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.
No, actually, the author is violating federal copyright law. Plain and simple. And I've had an image removed from the article already, so there's that.
I’m not sure what article you’re mistaking this one for, but no images have been removed. As both a photographer and writer, I’m well versed in how copyright works and trust me, nothing in this article has broken any of the rules of Fstoppers. Hence it wouldn’t be live.
From reading the comments I think she got a photo removed in the comments.. either that or the person who posted it removed it once she asked him to remove it. Who knows.
Grasping at straws ... so there's that :)
Federal Copyright Law allows for criticism, news, etc. There is no way the author using an image in an ARTICLE violates copyright unless they edited it or are selling it for monetary gain.
Think again, Emilee.
So some kids with seizure disorders are very familiar with cannibas and supporting legalization means their parents may not have to jump through hoops to get it ? I shoot in daycares on a regular basis and daisy duke style shorts are not uncommon?so parents send kids to daycare with short shorts on picture day ! Some people don’t grow up with picket fences in suberbia , some grow up too fast ! There’s a photo of Brooke Shields with a cigarette in her hand , no biggy . One of those two girls almost embracing is featured on the show orange is the new black . That photo was taken in a workshop witnessed by many people including a police officer that happens to be a photographer and the girls moms. They are friends so they laughed and giggled and were very comfortable. The sad thing is that I am sure the backlash may not be very fun for them .You the photographers that should SEE the art are turning them into victims, not Ms. Bitton. Why does our industry have to hate on each other ? I wonder do sculpters and painters bash each other in a public forum ? I love Megs work and I love her attitude. Too many people play way too nice , North America is one of the few places the customer is always right . Yup if she doesn’t like your attitude you are gone . You are gone if you bash other photographers, gone if you publicly bash LGBQ community, she promotes equality at every turn . But it’s her group she doesn’t have to play nice . Let’s face it when you can make enough $$$ you don’t need to kiss ass anymore why should you tolerate people you wouldn’t sit at a table with in a restaurant? So yup she pisses people off . But she has photographed each of these children for years one has a Mother that’s a photographer close to her . I have seen her be very assertive when her followers have attempted to contact these girls directly rather than their agency. She has watched them grow and after watching many workshops featuring these kids it’s obvious they know each other well and I do not doubt for a moment that if she had predicted this bs she would take it back now just for the girls sake . I think the photography industry needs to take a step back . I am so sick of seeing the bashing whether it’s about cell phone photographers, beginners doing weddings , bad photographers charging money , not charging enough for good work . I can’t think of any other group of “ professionals “ so darn critical. So scroll past it if you don’t like it ? Don’t buy her shit , leave her group , that is your choice ! But bashing her , threatening her and posting these photos all over is just bringing more attention to the children featured, kinda defeats the purpose here ? It’s late I am babbling, this has gone too far .
I'm sorry, what? You guys are literally INSANE. INSAAAAANE. I'm embarrassed for fstoppers.
Um, I am sorry but Cannabis oil for seizures with low THC, is one thing, and has been legalized in many states for children, and some adults, it just can't be grown in a lot of states, it has to be shipped to them. There is a HUGE difference in Cannabis oil for medical reasons, and a 9 year old wearing a shirt with a suggestion to legalize pot on it. I have a feeling they are not speaking of CBD oil. To have underage kids with a flask in their hands, money rolled up like they are snorting coke, the look of them standing around with a pimp or a score. I'm sorry, you can call it what you want, but its not a real good example to other kids. In this world we should be trying to set good examples for these kids growing up. They grow up way to fast as it is. Why hurry them along just so she can relive her past. Is she saying at 9 she was smoking weed, and running around in panties, and sleeping with grown men, because maybe that is where the problem lies. You can say all day long that there was a cop there but guess what, I have dated one too many cops in my life, and that is not saying much at all for a cop to be there. I am sure he got his kicks out of it!! Just because a cop was present, does not in any way make the fact that underage children were posing in ways that make them look like they are doing inappropriate things. I have a son and a daughter, and there is no way in Hell I would have let them pose like that, acting or not. You plant seeds in kids, and seeds grow. You might plant an idea that sweet little girl never even thought about. I will fight with all I have, to hang on to my kids innocence for as long as I can. I have really enjoyed Meg's work in the past, but this was a little too much. You can't go from pretty baby dolls to street walkers without expecting a kneejerk reaction, and when you start deleting opinions that are not exactly for you, then it really makes you look even worse. Just man up. If you really stand by it, then stand in the fire.
