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.
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.
No evidence supporting your claim, so I'm going to stick with a jealous nobody, also too scared to post under your real name. Have a great day, sweetheart. ;)
I like how you keep calling me a "jealous nobody." really highlights what I've previously stated. You have a wonderful day, hon. <3
oh, and if you don't think consumers, or what you've called "jealous nobodies", don't vote with their dollars, just wait until all this horrific nonsense crashes both yours and Meg's sales numbers. There comes a point when you can no longer spin trash, darling.
Not worried, AT ALL. ;)
what are people jealous of? Her camera? Her ability to take photos? I don't get it.
Lisa, I am shocked to see how cruel of a person you are. I've always loved and admired your work, but after seeing how you talk to people I'll be unfollowing everything. And I know...I'm a nobody, so you could care less. It's just sad. Maybe you should take a time out and do a little soul searching.
I've always liked your images but had no idea how ugly you are; not for your point of view on this subject, which I disagree with, but your attitude toward people who disagree with you. I would think you'd appreciate their concern for children even if you don't see these kinds of photos as problematic. And all the chest pounding? Not a good look. Really sad to see. :-(
Yes, because no one else is being ugly here. /sarcasm It's a rabid internet mob - and if the few of us speaking out against it are 'ugly' in your eyes, I'll take it. I don't like seeing my good friend crucified by a bunch of angry keyboard warriors, the majority of whom are too fucking chickenshit to even post using their real names. It's disgusting.
Speaking out for, or against, anything is okay. It's just, if you think your position (any position) is right, it would be far better to discuss it reasonably. Otherwise you risk harming your position and entrenching opposition to it. I do see your point about using fake names but people have reasons for the things they do even if you don't know or agree with it. :-/
Yep, I'm totally using a fake name... you know why? Because I'm scared. You and Meg are mean and vicious. I don't want you finding me or my business page.....you'd just sick your minions on me. Using the excuse that others are being mean doesn't justify you jumping on board. Like the old saying goes "If your friends jump off a bridge, will you?' I get you are trying to stick up for Meg (only God knows why), but you're showing some true, and nasty, colors doing it. Have you sat back and even TRIED to understand why people are so upset about these images? There are reasons. Valid reasons. You don't have to agree, but constantly calling people "nobody" "useless"etc. just shows what a closed minded bully you are. I mean, come one...you sound like an angry middle school child. Why not discuss like an adult? Or are you not capable of that? Meg is getting what she deserves....you can't be a nasty b*tch forever and never have it come back to bite you!! KARMA!
If you'd go back and read my original response on this article, you'd see the reasons (valid, level headed reasons) that I support her and am appalled at the mob like mentality going on here. I'm glad you find us so 'scary' that you cannot back up your words using your real name. Amusing.
Haha. You're such a horrible twat Lisa. Crawl out of your own arse.
😘
How does this make you feel Lisa?
It makes me wonder wtf you are doing perusing a pedophile site, honestly...as far as Meg's photos turning up there - I know she has people who will file DMCA's and get them removed. This crap, unfortunately, happens to many of us.
I was not perusing a pedophile site. This is what was on a photographers page today and this is what her followers need to see and stop calling it some sort of fancy art. The images have a sexual theme that's why they end up there. And they are young girls 10 - 11. How will they feel in years to come that pedophiles have been using their images. But Lisa you are Meg fan so you will never see anything wrong with what she does. You both unfortunately are very cruel people and I have seen you treat people the same way Meg does. Both of you have very bad names in the photography world and it will get worse after this.
Look - I've had images removed from that SAME SITE. So have MANY MANY photographer friends. You are looking for a shock value by posting that, and you aren't going to get it. Unfortunately those types of people exist and will steal all sorts of images of children - NOT JUST MEG'S. I'm sure Meg will do what needs to be done to have her images removed, just as the rest of us have had to do.
So that makes her images okay then she can just remove them after they have been used. You see no harm in the actual images remember these girls are 10 -11 and there are pedophile sites dedicated to her work? Why do you think that is? And yes I did put the site up to shock people so they would stop calling this photography work ART! She has photographed these young girls in a sexual way but you will continue to defend Meg no matter what.
That is correct, I see NO HARM IN THE ACTUAL IMAGES. If you see them in a sexual way, perhaps it's you who needs your head checked?
Wow! Let everyone here note that Lisa Holloway sees no harm in these images. Funny though because Meg even titled some of those images in a sexual way because I was on her page when they were first put up and some of the men on her site loved them and commented with sexual comments and she said NOTHING!! They are removed now of course so people wont see. All you see are pretty young girls. Why did she remove then if there was nothing wrong with them. Her choice - FB didn't tell her too remove them. If she believed it was her Art they still would be up.
Who cares. Get a life. Go outside or something. lol
I like many people here care Lisa. We care only about the kids. You and Meg treat people the same way. You have both lost credibility in the photography world by your words and your actions. People will not forget this. And I know you will say to me WHO CARES.
Good for you for using a fake name! These two women are cruel so I dont blame you for protecting yourself. I just showed Lisa Holloway this. Not much of a reaction of course happens to all of us apparently.
Lisa, it sure is disappointing to see how you really are. You know? I've sensed it for a while, but now here it is for all to see. I notice that you edited some of your comments, but there are screenshots. :) Of all the professionals here (you ARE a professional, aren't you?) how many others have called peers in this industry "chicken shit", "jealous nobody" and (my favorite) "tasteless whore"?? All because we don't agree with you. If all of your clients could see how you REALLY behave, would you REALLY be "laughing all the way to the bank"? I know one thing for sure. I won't be giving you a dime. Oh, and my "nobody" name is MELISSA GIBSON. And you don't scare me one teeny bit.
Screenshots anyone?
I have a personal favorite
DAMN
" If all of your clients could see how you REALLY behave, would you REALLY be "laughing all the way to the bank"?" Maybe they should. I sure wish someone would have warned me.
If having a bunch of followers makes you act like this, then I never hope to get any. As I stated in its own comment prior, for people who work with children, are into the whole "express yourself" stuff, and teach, your attitude towards others is nothing short of being a bully.
I applaud Jack for shinning a light on these unacceptable images. Per American federal law, I believe these images are in violation . Placing children like dolls in sexual adult situations is disturbing. The line has been crossed. Hopefully Meg will think twice before glorifying child prostitution, under age tobacco use and the promotion of Marijuana amongst youth. #WTFMEG