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.
ALL OF IT.
Don’t worry, double standards will save her.
Here's a question for those who are offended by this (as I am): By what standard do you object to it? In other words, what's the objective standard of acceptable behavior that allows you to declare this inappropriate? I ask this because I believe that western culture has rejected the values upon which it was built. This (and much worse) are exactly what we can expect to see from those who consider themselves free from the "oppressive" attitudes of the past. It's gonna get ugly!
Why does there have to be an "objective standard?" How about thinking in terms of, "would I allow my daughter to dress up like a half dressed hooker, cigarette in hand, for anyone that logs onto this "photographer's" site to see? I never had a daughter, but rest assured, she wouldn't be a model for this sort of work.
Hey look, ANOTHER pedophile!
Renown child photographer who only shoots wide open? I suppose its an artistic style but its just lame and overused.
The last photo...what art was she talking about...ROFL...I don’t see any but lens performance.
If only we could have had this conversation on her page...but she bans anyone who disagrees. Glad to finally have some neutral ground to talk now :)
I agree so heavily with the line here "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."
Exactly. I don’t see any art because the styling is dated and storytelling is poor. I would have said the same thing had she use more mature models.
No but because it offers nothing else. It’s the type of clueless storytelling and styling I am critizing at. The girls are not sexy, they look like sexy-wanna-be at best in the photos. There’s no emotion to the photos because the girls were “told” to pose to in certain ways, ways that just don’t make sense for their age. The absence of heart and soul just made these photos look cheap, forced and fake.
Felix you are exactly right. I couldn't agree with you more.
This is just beyond disturbing, those are LITTLE GIRLS for crissakes!!!! What is wrong with people?!?
If you search up Meg's name in Google images you can find this one in wallpaper format with 360 downloads. It's sick.
That's my DAUGHTER. She was tieing her SKATE. Take this image down, asshole.
Skates look tied already.
Thanks, Terry. You internet warrior. Get a life.
Internet warrior? And you were just passing by.
I've seen you on several of these sites. Haha
You allowed this to happen, Sarah.
Allowed what to happen, Amy? Allowed you PSYCHOS to sexualize these children? YOU GUYS ARE. It's so blatantly obvious and rotten to the core.
Why would she edit and post such an image?
Sarah Meg Bittons images end up here.
There is a petition circulating to ban her Facebook and Instagram accounts. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and I am not some overzealous prude. This is sick. The images and her use of them to stir up drama to boost sales is child exploitation, period. https://tinyurl.com/banmegbitton
It doesn't matter how old the author of the article is, for people who so love to boast freedom of expression, and believing in yourself, and all that crap, Meg and the people who are behind her really love to tell people what they think is wrong.
OH AND BTW - I know a few people who have gotten full refunds for their purchases over this, so feel free to apply if you purchased stuff :)
Nick :-D :-D
These are sort of creepy and disturbing but some will say that is the point to make the viewer feel uncomfortable. It reminds me a little of the art/smut debate about David Hamiltons' pre teen models who were almost to the age of consent...
Perhaps Meg will grant us all a favor and go out like Hamilton. But first she'll have to have a sale on her workshops, PS actions, and LR presets.
Not that I'm super well versed in the history of all this, but didn't we go through this with Robert Mapplethorpe?
Mapplethorpe wasn't using pre-teens to create controversy on FB and IG, and then yanking them down when the heat builds up, just to play "victim" and claim "PTSD" while telling critics to "fuck off" and then subsequently offering a sale on his "workshops," PS actions, LR presets or whatever other garbage she's selling.
Also, Mapplethorpe's pictures were truly shocking. So shocking that the Corcoran feared the consequences of showing them more than the loss of millions of dollars of patronage (Lowell Nesbitt threatened to pull his 1.5 million dollar bequest from the Corcoran if they cancelled Mapplethorpe's exhibition. They did and he did.)
Bitton's stuff isn't actually that shocking- at least not the ones I have seen, which are the ones here.
And shocking is all well and good, if the images themselves are good. Mapplethorpe's images were beautiful- even the ones that were quite disturbing. Just shocking doesn't do much for me- that's the difference between Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano. Bitton doesn't even get to hold the light reflector for people playing on that level (full disclosure- neither do I).
Bitton minces towards a line that she probably shouldn't cross, but doesn't actually get that close to the line, though she signposts that it is there. Her photos always have one foot on safe ground, so she can run towards plausible deniability I suppose, if the shit truly hits the fan.
This is posing. It's insipid. It's Bougie AF.
Agreed about Mapplethorpe. It's a shame that he's only remembered for the shocking photos, as his still lifes, florals, and portraits are equally worthy of recognition. Those who've seen ALL of his work will probably agree that he was a very talented photographer, but chose a rather extreme way of presenting his vision at times.