Very well said Jennifer! I am 100% with you there!
This is the reason people are angry. This is where her images go there are pedophile sites dedicated to her images because they are sexual. Are you ok with that?
Glad to see actual industry leaders taking a stand against this. Those defending are just comical and sad. The fan girls/guys are so in love with her that they refuse to see what the rest of the world sees. The images are overly sexual for children, especially with the insane problem we have right now the child sex-trafficking.
I don't know why people like MEAN girls so much. I really hope that she can find a way to turn this around and change her ways. Maybe become an advocate against crimes against children.
.....
People don't care about children (what they think, experience, discover). They just want children to be the image of the purity and innocence they long lost. Even if their 12 years old is getting wet when some cute actor is on the screen. There were times when you weren't a child anymore after 14 and could marry. They pushed the majority age further and further as the centuries passed, as if old farts wanted to control things longer. What if kids are just the same than before, but we expect them to be stupid and naive longer ?
...
I think you guys, in the US, are afraid of everything and let your religious morality overlap too much on public life. In Europe, we have had to deal with several different religions from the beginning, so at some point, tired of murdering each other every once in a while for beliefs, we decided religions were a private matter and please keep that under your shirt, at home and in the private places you praise.
But on the matter of children depiction, it's all the same now : as soon as children are on the picture, it's pedophilia already. As if we were overcompensating for all these years when children were molested with no one moving a finger.
"I think you guys, in the US, are afraid of everything and let your religious morality overlap too much on public life. In Europe, we have had to deal with several different religions from the beginning, so at some point, tired of murdering each other every once in a while for beliefs, we decided religions were a private matter and please keep that under your shirt, at home and in the private places you praise."
Perhaps the stupidest thing I'll ready all day.
Look at the sheer number of religious holidays in, say, Germany in which people are generally given the day off of work. Far more than in the States. In Germany there are a total of 12 national religious holidays. In France I believe there are 6. In the US, we have 2.
Look at the abortion laws in most of Europe. They are far more strict than in the US. Most of them are capped at 12 weeks. Those stricter abortion laws are a result of religious pressure.
Aversion against the photos that this article is about has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with the message of seemingly sexualizing children. I'm not religious in the slightest, yet I understand the concept that people are upset with. It's far more complicated than "religion."
There's a reason in the Western world why 11 year old children are not able to enter into a binding contract, marry, go to a bar, drive a car, live without guardians, etc. Children don't have the life experiences to make far reaching decisions. It's pretty freaking simple.
Generally, reasonable people frown on 11 year old girls being presented in an overtly sexualized manner in photographs. If people are not able to see that many of these photographs are overtly sexual, then they are either willfully ignorant or are just stupid. That being said, I'm not jumping on the notion that those who may not have a problem with them are simply pedophiles. That, too, is just stupid. But it still doesn't change the fact that they are overtly sexual.
We can all argue on the merits of such photos and have differing opinions, but to just lump the US into some "religious" pigeon hole is intellectually vapid and banal.
Back at you. Religious holidays have nothing to do with actual religion, since they are just family holidays unless you are religious. We have more holidays than the US in general, period. Maybe that's why we have an higher productivity…
The point stands : religions are to remain private and have little impact on laws. Whereas your american christian morality is everywhere, even in social medias user agreements. What I see here is narrow morality from people living in the Midwest and South, afraid of boobs, sex and God, trying hard to see abuse and porn everywhere.
