Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Food for thought:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/has- … ay-to-fame

interesting

Koryn wrote:
It's no different than what Andy​Warhol did, or taking music samples and "mixing" them in to other songs.

There is nothing new under the sun.

I would argue that those things are much better, as they recognize that they are indeed copies, and in most cases at least attempt to make a new and different work.

Not so much here. We've all made the same photo of another photographer we've never heard of by mistake. If you don't​ think so, it's just because you haven't spotted the first one yet. But when you make multiple photos copying the same photographers, that seems a little shady.

I'm not willing to call Shields out yet, because I know how clients are, and that most of them want stuff like what they've seen before - it's entirely possible these 'copies' are accidental, based on clients' request.

But he's on notice, as far as I'm concerned.

crx studios wrote:
Two things mediocre artists desperate for fame at any cost turn to when they aren’t good enough to get noticed based on talent:

#1 - They steal other people's original ideas (and pretend that they came up with them all on their own).

#2 - They go for cheap, tacky, controversy hoping to generate national publicity. Then suddenly they get to pretend that they are a brave, important, uncompromising artist standing up to censorship in a world that can’t handle the truth.

Looks like Tyler is working both angles pretty hard, but the jokes on him (and the suckers who buy his “art”). He’s still not very good.

On that note, I'm a little upset by the amount of hate Kathy Griffin is getting relative to Shields. I'm not making any moral statements at all about what is and isn't deserved, and I'm very happy to see others have been equally restrained.

But as a community, aren't we always going on about how the photographer is the creator and director, and the model is the actor? That model is selected(or the image selected to fit the model), and the photographer is the one that makes it happen - at least as is generally the consensus here, where photographers outnumber models in the forum.

Isn't putting all the blame on Griffin kind of like blaming the kid that played Anakin for screwing up the Star Wars prequels? Somebody still had to tell him what to do(or not correct him),  and there was still plenty more wrong with those films.

I'm not saying she does or doesn't deserve this shit storm. Ethics and the fact that I like her aside, she comes off awful naive for not expecting some sort of retaliation. But I'm a little upset that the guy that actually made the photo has barely been in the news at all. Even if everything were her idea and he merely pressed the shutter button, he still had to look at the image and think, "yes, this is an excellent idea. It won't come back to haunt me at all. I think I'll let my name be used with this."

Zack Zoll wrote:

On that note, I'm a little upset by the amount of hate Kathy Griffin is getting relative to Shields. I'm not making any moral statements at all about what is and isn't deserved, and I'm very happy to see others have been equally restrained.

But as a community, aren't we always going on about how the photographer is the creator and director, and the model is the actor? That model is selected(or the image selected to fit the model), and the photographer is the one that makes it happen - at least as is generally the consensus here, where photographers outnumber models in the forum.

Isn't putting all the blame on Griffin kind of like blaming the kid that played Anakin for screwing up the Star Wars prequels? Somebody still had to tell him what to do(or not correct him),  and there was still plenty more wrong with those films.

I'm not saying she does or doesn't deserve this shit storm. Ethics and the fact that I like her aside, she comes off awful naive for not expecting some sort of retaliation. But I'm a little upset that the guy that actually made the photo has barely been in the news at all. Even if everything were her idea and he merely pressed the shutter button, he still had to look at the image and think, "yes, this is an excellent idea. It won't come back to haunt me at all. I think I'll let my name be used with this."

The price of fame?
The joys of slipping between the cracks?

That's about all I can say on this particular circumstance without causing some sort of blowhard uproar.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I'm not saying she does or doesn't deserve this shit storm. Ethics and the fact that I like her aside, she comes off awful naive for not expecting some sort of retaliation. But I'm a little upset that the guy that actually made the photo has barely been in the news at all. Even if everything were her idea and he merely pressed the shutter button, he still had to look at the image and think, "yes, this is an excellent idea. It won't come back to haunt me at all. I think I'll let my name be used with this."

That's kind of the crux of things. While I'm definitely in support of artistic expression, I'm also in support of people accepting the consequences of and reactions to those expressions. The artist doesn't have control over these things and can't dictate how their work will be perceived. That's just life, in a lot of ways and there can be a huge difference between what we mean to say with a photo and what others perceive it to illustrate. There was most definitely going to be a strong reaction to this. I don't see any way that there wouldn't be.

I'm not going to endorse or denounce the fallout from this. The comments I'm making are commentary on what is happening, not my opinions on what should be happening.

