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 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.
This photographer is clearly exploiting her status as a woman.
She's become the female Terry Richardson.
brilliant Marketing and PR !! She has caught the attention and I suppose that was her intent. Mission accomplished - congratz Meg !! well done.
Exactly. Create the controversy. Watch the fire start. Remove the controversy. Play the victim (PTSD of course). Gain more followers. Have a big workshop sale.
A business model that would make Trump smile.
I have been reading these comments and some are getting a bit out of hand, and broad of the point due to anger... I want to touch base on the comment about "children play these roles on tv all the time. I don't see you attacking them". True, they do occasionally play sketchy roles that many disagree with, but what we have here is someone that continues to exploit children in a very perverse manner in hopes to gain attention/fame on the internet. We all would be fools to think this was not done intentionally. These tricks have been used for years by famous/infamous people to put themselves in the public eye. And look... millions that had no idea who meg bitton was, or that she is a photographer, now knows her name. We all know that in a few years, everyone will forget why she gained popularity, but they will still recognize her name. She will probably do something to donate money or help a charitable foundation and get back in the good graces of most... well, all except the people that didn't like her before because her lack of lack of morals and holier than thou attitude. Meg, you are a filthy human being with questions morals. You know this. We all know this. Lisa... not any better. It doesn't matter how good your work it... I think perhaps you should remember the old quote "the price of greatness is responsibility", because with the number of children being sexually assaulted/abused/trafficked these days, you would think you would use your abilities to bring attention to this issue without glamorizing it. On your posts (recent and past), you have had commentary from perverted older gentlemen. What do you think that was??? It was you... feeding the beast. Shame on you. I pray nothing happens to these children, or any children you have photographed.
And don't forget the "girls play these roles all the time" bullshit is just an excuse. I guess people forgot about the controversy regarding Natalie Portman in Leon: The Professional and her role as Mathilda. It set off a few creeper alarms and the director Luc Besson is pretty well known as having an attraction to underage girls. His "girlfriend" of 15 years old (Besson was 32 at the time) gave birth to their child at 16.
But I guess if dressing like a hooker with rolled up $100 tooters on the back of a Caddy is your ticket to LaLa land, then why wouldn't mom and dad consent? What could go wrong?
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/633/406/523/
So you guys post these disgusting images to further the sexualization?! So wrong!
Your outrage is a bit misplaced, but feel free to comment on the creator and her motives.
Oh really? How is it misplaced?
I think it's obvious, but if you need an explanation, let me ask you this:
Would the backlash against the photos be as great if you or no one here saw them? Or only if those who "subscribe" to her IG or FB group saw them? Don't blame Fstoppers or the author of the article. The fault lies with the one who decided to make and defend the photos as "art" when clearly their only purpose is to create drama, drive more followers to her sites, followed by the removal and feigned victimization by the creator. All of this while she promotes a sale of her workshops and other photo editing garbage.
You labeled these as "disgusting" images and seem to agree about the sexualization, so I doubt you're one of the Bittonites who support her junk. The attention needed to be made, and Fstoppers deserves credit for bringing it to a larger group. Being able to see the images is as important as finding out the truth about the "artist" and her purpose in making them.
Bringing attention to the situation is fine, but why show the images in doing so?
Because they are PHOTOGRAPHS? How else would you make a decision about them? Written description?
Are you seriously asking the question, or are you just an exceptional troll?
I'm assuming that, at some point, you've read a book and/or news article sans pictures that describes the given scenario. I know it's a crazy old-school idea, so it may be a long shot.
P.S. You have zero pics in your profile, so who is the real troll?
So a pic in my "profile" on Fstoopers makes me legit? Sorry, but your troll game is weak.
Old school? Well, aren't we just a trove of wisdom and knowledges. But, I do love a good troll fest, so let's try this again.
You made the statement that the photos were disgusting and promoted sexualization. So how did you come to that conclusion? Someone read you a story? Overheard a convo while stopping by the water-cooler at the used car dealership you work at? Hmmm??
No. You SAW the images and made a conclusion, but you want that option removed for the rest of us? I'll explain it again, and please take your troll suit off and give a valid response. I truly would love to read your opinion without some lame attempt at condescension.
These images were already thrown out to the world by the photographer, and I agree with others they do not classify as child pornography, but they are sexually suggestive, and clearly a very low class attempt at art. That being said, I also do not believe in censorship, so I'm very happy to have the photos made available for all to see and judge for themselves.
Beyond the photos is the motive and purpose from the photographer. Many have noticed her business method involves posting something controversial, letting the heat build up, removing said items, playing the victim (PTSD of course) and then gathering all the traffic that's been increased to her sites and having a big sale on her products.
And all of this done without concern for the "models" used in the photos, and the justification being "the parents consented." These aren't paying clients for some commission, they're a bunch of pre-teen wannabe models and actresses whose parents are just as responsible for the outcome as they were willing to put their daughters in the finest teen hooker outfits since the movie Taxi Driver.
Meg Bitton is not Sally Mann or Mary Ellen Mark. She's a mediocre portrait photographer who has no issue with exploiting pre-teen girls to drive business to her site. Girls who don't understand the consequences of something they did today coming back to disrupt or ruin their lives later. They may see themselves as "actresses," and just "mimicking mom" (as another Bitton defender put it), but others will see things much differently, as the past doesn't fade very quickly on the internet.
If she sees nothing wrong, then why remove them. Why claim a PTSD exacerbation and hide? Is she worried about all the trolls on the internet? Probably a legitimate concern, so why no concern for these girls?
Sorry, but Meg Bitton just proved herself creepier than Terry Richardson.
If you've read this far, then perhaps one final question. How do you consider this article to promote "further sexualization"?? I really would love to hear your view, as you seem to be in agreement with bringing attention to the situation, but yet seem to have some problem with the rest of us viewing these images. Why?
If my previous didn't make things clear, read this: https://boycottmegbitton.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/lets-talk-about-meg-bi...
explain how these images are disgusting ? In a society that allows media to publish gratuitous and obscene violence on the 6pm news every night , the the hypocrisy just drips out of your comment like most of the comments on here. I disgusted at the comments on here. There is no reasoned debate just load up the gun and fire explosive rounds with both barrels.
The disgust is not only about the subject matter of the images (glorifying teen prostitution), but the photographer's reason behind their promotion. She put them out for the world to see, and when the backlash started, pulled them down, claimed to be a victim, and is going to use THAT as a method for gaining business flow. THAT is where the disgust is coming from. To hide when you're criticized and show no concern for the "models" who are too young to fully understand, but they do have parents who should, so there's more than one responsible party here.
Does the media "stage" (like this photoshoot) the violence it reports? No. (I'm talking legitimate news, please don't go all Trumpy-like with "fake news" bullshit). Do you see the difference? If Meg Bitton took her camera out to any location where teen prostitution occurs and documented the girls and their lives, NO ONE would see the images as disgusting. But when you stage something, and play it off as acting, knowing full well the weird world web and what that could mean to the "models", her complete lack of concern (except for herself) is the DISGUSTING part.
"She claims she is simply depicting a normal child’s evolution into adulthood. You do realize this is a false statement right? These images are telling a story from her childhood on these very streets where she grew up.