"There's a reason in the Western world why 11 year old children are not able to enter into a binding contract, marry, go to a bar, drive a car, live without guardians, etc."
We had 14 years-old soldiers during the First World War, who lied about their age and identity to be allowed to fight. I don't think it's that pretty freaking simple. There is no magic things that happens into your head on the verge of your 18 or 21.
The point being is that the "religion" card you pulled out is a non sequitur.
Are you saying that 11 year old children should be able to sign binding contracts, marry, go to a bar, and drive a car?
yes, but why not go out and take photos of this real phenomena instead of posing kids who are not at all in that predicament (the opposite in fact)?
don't pose ten year olds to convey a message you want to make about childhood. If you want to address issues of sexuality in young adults or teens go out and take photos of real life instances. To pose a child in those ways to make YOUR point, or convey your message is about you, not the particular child. Meg is posing those children to look like that, she didn't catch them on the street that way - but you better believe that is out there in real life. It totally is. I do believe she is making a statement but she is using children as her medium and they are not able to really give consent nor are they naturally occurring photos, they are 100% about herself......
These children are too young to understand the consequences of what they are consenting to. How do you know that in 10 years, when they are in their 20's, they don't become suicidal because these images are glorified on the internet for the rest of their lives? Nobody can know the outcome of how these girls are going to feel when they are old enough to understand the context as to what their parents agreed for them to do...and that is to pose and dress them in a way that the photographer knows will create shock and generate visits to her site. Given that she hasn't explained anything at all (some made up diatribe about reliving her youth or some bs to try and back track) she has left her viewers to make assumptions, which in turn creates drama, and in turn clicks to her site, where low and behold, said controversial images have now been removed, leaving only small babies and bunnies. It's her MO. ..and of course people are going to post anonymously as said photographer and her lemmings are well known to try and contact employers to try and get them fired.
CAN WE PLEASE STOP CALLING SICKNESS EVERYTHING THAT DISAGREES WITH OUR OWN (often conservative, short-sighted and narrow-minded) MORALITY AND ETHICS ?
If you want to have a conversation on the ethics, fine. But mixing-up morality and medecine is super shady.
Maybe not sickness but artistically distasteful. It did not capture anything classy or thought provoking. When I showed my wife the above photos she had a glance and asked why these kids were lesbians? I personally don’t find anything particularly nice about these photos let alone calling them “art”. I suppose there are just too many self proclaim artists.
Bof. Art is personnal expression. It doesn't have to be tasteful, popular, beautiful or else. Having bad taste is not a crime. And, still, bad taste is relative.
Well like someone above said, if this was a man who shot these, and the girl twirling with her butt cheeks hanging out, you just might see him on the news with the cops taking him in, and seizing his computer to see what else is on it. Just saying, and you know its true.
I know. But this is another matter.
No art doesn’t have to be as long as it has visual, meaning, uniqueness. I would not call these art as I see none of the above qualities. She took some photographs of some poorly styled children that’s all.
Not if the federal law views it as damaging to a child. Then it's a crime.
Federal laws are only a representation of what "you the People" want to have criminalized.
YES CORRECT .... How we the people feel about social issues. In USA, we do not tolerate pedophilia.......... and what is wrong with that?
Thank God ... this is reality ... and the art world isn't the end all say all to what is appropriate. The majority of the world agrees.... taking advantage of those who do not have a voice is a crime. I am a citizen of the world before I am an artist. Therefor I respect my fellow humans before my craft. My craft is an extension of my humanity ... .it is not my humanity.
Can you please stop calling conservative, short-sighted, narrow-minded everyone who disagrees with your own morality and ethics?!
Can someone kindly tell me how to block someone on here? William Howell is excruciating.
I'm on the fence about the appropriateness of these. I try to be quite liberal about what is or is not art and in whose eyes and what is or is not appropriate.