Kathy Griffin is really the only one with a substantial amount of skin in the game here. Yes, there were several other people involved who had to be on board for this to happen. But, how is Tyler Shields really going to lose here? His stock in trade is controversial art and regardless of what any of us think about it, seems to be making good money creating and selling it. He has no public contracts that his behavior reflects on, like Griffin does with CNN or the venues that host her performances. He has no endorsements or really anyone to disavow him and make him suffer financially. The worst that can happen is that those who are angry about this will not buy his art or schedule a shoot. 99.99% of those people wouldn't have done that anyway.

His manager, her manager and anyone else who knew about this beforehand can likely claim "I told them not to do it," or "I had no idea this was happening," to save face. That is, if anyone knows or cares who these people are. They aren't widely perceived to have much, if anything, to do with this.

It's something that I've had to think about and I'm sure other models have as well: " Do I want my face associated with this?" Because, if there is a strong negative reaction, my face will be associated with it, while the photographer only has his name to worry about. As the photographer is not physically represented in the photo, even though he/she may be speaking through the model, it's the model that's perceived as making the statement for better or worse. It's the models face that will be remembered and the visceral emotions connected will be linked to the model. It's to be expected really. Faces are more concrete and real than names. No comment on the fairness of this, because life isn't inherently fair. It's just the way it is and something that anyone being photographed has to be prepared to deal with.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Again, I'm speaking of Shields here, not Griffin. Trying to keep this about photography. I already have a rant - I don't need two

I'd like to see him get as much crap as her - either by him getting more, or her less. Whatever you agree with.

The photography community not only lacks accountability, but it practically scorns it. And when I say accountability, I mean in all forms - not just a photojournalist lying about editing a shot, or a crime scene photographer missing crucial evidence. As a whole, we lack accountability for how people perceive the stories we want others to think we tell, and we lack accountability for the quality of our work. We do this by playing both sides of the argument; we 'make art' when we want our voice to be heard, and we're 'just' doing a job' or 'showing things how they are' when we face criticism. Most don't even know they're doing it. Example:

"Hey, look at my art."
"Well that's not very interesting."
"But that's exactly the way it looks.

So which is it? Are you making art, or collecting images of things you've seen? Are we supposed to judge the image on its quality and interest, or say, "Yep, that's what the barn on Route 18 looks like," and move on? We've all seen this countless times, and we know the answer is that the photographer wants to consider himself an artist, but doesn't want the accountability of being held to any sort of artistic standard; he just wants us to accept his work because he said so.

If I photograph all the shadiest looking parts of my town and put out a book, I should expect some backlash. Sure I'm showing things as they are, but I'm still choosing to photograph those places, and making the decision that they best represent what my town is like. Accountability.

That's what gets me about this, especially as I think about it longer. This whole thing is a perfect example of why photography isn't taken as as 'real' art, particularly at the local level.

The photographer doesn't want to be accountable for the firestorm his work has created, and refuses to step up and own it. He says he 'stands by it' but refuses to explain what it means or why he did it. If he just did it to be provocative, that's fine - take responsibility! He also implies it was 'his idea', but doesn't go on to say, 'which means you should lay off Griffin, because I would have done it with somebody else anyway.' He's totally fine with letting her take the heat while he plays Thoughtful Artist. Literally no accountability at all, beyond some trite crap about how he can't be censored, and artists need to stand up for their opinions. Not explain them apparently, but stand up for ... The idea of having opinions?

Meanwhile, the media is basically letting this guy off the hook because photographers(especially in an age of social media) shrug accountability so often that other people believe it too. Clearly the celebrity is the one that should be blamed, not the guy that came up with and made the image, because he's just doing a job.

The art community isn't calling this guy out nearly as hard as they should, because after years of seeing artists that actually had accountability take unfair heat for their work, they're on this guy's side as a First Amendment issue, accountability or not.

And lastly, the photography community (not you guys - you're great. I mean like DPReview, etc.) is letting him off the hook because we're playing both sides of the argument too, and it just seems natural to us. So we blame the celebrity, or both. Rarely just the photographer, because he's one of us.

If you're wondering why your local art shows feature plenty of paintings that make a statement​ but few photos, that's why. People don't take us seriously because we don't take ourselves seriously, and aren't even willing to hold our own to the same artistic and ethical standards as a woman who makes queef jokes for a living.

Not that we've all got to be artists, but come on ... Pick a side. This shit gives us all a bad name.

