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.
I think you've missed the point of Alvin's post... It's not the image he's pointing out, but the website the image is being circulated on.
Look again this is a pedophile site dedicated to her.
I hope these kids grow up and sue the shit out of her and their retarded mothers for allowing them to be a part of this. These mothers have NO sense.
I am a secondary school teacher and whilst personally I think children should take their time and not rush into adulthood, I know from hearing some stories that some 13-15 years old children do stuff I would never even think people would do this stuff. And certainly not at their age.
Weirdly enough, the stricter the parents are, the more nasty stuff happens. The nastiest shit happens in strict religious circles.
I think that most parents would go into cardiac arrest if they knew their children would to that stuff.
These pictures leave me with a rank taste in my mouth.
I think those things are absolutely out there and if you want to document that then go out on the streets and shoot street or documentary with the aim being to educate and promote awareness. To pose children who are actually not at all in these circumstances (ie: not living on the street, not cutting themselves, not prostituting, not smoking marijuana) and to do so with designer clothing on and make up with the aim being to create an aesthetically appealing and emotively enticing image is not the same.
shout out to meg for being creative and risky where most wont go there "controversy is an artists best friend" if she dont tell the story, someone else will ..
I don't like Meg's photos. To me they are over edited and devoid of those things that make childhood the most beautiful, what is real, innocent and pure. It is her voice she is expressing as a photographer and an artist. She is using subjects who are young children to communicate with her audience and while I don't believe she is crossing any legal line (the parents have given consent) she is crossing a line. These children don't have the ability to know exactly how their images are being interpreted and or used nor do they have the ability to fully commit to being subjects and all that entails. the parents are allowing their children to be used as a medium for Meg's artistic expression, but they themselves are not the subjects, it's their children they are allowing to be used this way. I find it exploitative for that reason. These children do not have the ability to fully comprehend how their images, these images, are out there forever and that they could conceivably be used in ways that are not entirely innocent. That is where I have a problem. If you want to do artistic images where the sky is the limit use consenting adults as your subjects, adults that are of an age to fully and completely understand what they are doing and all that entails.
At the end of the day, people know what these kinds of images portray if they admit it or not. I think the images are just wrong...however..there's nothing I can do about it no more than great grandpa thinking topless women in mainstream movies was wrong back in the day. Or my mom upset that Maplethorpe has a crucifix in a jar of urine or a photo subject urinating in another man's mouth.
Let's be honest, we are, as a society in culture, art, entertainment, running out of boundaries to test. We are on the last leg. Children are naturally the next limit that so called "artistic visionaries" will focus on try to push the limits.
As with the old saying.....History, indeed, does repeat itself
I actually like Mapplethorpe and all his hard core images. But again, he didn't use children as his subject matter...
Damn dude, why you showing your mom dirty Mapplethorpe? Just show her some of his still life flowers and make her happy. Remember, flowers are for moms, penises are not, mmmmk?
LOL...back in the day, we lived in Ohio, the Maplethorpe Exhibit in Cincinnati was big news and subject of many local TV/radio news and talk shows. Mom (and Dad) was appalled by the art descriptions detailed on the programs. I doubt she actually saw any of the images..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/25-years-later-cinc...
ha - she needs to open her mind a bit....hee hee. But again, these aren't children's bodies in Mapplethorp's photos, consenting penises of legal age only...
actually Mapplethorpe did one image of a naked child and that generated some controversy but it was a street image, not posed. At any rate he never did any children after that, his main choice of subject matter was adult men.
Yes...I don't think Maplethorpe did much with anyone not legal. He was a brilliant artist...his penis/urine stuff was not my bag...however his so called "mainstream" portraits make Annie's photos (in my opinion) look like polaroids. This is my all time fav: https://aliyamaqsood2015fmp.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/robert-mappletho...
outstanding - I actually love all his stuff and have read up on his life. So sad how his father disowns him. It's a sad story actually and his life with Patty Smith was also a bit on the sad side .....
Dale what about Sally Mann? Thumbs up or down?
I am not really familiar with her work. I just looked at her site. Just looking quickly, Sally seems to be more of an artistic-documentary photographer with a dark artistic twist (FLOABT). Some of the work is interesting.
It's like Jake Olson was channelling Mary Ellen Mark.
For anybody defending Meg, let me ask you this? Would you be defending me, a 35yr old male, if I had taken these photos??
Aaron that is a brilliant point....
I am always amazed at how parents allow their children to be photographed like that.It's not art, it's just "let's see how far can I go"
I guess I'm just really far out of the "industry" loop because I've never heard of Meg Bitton (or her apparent BFF Lisa Holloway who, from her comments on here, seems too self absorbed and vicious to be allowed around small children) before today. After seeing the pics in this article as well as what comes up in a quick google search, though, if she shot photos of my daughter and they came back like this, I'd be wearing Meg's teeth as a necklace. She didn't just cross the fine line between art and smut, she took a running leap over it.
