Pop quiz, hot shot: You’re a internationally renowned photographer — you’ve done shoots for album covers, national magazines*, memorable adcampaigns, and you’re good at making people look really shiny. You’re also a die-hard (and I mean die-hard — you once made toddlers cry so you could photograph them for an exhibit that obliquely commented on the Bush Administration) Democrat, and you’ve been asked by Atlantic Monthlyto shoot a cover portrait of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
What do you do?
If you’re Jill Greenberg, you jump at the chance — and hey, while you’re at it, you dupe the poor geezer into taking some “special” shots that might make him look like, I don’t know … a vampire.
There’s more (a lot more) at Greenberg’s official site, and they’re definitely meant to shock and offend (McCain supporters).
At first I have to admit to being unsure of what the controversy was. Skimming the headline, I thought, Uh-oh, somebody didn’t put those magic words, “photo illustration,” somewhere on the cover. (There’s plenty of wiggle room for editorial satire, thankfully.) But no, the photo Atlantic ran on their cover wasn’t the issue: It was Greenberg’s unused out-takes, which she repurposed for her Photoshopped political statements and are now spreading around the interweb.
Now that — that’s a problem.
As someone who designs a publication, I’m pretty stunned at Greenberg’s audacity and contempt for Atlantic. I mean, I send photographers on assignments on a regular basis, and if one of them pulled a stunt like this on our time — and dime — then that’s worthy of blacklisting. By taking the gig and then purposefully shooting the subject with the express purpose of making them look (more) like a vampire, you’ve spit on the trust that the publication has placed in you. It’s not her politics (or her Photoshopping skills — which are pretty damn good) that I disagree with, it’s her disrespect for the magazine that she has wrapped up in controversy that really doesn’t have anything to do with them. I feel bad for those guys, and I think their statement regarding the issue is fair. And then! She never really apologized either, only to say that it was Atlantic’s fault for hiring her in the first place, knowing what her personal feelings about Republicans were.
Right.
However, as someone who is incredibly annoyed at the vast number of photoshopped Obama pictures out there — many of them poorly crafted, racist, or both — I can’t help but feel like the cosmic scale has been tipped a little. And while she’s definitely shot her first, last, and only cover for Atlantic, there are enough sympathizers in the liberal elite media who will still keep her in their talent pools. So she’s not exactly washed up — this will probably make her more popular than ever (except with McCain supporters.)
Going back to Atlantic’s statement, I find it interesting that they denounce her “manipulated” images as though their cover shot wasn’t manipulated. I mean, John McCain just isn’t that shiny — nobody is. It’s possible that Greenberg achieves this effect through lighting alone (photographers, is this possible?), but I’m guessing that there was still a fair amount of airbrushing/retouching/Photoshopping going on. The fact is that everything you see in print has gone through Photoshop first, and everything gets minor adjustments ranging from brightness to sharpness. Notice I didn’t include putting a mouth full of blood-encrusted shark teeth in there — I think that falls outside the normal Photoshop procedures.
Googling around brought me to this video interview with Greenberg circa 2006 for coolhunting.com where she describes her philosophy about photo manipulations and goes into detail about how she got those poor, well-paid toddlers to cry. It’s pretty interesting. Plus: bonus Gwen Stefani cameo!
*Henry was the first person to show me this cover, and I still think it’s awesome.
This week’s Current cover story examines both sides of the battle that will soon take place in the Texas Education system over “intelligent design.” Basically, the way Texas teaches science is going to be up for review (all the subjects are periodically updated and tweaked to ensure maximum effectiveness) and the religious right sees this as their opportunity to make Texan kids even less proficient in science by pushing a creationist agenda in favor of teaching the theory of evolution.
It’s an interesting debate, really — just how do you compare and contrast two things so completely, utterly incomparable? There’s really no way for either side to win this argument, because their shouldn’t even be one. Evolutionary science is pretty much unanimously accepted by, oh, the entire world of scientists and other nerds who sacrificed their social skills to know what they’re talking about. Creationistsare in the minority — but they are apparently louder and more vocal then many scientists, and can bully their way into positions of power to push their agenda. Ironically, science nerds are traditionally unable to effectively counter a bully, and seem content to let these guys take their lunch money (read: undermining logic, reason, and facts).