I have been playing live music for decades. In some cases, we created perfromance art with theater added to our songs - Jonestown Survivors comes to mind. We were not doing this to be Artists, we were doing it to get a reaction out of people. If we had been Artitst, most of them would not have gotten it anyway. At a certain point, I start to wonder if the art is the Art or if the "art of the art" is the Art.

I'm with you on the "Oh, that was how it looked" BS. I remember a recent critique where the artist brought a model to a certain location, had them pose in a certain pose and got considerable flak for something in the photo that was avoidable/changeable. I am being intentionally vague to circumvent a potential hoot-de-doo. The defense was exactly as you say "Oh, that was how it looked, I photograph what I see." Absurd, weak. The image was essentially nullified by an important detail that somebody was probably too proud to admit they overlooked.

On the other hand, I once went to MOMA in San Francisco with a friend to see the Alexander Calder exhibit of wire sculpture and  mobiles. It was awesome.

Afterwards we started upstairs to peruse the other galleries and we both heard a rather strained and discomforting grunting sound. Thinking it might be somebody in need of assistance we followed our ears to the source and found ourselves in a gallery.

It was a large open room with a high ceiling. Around the perimeter were on the wall and at appropriate height were hung vintage children's outfits - boy girl boy girl. Beneath each outfit on the floor were matching shoes. In the center of the room was a chaotic arrangement of vintage school desks, all alike. At the far side of the room was a vintage teacher's desk. The disturbing grunting sound came from a loop playing back from inside the teacher's desk. I suppose it played all day, it never stopped while we were there. At the same time, it was long enough to be difficult to identify as a loop at first.

My friend proclaimed the exhibit to be "shite". She said it was not Art at all and was not having any of it. I laughed and asked her "Where are we right now?" "In a gallery in MOMA in San Francisco."

I asked her to imagine the Artist pitching their idea for the work to the powers that be at MOMA and getting an affirmative. It had come to me that the "art of the art" WAS the ART and that some crazy weirdo had gotten this ridiculous exhibit installed in a rather prestigious place. That certainly looked good on their CV. At the same time, they had managed to go virtually unnoticed, certainly it never occured to me at the time to even look and see who was taking credit for this wonderful joke.

For some reason, the event in the title of this thread and the following discussion made me think of something I had forgotten for a long time. I feel there are certain parallels there. Certainly both were their own sort of cheap shot.

Or maybe I am just crazy too. But, you are correct, the photographer ran away laughing and totally got away with it.

Lieza Nova wrote:
I completely agree with you, Zach. I sincerely do. My intent is not to rant but, I spend 9 months out of the year writing science related papers and I have no idea how not to write without being matter of fact sciencey anymore.

I'm not sure how Shields can be called to the carpet, at this point. He's made it clear, at least in the articles that I've read, that he doesn't really care what people think of the photo or that he threw someone to the wolves the way he did. It's hard to shame the shameless. Should there be more accountability and should it be evenly distributed between the two of them? Absolutely! I just have no idea how that would happen, in this situation. Accountability ultimately rests with the person who needs to be accountable. He refuses to take responsibility and there's no leverage that can be used to encourage him to do it. In a lot of ways, this is like having a money judgment against someone who's broke. They've been declared wrong and they have a moral/legal obligation to pay it. If they choose not to, the best that can be done is to call them an asshole and move on.

Throughout my career, I've had a couple of artist/muse situations and uncomfortable topics were explored, sometimes with disturbing results. A large number of these images were destroyed (per an agreement that we came to before the images were shot,) not because they weren't good, but because they expressed ideas in ways that neither the photographer or I wanted to have to answer for. What we did may have been art. I certainly thought it was, but the disturbing aspects of it could easily take away from what we were trying to say. So, while I understand the desire to explore these things and see where they go, it has to be paired with responsibility and careful consideration.

This does beg the question though: Was this done for art or for shock value? Or both?

This is sort of what I was trying to say but much better written and using a better example to make it more clear. Thank you!

Lieza Nova wrote:
I completely agree with you, Zach. I sincerely do. My intent is not to rant but, I spend 9 months out of the year writing science related papers and I have no idea how not to write without being matter of fact sciencey anymore.

I'm not sure how Shields can be called to the carpet, at this point. He's made it clear, at least in the articles that I've read, that he doesn't really care what people think of the photo or that he threw someone to the wolves the way he did. It's hard to shame the shameless. Should there be more accountability and should it be evenly distributed between the two of them? Absolutely! I just have no idea how that would happen, in this situation. Accountability ultimately rests with the person who needs to be accountable. He refuses to take responsibility and there's no leverage that can be used to encourage him to do it. In a lot of ways, this is like having a money judgment against someone who's broke. They've been declared wrong and they have a moral/legal obligation to pay it. If they choose not to, the best that can be done is to call them an asshole and move on.