And there's Bitton. Your right. She gets close, but still has room to pull it all back and make it profitable. A low-level internet celebrity whose fame is probably running out and no matter how low she offers her workshops probably won't recover from this round. We'll see. I'm sure her cronies Holloway and Olson will be there to see her through her latest episode of PTSD.
yes Ryan - you are right in my opinion. Mapplethorpe had a very strong artist voice. His whole life was spent trying to deal with his sexuality and to integrate that with his very strict and highly conservative Catholic upbringing. He spent his entire life dealing with that very issue and his photographs and other types of art (he painted and did sculptures) were his way of working through that. He risked a lot by going there and he did it anyway because it was a very real thing for him. It had nothing to do with fame, money, or gaining internet notoriety and everything to do with trying to find himself. Meg's images don't even come close to that magnitude. Her name should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Mapplethorpe...I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He lost his father, his family, his life to his lifestyle and he risked it all in his attempt to communicate and discover who he was...
And Shame on FStoppers for posting sexualized pictures of children.
But thanks FStoppers for bringing the skank to everyone's attention.
Who's the skank...you?
Unlike yourself, my replies are never about me. Actually, I would have expected a bit more after reading your other replies. Your sauce is weak today. Come back when you can develop a real insult.
Children should not be aloud to put their body on display in this manner, the same way we would not allow them to make life altering decisions. They are simply not mentally developed enough to understand the full ramafacations this may have on their future.
"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? "
This faux naiveté is annoying. She's too skilled an artist for me to believe that she doesn't understand the semiotics of the "embrace" she's depicting versus two young girls just hugging- she staged it that way for a definite purpose.
Maybe it's fair game to comment on societal change, or norms, or whatever, but grow a spine and own what you do.
How does Ffstopper allow flat out lies to be on their site? "She claims she is simply depicting a normal child’s evolution into adulthood. " Proves how stupid you are because the images depict her childhood, Anyone with a clue would have know that. Now get this" There was a police officer on set with the film crew during a lot of these photo's and it was all filmed. Somebody is setting themselves up for a nice lawsuit right here. You don't just go around making stuff up to attack someone and their business. Anyone that doubts what I say should learn the truth behind the photo's which are neither illegal or sexual explicit.
You don't have to be explicit to be sexual. The photos are not explicit, but they are definitely sexual, and meant to be so.
Oh really, You claim to know what the intent of these photo are. So your telling me if you see a 10-12 year old girl in a bikini smoking a cigarette, you see her in a sexual way instead of just a kid in a swimsuit smoking. Same if you seen 2 10-12 year old girls hugging. Your ideals of what these photo's represent and the how/why they came to be are made up in your own head with no knowledge what it's really about. Of course you could join Meg's group and purchase the workshop these are from. There was a film crew along with the workshop attendees, including a police office present during the filming of the workshop. Now you get an ideal how silly it is to see people making up their own version of what's going on.
Yes Really.
Unless Meg Bitton, one of the most successful American photographers, somehow managed to reach the level of success that she has without ever seeing a playboy image, advertising, or, well, really any western representational art at all, then she operates with full knowledge of the pictorial code of our shared culture- the same archetypes, tropes, metanarratives, etc.
If this shared semiotic architecture didn't exist, then we would be unable to interpret these photos, or any images, as anything other than abstract art. Obviously that's not the case.
What is silly is the rather pathetic and insipid claim that these images are devoid of meaning, as if they are random or something. If that is the case, then a)Meg Bitton is unskilled, and is essentially a photographic random noise generator, b)an almost literal miracle has occurred because she unknowingly, and indeed randomly, produced a number of images that perfectly conform with "cheesecake" tropes. It's as if a room full of monkeys and typewriters somehow spat out a perfect edition of Nabakov's "Lolita." Amazing.
This is why!
Ho ho ho! “Simply a normal child’s evolution into adulthood”???!! Really? Is it? So it means I’m a black sheep as I was missing out on all these “fun” things mate! Now, I’m not saying my underage classmates wasn’t smoking drinking trying sex, but that was NOT THE NORM. And besides, girls finding their way into maturity is a very, very, very , very private matter. It shouldn’t be generalised in public. Girls who go and try and do things will do anyways. Their parents will know about it anyway (hopefully) It is their own, private journey, it does not need to be ‘artified’ and put out to the world of people to chewing on at.
She blocked me a year or so ago. She and her rabid fan base hate being called out on their bs. This isn’t bringing awareness to the REAL issues of child sex trafficking, nor is it bringing any justice to those that practice it. These photos were done for workshops and to sell products. Purely monetary gain with no intrinsic artistic value. It’s trash. It’s glamorizing a horrible, dark lifestyle that girls have to either fight or die to escape. Not art.
Jealous nobodies such as yourself are so tiring.
Nobodies 😂 It's so pathetic when your life's worth is based on a few people in a single industry knowing your name. What a sad, sad life to live. I guarantee, the people you keep calling nobodies have a lot more value to society than you could ever dream of, sweetheart.