"from her comments on here, seems too self absorbed and vicious to be allowed around small children before today" Agreed. Sad, these were once people I'd admired. Images and words live forever on the internet. As a parent, educator, photographer and HUMAN, I feel for these kids and the aspiring photogs that are (unknowingly) putting more money in their pockets. Give people an ego and a keyboard, and they let their ugly hang out all over the place. It's shameful
Me neither, first time I heard of her or her friend who keeps commenting here. Guess we did not miss much.
I grew up in a VERY relax and easy going family in a Mediterranean environment. Very relax...Still, I would never have either one of those two photographing my children. It is even more worrisome to see how many photographers follow her, purely for the fact that she uses (very) young girls.
(Not to mention parents who let their girls exploited, selfishly hope their girls will gain model status?)
Did not look too deep into her portfolio but it seems she never photograph boys..Or I maybe wrong.
Motti I was raised that way too. Here is the thing about the mothers who let their children be models to photographers like Meg and others today - many of them the popular ones you see on this site and social media. The mothers don't realize that anyone can take a photo of their kid and put it through an editing program with filters and vibrant colors to make the images you see being portrayed by these so called infamous mother photographers. ANYONE. If you know your camera, and even more so how to work your editing, you can create whatever effect you want. These mothers see these images with their child as the subject creating lots of attention and they equate that with success of some kind for their child (whether beauty or otherwise). Truth be told it has nothing to do with their kid's face, nothing to do with their kid's talent and ZERO to do with the photographer's talent. It is called Photoshop. If these mothers realized the truth about how impersonal the whole thing really is, and how it has nothing to do with their particular cherub they might wake up a bit and stop allowing it.
thus any photographer who claims others are jealous of her because she can utilize editing programs effectively to create results is really insulting the intelligence of all of us holding cameras
Well, to give Lisa credit, she is usually too busy dealing with her 18 kids and counting to get into this type of drama these days. So there is that.
clearly not busy enough
So I went on her Youtube channel and it seems she almost always uses elementary school age models.
This image is for her followers to see. Look hard at this think about it and the ask yourself if this is art. Did you know there are pedophile sites dedicated to her work? She knows this and is fine with it. I guess the Mums are too.
pedophiles will see sexual in any child image. Believe me. They can take a perfectly innocent picture and make it very sexual in their minds. My issue with Meg is that her subjects as children can not really give consent. That is my issue with them being minorities. She obviously isn't taking family portraits for the wall when she delves into telling stories with images that she classifies as fine art. My issue is that she is using children to make her voice heard about whatever it is she is trying to say. It's one thing to take family portraits, another to make a street image, and a completely different thing to pose children in a way that subjects them to adult themes.
she has images of a pre teen girl with full face make up in trending clothing and high heels holding a knife. What is she trying to say with that? Is she trying to make a statement about cutting among pre teen girls? Is she trying to advertise the clothing? Is she making a make up commercial for preteens? My issue lies in what is she trying to say. What is the statement and why? If she is using children this way to garner attention and likes for herself that meets the definition of exploitation.
Her pictures are intended to be sexual though. Her titles were sexual some men on her site commented sexually and she said NOTHING! They are not innocent pictures and then used for sexual purposes.
This image is for her followers to see. Did you know there are pedophile sites dedicated to her work. And she knows. I guess the Mums do too. Please take a long hard look at this page and ask yourself if you are fine with it because this is not art.
IF Parents have knowingly sign a consent form ...
These are more photos from her Instagram before she made it private. She should be in prison.
In prison? Really? Get a grip on reality, lady. 😂
If you still see nothing wrong with her work then I beg you to read this.
https://openlettertomegbitton.blogspot.com/2018/09/open-letter.html?m=1
I didn’t catch all of the back and forth on this. At first I just saw that Meg was being told to kill herself...etc. I felt bad but now I see I have a lot of research to do. The images aren’t in my wheelhouse as a photog but I couldn’t help thinking if I showed up to a shoot with my 14yo and Meg started directing her to do dress in one of those outfits [it would probably end right there because I think I’m raising a nun...my kid would refuse...she wears shorts under a dress...I dunno 🤷♀️ 😆]....I realize other girls my daughters age might not be as “prude-ish” as my daughter but I’m curious if they were uncomfortable but pushed through under pressure [parental or otherwise]. 🤔
I haven’t had time to read and process everything yet. I do agree though these images will live on forever on the internet. Other girls and boys will never let them forget it.
"At first I just saw that Meg was being told to kill herself...etc."
Worked for David Hamilton.
Huh?
Do you not Google?
take your Douchebaggery somewhere else....
AGAIN.... SHOUT OUT TO JACK!!!! You are fearless ... and we need more people in our fishbowl willing to shed light one these very serious issues!
Thank you. I felt it needed to be addressed, or at least discussed.
I dare any of you men, defending this photographer to death, to take your 8-11 year old daughters out in the middle of the night, dress them up, and pose them like this. For the first, I doubt you have daughters or you would be appalled at these images. For the 2nd, you know you don't dare because you will find the FBI or CPS on your door within a week. There is a term for people who take images like this...and it starts with a P.
Sign this petition! https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/633/406/523/
Dumbest shit I've seen all day.
It’s funny because thousands of people agree with it. Yet your only response is an uneducated remark. I don’t care about you, or what you say. She’s going down in flames and your support will have you following.