Throughout my career, I've had a couple of artist/muse situations and uncomfortable topics were explored, sometimes with disturbing results. A large number of these images were destroyed (per an agreement that we came to before the images were shot,) not because they weren't good, but because they expressed ideas in ways that neither the photographer or I wanted to have to answer for. What we did may have been art. I certainly thought it was, but the disturbing aspects of it could easily take away from what we were trying to say. So, while I understand the desire to explore these things and see where they go, it has to be paired with responsibility and careful consideration.

This does beg the question though: Was this done for art or for shock value? Or both?

My opinion is that this photo was done for it's shock value.

WisconsinArt wrote:
My litmus test for the world in general is the WWE. There are enough idiots out there who keep the WWE in business. Same goes for this photographer. When I looked him up I saw maybe three outstanding images while the rest were just not very good or unoriginal.

But there are enough idiots out there who keep him in business.

Apologies to any of you who live and die for the WWE. The lowest common denominators of the world are people too. :p

I think most people that watch that know it's bullshit. It's theatre, except the acting is worse, and the guys are even more ripped than your average actor. It's like The King and I, if everyone was Yul Brenner.

I think most people that look down on wrestling don't understand that the fans are fully aware it's staged.

Zack Zoll wrote:

I think most people that watch that know it's bullshit. It's theatre, except the acting is worse, and the guys are even more ripped than your average actor. It's like The King and I, if everyone was Yul Brenner.

I think most people that look down on wrestling don't understand that the fans are fully aware it's staged.

We know the fans know WWE is fake. Which makes it that much more stupid. You go and pay good money to watch people pretend fight and pretend soap opera drama?

Which goes back to the point of this photographer. All you need are a few idiots to be a fan of him and others will follow. There are hundreds of no-name amateurs here on MM who do better work.

But this is nothing new.

Zack Zoll wrote:

On that note, I'm a little upset by the amount of hate Kathy Griffin is getting relative to Shields. I'm not making any moral statements at all about what is and isn't deserved, and I'm very happy to see others have been equally restrained.

But as a community, aren't we always going on about how the photographer is the creator and director, and the model is the actor? That model is selected(or the image selected to fit the model), and the photographer is the one that makes it happen - at least as is generally the consensus here, where photographers outnumber models in the forum.

Don’t forget Kathy is a well known celebrity and a large part of her career involves being an outrageous comedianne within mainstream contexts. That is why she is so much more vulnerable than the photographer. He doesn’t appear to have much of a mainstream presence to lose.

WisconsinArt wrote:
My litmus test for the world in general is the WWE. There are enough idiots out there who keep the WWE in business. Same goes for this photographer. When I looked him up I saw maybe three outstanding images while the rest were just not very good or unoriginal.

WAY back in the day, I used to have some friends that explained the thrill of WWE. In their terms, it was a soap opera for recheck guys. It made sense to me, when they put it that way, but I've met those diehard fanatics and I don't quite understand it either. It goes along with an idea that "good" can be pretty subjective and it's interesting to think about In the context of the image that caused this particular shitstorm.

I do very much agree with you that most of his work is very unoriginal and pretty uninspired. I liked a few shots, but could buy them from somebody else who did the same shot and did it better. Lately, this has been a huge complaint of mine with film, as well. A lot of what passes as good has already been done and has been done better than the big name movies everyone's going crazy for.

Yet... People still spend money on it.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I think comparing Alice Cooper's stage show to GWAR's is a perfect example: both are violent and kill lots of people, but Alice plays the villain, and it's he that is killed. Multiple times per show. Similar result, and similar outrage from parents ... But we look back on Cooper much more fondly because his deaths served a purpose, and because even though GWAR was never as bad as their reputation, they didn't hold a candle to Alice Cooper's classically and Broadway trained writing and performing skills. It was a fun, goofy, shocking show - end of the matter. Texas Chainsaw Massacre with a punk soundtrack.

