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.
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.
Then let her pose herself if it's "her story."
do the subjects know the story? Are they old enough to understand the story? Do they want to tell her story? Do they understand that their face and body at eleven years is being used to tell this story and that when they get to a legal age to actually be able to give consent to this it will be too late?
do they have any rights or because they are children can be used any way any adult, artist, parent, human wants...what the heck. Why not right? It's done in movies, right? It's freedom of speech right? Who cares. Grow up people, it's just an artist making a statement, right? No biggie.
Why are you replying to me?
I would suggest Fstoppers remove said photos of this site. In my view, you are unwittingly showing provocative photos. Not here to limit your first amendment rights. A request only. Most of the time I want mercy over judgment.
Unwittingly? How so?
Sadly Meg Bitton appears to have run out of ideas involving children. The girl in the red tee shirt & boys underpants reminds me of something a high school photographer might shoot in their first class of photography.
If this photo is the best Meg can come up with then a camera-less vacation is probably in order.
This picture would not encourage me to even look further at any course she offered for sale.
Forget the vacation. Maybe a career change that doesn't involve children.
WHY IS THIS STILL THE TOP STORY? MAKE IT GO AWAY. AT LEAST TILL YOU PLUG HER NEW FSTOPPERS DVD.
Btw, Canon announced a new mirrorless camera. Bump that story up.
Why? Another mirrorless fail? Yawnn....
Way more interesting than this article. And yes, another mirrorless fail. I wonder if Bitton story will be pinned to the top through fall and possibly winter.
Let's see how big of a sale she has now that she's getting the attention she craves. But if it's not interesting, what brings you back?
Is Canon's latest fail not giving you what you need? Maybe the X-T3 will satisfy you? Or do you favor the "small-format" sensors only? Remember, anything less than 8x10 is a crop, so don't feel bummed. We're all cropped.
Why does any of Lisa Holloway comments surprise all of you? She's a known flame thrower. Just ignore her and move on. She's an idiot if she condones the images in this post.
*do
Hey...your best reply within this thread. lol.
I have 10% grammar Nazi in me. ;)
cant wait to see "ARTICLE REMOVED UPON REQUEST". Guess F!stoppers is jumping in on the kids for clicks game.
Works for Bitton
OMG!!!! Have you guys heard the real news today!!! Check out the BEEF between Eminem and MGK!!! It’s a twitter tornado war over there!!! It’s awesome!
Whoa! The lead photo is credited to Kevin Gent. The headline and thread has NOTHING to do with the photo
Don't get him into this toxic thread by using his photo to illustrate the controversy over another photographer's work!!!
Seriously WTF is going on???
That's too bad, Lisa Holloway, your photography is great (or was, to me). Way better than Bitton's, which I didn't care anyway. It was something that inspired me. But now words were thrown and it went from bad to worse. Left overall a bad taste that won't go away. That's too bad.
Can we question Jake Olson as well? Since he's been encouraging the behavior.... That guy is trash.
But he sure knows how to work a gravel road
Um these images are no different than how fashion brads market products using kids minus the ciggires of course.
Looks like the debate has gone a bit feral with name calling and other petty insults and some should just take the conversation to this site : https://activistmommy.com/childrens-photographer-meg-bitton-uses-young-g...
I see where you are going with this. The author of this article lost me at "leftist". Although we may not all be in agreement (though many of us are) at the very least, we have neutral ground here to debate. If you want it to be taken seriously, we don't need detract from the issue and spin this into something political. And last time I checked, the ads for Gap Kids were not images of prepubescent girls working the docks in their skivvies and thigh highs, toting sex toys, booze, $100 bills and rolling papers
As a man I find these images extremely disturbing and if I were to have taken them I would expect to be investigated. They are highly sexualised. Two pre-adolescent girls in an embrace gazing into one another's eyes, some with revealing clothes and others smoking? I wouldn't let this woman within a mile of my young nephews and neices
Fstoppers peeps-could you give us an update later on this article-meg is Mia and I highly suspect she is being investigated. Would love to learn of the legal issues/charges she may have faced from this fall out.
I doubt she has legally crossed any line. If she has consent forms and the parents willingly consented then nothing illegal happened here. In a court of law what could be proven? Her intent? That can not be proven. She obviously doesn't see a problem with her images nor is she saying that they are putting the child subjects in a bad light, a pornographic light, or an inappropriate light. She doesn't see it that way at all.
in a court of law it would have to be proven that the subjects in those photos, who are minors, suffered deleterious effects from being subjects in those very photos - that conclusion would be hard to prove causation wise...