the surface. Not mad at you Amy or anything else, just found this article a tasteless nonconstructive criticism, one of those personal point of view that do not add a dime to the discussion.
I am a mother with an 8 year old daughter. I want to protect my 8 year old daughter's image both on line and in life. It is her image not mine. I won't hand her over to any photographer who wants to use her image to express their needs and wants, certainly not with suggestive and exploitative themes. Images form thoughts, impressions, and help to shape the society we live in. I want nothing to do with anyone taking the most precious human in my life as a mother and using her appearance in whatever way they want before she as a human has even had a chance to know who she is and what she believes in. Whether right or wrong the argument could go on forever, for me the answer is and always will be the same. I can't wait to see how my daughter presents herself to the world but it will be over my dead body that I hand her over to someone else to decide that.
perhaps other mothers don't feel this way, so then go for it as you apparently have. Let your 10 year old daughter be the model with the make up, the heels, the cigarettes, it's your call. For me, no way. I love that little girl more than anything and there is no way I would want to have someone use her to portray what is being portrayed. Once an image is out there it is out there and you can't get it back - no way, not now, not ever. Could care less how popular an image might be, what I care about is my daughter.
There was also an image of hers in this thread of a topless little girl blindfolded on a bed with a hand over her mouth and another of a little girl with a flogger in a mask. They were highly disturbing (rightfully so) and quickly reported when they showed up in her personal group.
I consider myself to be an amateur photographer at best; my real job is as a pediatric sexual assault nurse examiner. Professionally and personally, I find these photos to be very disturbing for a number of reasons. While I feel the photographer is "attempting" to create an artistic representation of children moving into adolescence and all of the elements of that occurred during that process, the end outcome is inappropriate.
The normalization of child sexuality is a slippery slope for all who view it. This includes other children who may view these photos, they may internalize these images and feel that this is how they should be acting. This creates additional opportunities for pedophiles to manipulate and groom children. Juvenile offenders of other children account for almost 1/3 of all the victims that I see; these images that are attempting to normalize sexual behaviors in children will validate their already misguided feelings and misconceptions of normal sexual activity. Regardless of the intent, it is never appropriate to photograph children in a sexual manner; children do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that one situation may be safe and monitored and the next situation may not be safe at all. While in this particular situation, other adults were most likely involved with this "artistic" process so the children were in theory safe, but those who view it do not have a complete and total understanding of what safety measures were in place. This could potentially create an environment where children feel that it is okay for others to take pictures of them in a sexual nature. This type of thinking is never okay, nor should it ever be betrayed as being acceptable within society. Children need to be taught their bodies are their own and it's never okay for them to be placed into a more compromising sexual situation.
We as adults can see this is not pornographic photos, but children do not have the intellectual ability to discern that for themselves. In and my professional and personal opinion this is a dangerous situation that no child should ever be exposed to.
There is more appropriate and constructive way to convey a message, it should never entail exploiting children in a sexual nature. Children do as they see, and unfortunately for some children they may feel that it is acceptable to behave in this manner because an adult asks them to.
Some of those photos by her that were taken down - if any man took those they'd be in some deep shit.
It is so interesting to me that as I look through her Facebook page now she is very cleverly posting images of pretty young innocent looking girls in big feminine dresses. Some of her old stuff is being posted and she even threw a family image in there for good measure. If you scroll through her page you will not find any of these sexulised images. They have all been weeded out. Lots of new starry-eyed followers adoring her non disturbing images. She has changed from not caring F... Off if you don't like it to this lovely well mannered women who is so pleasant in answering questions. The switch is so weird but so disturbing. Biggest ever sale coming up next. Rinse and repeat.
facebook removed many of them.......bottom line; they were inappropriate and needed come down. Her artistic voice should not be more important than the safety and well being of the child subject. I would guess she will be a bit more careful now to think about the photos she takes and why. I wouldn't want to be her in a million years at this point.
Guess she's all better now since she posted this 8 minutes ago . Looks like the rinse and repeat continues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOhymSfICyQ
what the heck is she trying to say for God's sake? Can she explain it? I have no connection to the story here at all...what is the story? Wondering if her point is that you can use photos to tell a story and that will make them more personal and appealing to the viewer. However, I can't find anything personal to grab onto in this story......does that matter? Can anyone who related to this explain to me how it speaks to them? What is the story you see? I don't see one at all so I am genuinely wanting to hear from those who understand Meg's work what it speaks to you.
I was very active in her Facebook group for a while. These photos and others made me very uncomfortable, but I was learning from other photographers. The thing I noticed is she uses her FB group to perpuate her views - like she posted a photo of a marijuana leaf and said "legalize it" - what does this have to do with photography? and other things. Every single comment under it was basically the same - you can't tell me in a group of thinking adults there aren't any that disagree, but curiously no - one viewpoint. I posted a comment (later) that was not angry at all, basically "there is a lot of drama in this group, and we are here to talk about photography, not politics" and was kicked out. So to be in the group you must drink the Koolaid, you cannot express any dissent, you must agree with Meg's views or put duct tape over your mouth.
Every image is the same. Same model. Same pose. Same scene. Same slutty clothes on young girls. Same foul mouth comments. Calls people out for copying her, unless you have paid $500 for one of her sessions and then she’s made you an artistic genius. Not a genuine bone in her body. Modesty is a foreign concept. Ugly ugly person on the Inside . She is a joke. Classless trash with an expensive camera and lenses. You can’t change ugly. Wise up folks.
https://tracyjoy.com
https://tracyjoy.com