Hey, Texan science educators: Gain some confidence, look Creationism square in the eyes and say, in the strongest voice you can muster: “Hey you, get your damn hands off her.” And yes, McFly, you should swear.
The Current’s cover story this week is an essay by activist Tom Hayden about how Barack Obama will cause and affect the progressive movement in America — and how Obama alone is not enough to create positive social change.
For the cover, I decided to subvert the typical red-white-and-blue-spangled look of most election coverage in favor of warm golds (a nod to Obama’s golden image) and other party-neutral colors. I wanted to visually juxtapose Obama the Myth and Obama the Man, and where those two converge. I found it interesting that Hayden suggests that, despite his historic candidacy (which is progressive at its core), Obama will invariably disappoint many liberal progressives since he will move closer to the center as the campaign rolls on. Thus, Obama’s larger than life shadow isn’t grinning optimistically, but rather more stoic and reserved, with a hint of uncertainty (it’s subtle, but it’s there … I think).
Anyway, read the article, it’s pretty interesting. This week’s cover in its completed form below (and check the lower left for some Brent Evans/John Cougar sleevefacing — more to come on that soon).
So why (and where) should we “VOTE ROBO?” Brian Villalobos wrote an impassioned treatise on why Paul Verhoeven’s 1987 sci-fi action masterpiece deserves a hallowed spot in the Library of Congress.
For RoboCop’s underground propaganda campaign I was inspired by the grimy, worn exteriors of the movie, or maybe a more colorful version of the urban wasteland of my favorite film of 2006, Children of Men (which should have won Best Picture that year, damn it!).
Anyway, the VOTE ROBO poster was created by local artist Beto Gonzales (partly inspired by Obey Giant’s Obama print), and the other posters and wall detritus are visual references to past Current covers that also had something to do with posters or flyers (namely, our Summer Guide and Music Issue). Look close for tiny “I Own You. Turn it Off!” stickers as well.
If you don’t think RoboCop should be preserved in the Library of Congress, you obviously never saw the scene below. Thought-provoking! Vote Robo.
Good morning, workers. The San Antonio Current’s Summer Guide is out today on stands and on the web, and I’m pretty happy with the whole package. Typically, summer represents a time when you can take road trips or fly to more temperate climates, but with gas prices skyrocketing (I predict it’ll hit $5.00 a gallon this summer) it feels like there’s an invisible oppressive force keeping our summer fun from being too fun. With that in mind, our theme for this year’s Guide referenced Chinese Communist propaganda: Despite the economic turbulence, global warming (it’s hot, damn it!) and outrageous gas prices, we want to put a happy face on the season. That happy face belongs to none other than Patty, editorial intern and all-around good sport.
I took the initial photos in our conference room, and shot variations on the same pose (we also tried a turkey leg and a shish kabob — thanks, Central Market!) but the watermelon really balanced out our makeshift Communist manifesto (thanks, Half Price Books). The book was key: It features prominently in most propaganda art; even better, it ties in with our Summer Reading List.
Pop in some clouds, doves, and extra-rosy cheeks and before you can say “Listen here, mao” — summer propaganda for the masses. Or, we could have just got this guy to do it for us. But where’s the fun in that?
A friend brought this New York Press cover to my attention today, which represents Armond White’s review of Sex and the City: The Movie. (I find it amusing that 33.4% of my blog content is Sex and the City-related, and I’ve never watched the show — except for the one where Samantha won’t date a guy because he’s too short.)
The question, originally posed by Jezebel.com, is whether or not the cover is degrading toward women. As someone who designs covers for a living (and once got attacked for putting a “topless” woman on horseback for the Current’s second-annual Texas Books issue), this is definitely a question that I am interested in.
Is the cover offensive? Let’s start with the imagery.
