facto?antipodes bunching federally?sunbonnet upstream….

negation shrank Brigadoon Tory:verdure …

restorations silken!scrolling quested?scurried …

glare:photographing!wounded.estimates snipe

HOWEVER. I was not hired to do so. It was of my own political prerogative to create the image and market it for my own purposes.

What Jill did here was pretty much tantamount to breach of contract and misrepresentation. Her work is (was) highly regarded in the entertainment world. When she was hired to do the McCain job, it was under the auspices that her work would be of the same quality and magnitude as the rest of her portfolio shows. Hell, she did a really nice photo of Arnold S (our Governator), so why would The Atlantic believe she would do anything less? The fact is, she ADMITS to doing “less”, and not only that, she MOCKS her client afterwards with “See, you shouldn’t have hired me, because of my political leanings you should’ve known that I wouldn’t touch up and photoshop the photos as I do all my other photos” (BTW, I’ve seen her doing her “work”; ANY moron with Photoshop and a Wacom tablet can do what she does to photos…her photos are nothing more than just regular photos with heavy photoshopping effects; and actually, if you’re really good with the mouse, you don’t even need a Wacom tablet to do what she does). Another big problem is that she automatically ties in McCain with the Bush Administration because he’s a Republican. Way to go for seeing people for who they are and what they do rather than playing partisan politics.

But I digress. What Jill has done to the business could possibly be irreparable, because now potential clients will be extra wary about who they hire. I am anti-Bush and pro-McCain. Will that be seen as a hindrance to someone who wants me to draw up an Obama illustration? I sure hope not, because as much as I really despise Obama, I have drawn him with fairness and accuracy and without complaint. That’s called being professional about your work.

…Anyone need an artist? LOL… >_>

but some of the images are still up in other places. i suggest googling Jill Greenberg. You can see sevearl articles and images that way. be forewarned. some of them are pretty atrocious

“Nyaaah, nyaaaah, nyaaaah…I hate McCain, see? He’s a big POOP, so I’m gonna photoshop him and make him look funny, see? Hahahahaha!”

LOL, sorry, that was funny. “He’s a big POOP!” LOL!

OBAMA is the big poop, IMHO.

Just sayin’.

I have never seen America so divided.

Ditto. I thought this was 2008, not 1958.

Kind of like Journalism where you have independent journalist vs advocacy journalists (Naomi Klein is good example of an advocacy journalist).

In any case, these artists/journalists have opinions and our country still has first ammendment rights (Thank goodness!) so legally photographer has freedom to produce whatever he/she wants- CREATIVE Expression /freedom of speech. HOWEVER….

in my opinion, based upon common sense, the public needs to be aware of the fact that the artist holds particular ideology. If you try to pass off an ‘ideological-based’ piece of artwork into the commercial arena -AND-the media in which this artwork is presented is not known for satire or comedy or anything along those lines-AND…AND…you do not properly introduce the subtle intent of the message of the artwork to the unknowing public …then you are walking a razor-thin line between facts and propaganda.

Our mainstream media crosses over this line constantly-MSNBC,CBS, you know the gang…’

The New Yorker magazine cover is an example. The caricatures were well drawn and the New Yorker magazine is known for placing this type of artwork on its cover. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that this cover was a satire.

However,the Atlantic photograph is a different story. The ‘satire? political statement? is so SUBTLE for many, that the photographer’s ideological bent ‘slips’ into the viewers’s heads without their realizing it.

I remember thinking-as I saw some of those magazine covers in the supermarkets- how ‘desperate, nervous, eager to please Palin & her family were made to loook in those photographs while the Obama family was made to appear ‘majestic, regal,intelligent, down to earth.

Make no mistake about this whatsoever. This was done intentionally & consistently across the board.

This is All the doing of the photographers and editors AND possibly pressure from the advertisers and others.

the unknowing reader reads /sees this artist’s work-thinking it is objective in nature-when it’s not. Its propaganda.

We need to be vigilant to protect our first ammendment rights BUT we also need to be vigilant to shed light on propaganda so that the public can recognize it when they see it.

“Lets get back to work. Settle down everybody, lets get back to work.”

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/178233.html

Did any of you catch Obama 12 second ad in Texas during the primaries? The one about the USA government rounding Muslim families up in the middle of the night? It was on during the primaries. He may have been aiming it at Hispanic/Latina/Chicano but putting in Muslim instead. A two for one ad?

Excerpt from your post…
(P.S. Good post)

“Now, there’s a cop out. But wait, she didn’t stop there. She abused her professional access to McCain to shoot and photo shop additional photos of him and post to her website. Among other offensive images, her McCain portfolio includes one of him with blood coming out of a shark toothed mouth and the title “I AM A BLOODTHIRSTY WARMONGER”.