As well, Meg Bitton is, in my opinion, a quite good artist. Her use of textures and colors, facial and body expressions, and her technical ability is spot on.
What is interesting to me though is how strong many reactions are, and supposedly in the name of preventing harm to these children. If these children are growing up in the U.S. they'll face much greater challenges that having done these photos for Meg will pale in comparison to.
Young girls in the U.S. are 5 times as likely to be trafficked as those in The Netherlands. Prostitution is illegal in the U.S. which seems a good thing. But it drives the entire industry underground and makes trafficking much easier. There is an inverse relationship between legal prostitution and trafficking, particularly of teens. The Netherlands, Germany and other countries with legal prostitution have the least trafficking while the U.S. is known for likely having the most of all developed countries.
Pot is surprisingly similar. One of these girls growing up in the U.S. is almost three times as likely to smoke pot and five times as likely to do other drugs as those in... Amsterdam.
These girls in the U.S. are over five times as likely to be killed by someone driving a car as a girl in The Netherlands or Sweden or ... Why are we not as angry with our traffic engineers as with Meg Bitton?
Somewhat related to this, a kid in the U.S. is much more likely to grow up to be overweight or obese and will experience many more quality of life altering ailments than kids elsewhere who walk or bicycle to school and other places more, get more activity in general, and aren't fed as much junk food.
Kids in the U.S. will be massively, in numbers and in harm done per kid, more harmed by their parents divorcing or separating than by having done these shots for Meg. IIRC, a kid in Europe is three times more likely to live and eat with both parents (married or not) as a kid in the U.S. and a kid in Asia 4 times as likely. Not all kids are harmed by their parents divorce or separation, but most are and quite significantly.
Is our righteous indignation with Meg misplaced? Do we have much greater issues as a society to deal with than if Meg's photos are or are not inappropriate?
Sexiness is not that much of a problem if both models are kids, but cigarettes and pot are just really stupid and dangerous, and I'm writing this as a consumer of both. This lady seems to be too woke for her own good.
"Sexiness is not that much of a problem if both models are kids..." THIS is what you guys are defending. Wow.
Get over yourself you puritan hypocrite. Not everyone endorses crazy american morailty.
I think some of these concepts are pushing the boundaries of what most adults would consider appropriate. Maybe that was her intent from the start. I just hope she's ready to be judged in the court of public opinion.
https://megbittonlive.com/ from Egypt About Meg .
One of the best she Has Soul it's more than Art and yo will never Understand the meaning of Soul photography .... Sometimes when you Go Deep in your Past you will understand the meaning of hers Photography . I will write Hers Name in the pyramids Stone as one of the best
This is Art. I am not support it but it is art and have right to exist
If this were documentary, it'd be interesting. Instead, it looks like simple exploitation.
I'd definitely agree this is an example of irresponsibility on behalf of the photographer and the parents. While nothing technically illegal is going on it is certainly pushing the boundaries of acceptability a bit too far.
I think the only reason Bitton is even able to get away with going this far is that she is a female photographer with a fairly large presence. Had this been a male photographer I suspect the parents would have all said "no" on principle from the onset.
dumb bitch
I understand being provocative. I get it; the adult demeanor portrayed by children; smoking, gazing out at the world with the apparent weight of the world on the shoulders, the child in the alley leaning against the wall, deadpan at the camera; again, expressing an adult demeanor, etc.
What I don't get is the sexualized presentation. The sexualiztion of the children, in my opinion, takes away from what I believe to be the interesting aspect of these kinds of photos. It lessons the impact.
The good and bad of our first amendment rights. I just hope no one try’s to censor someone holding up a “I LOVE TRUMP” poster or worse, beating that person up.
For those still clueless about what's wrong with Miss Pedo McPornface and her disgusting work, I'll just leave this here and go back to what I was doing...
this image I don't have a problem with at all...