GWAR has been brought up, in the context of this image and actually issued a statement about it, which I thought was pretty funny considering.... Well, it's GWAR. I do agree with you about why Alice Copper got away with it more than GWAR did. Alice Copper was much more refined and nuanced about the brutality, whereas GWAR came up with new and better ways to be shocking and gave everyone the finger after they were done. The difference between Cirque Du Solieil and the Jm Rose Circus. Not to say that any of these things are bad or that they don't have a place in the world of entertainment, but there's a definite difference in approach and it matters. I like them both, for very different reasons.

Zack Zoll wrote:
And that brings us to how we call Shields out on the carpet, as it were.

We don't. We can't. But we don't need to defend him either, and we certainly don't need to blame the woman that was along for the ride. Not in his place, at any rate. He said it was his idea ... If he wants credit, give it to him.

At the risk of starting an argument, I'll mention that I really don't like Trump. I also feel that in a democracy, our leaders should be open to any and all criticism or imagery, right up to the line of libel. Sometimes, even past that line. So in theory, I shouldn't​ be upset about this work at all.

But I am, because I know that this is how chilling effects start. Shields has opened a can of worms, and he did it for no reason than to say, 'hey look, worms!' Again, if he were honest about that, no problem - the guys from GWAR never said they were The Beatles. Actually they did, but they were very obviously joking.

There are two important points here and this gets long...

I agree with you that there's definitely no way to really call him out or encourage any change but also that he shouldn't be defended.

I'm not overly pissed off about the photo itself. It's crappy shock art and... MM and other modeling sites are chock full of shitty art that's made for no other reason than to gross people out or piss people off. I realize that most people don't have exposure to this kind of thing that people around here may have. The aftermath and how the image has been defended piss me off more than the image itself.

It's going to he hard to say this without political undertones. I'm deliberately talking around parts of this point.

The photograph makes reference to a certain issue and bears a lot of similarity to images that this group has released. It makes what appears to me as a very obvious reference to it. Other opinions may vary, but art is subjective. However, the explanation that was given is that it was a reference made toward comments made about a female news anchor after a debate in 2015. I don't believe this even a little bit. The references to this other group are too spot on. The comments made were a long time ago and, while art doesn't necessarily have to be current, the distance from the event combined with the parallels just make it unbelievable.

In reality, these two people (they're both responsible for this, IMO) made a VERY bad decision to release shitty shock art. When faced with the predictable backlash, the only party talking about it tried to engender support by using hot button issues to excuse themselves from the controversy. That pisses me off. The difference with GWAR, who has mutilated effigies of every President since Regan, is that GWAR owns it. They do it to everybody and it's kind of their stock in trade. They don't make excuses for themselves or get self righteous when people get offended. They're honest about it and I respect that.

What sucks is that he's not the one saying this, after claiming It was his idea. He's not saying anything. He's not bothering to explain his thought process or his reasoning. If both parties stuck together and there wasn't such a huge difference in reaction, the situation may be easier to swallow. One party has lost a great deal, while the other hasn't. One party is holding press conferences, while the other is eating ice cream and doesn't give a single fuck. That's irritating and shows that the photographer is just an irresponsible asshole. Irresponsible assholes shouldn't be defended. But neither one of them is being honest about this or is willing to stand by it. I'm not sure which version of it pisses me off more.

As for who's ultimately responsible... the difference in opinion may partially be due to which side of the camera we find ourselves on.

Whether it was his idea or not, she willingly participated. Given the industry that she's in and her style of comedy, she wasn't exactly naieve about the potential ramifications here. It brings up the question of who's responsible for the outcome of a shoot and where culpability lies. I maintain that everybody involved in a shoot has the ability to say no. A photographer can look at a shot and say "No. I don't want to shoot that." A model can be in a shot, look around and say "No. I don't want to be in this shot." There may be gray area in other, more nuanced situations but... She was standing in front of a camera holding a ketchup covered decapitated head that looked like a controversial president. There's not a whole lot of nuance there and it was pretty obvious how that shot was going to turn out. She knew what she was doing and had the freedom to say no. I'm holding her to the same standard that I hold myself to. If an offensive shot of me is out there, I'm partially responsible for it. I posed for it. I participated in creating it. It's my fault too. And... There most definitely have been offensive images that I've willingly participated in.

There have also been a couple of shoots that I've walked away from. One that I walked off the set of. It was a shot that was commentary on the Terri Schaivo case. I guess I didn't quite get what the photographer was seeing or maybe he just didn't explain it well (probably both, realistically.) I saw the setup and what he was going to do and said no. I didn't want to be involved in that statement or be associated with it. I would not be able to defend that statement. He was angry about it and I don't blame him for being angry, but... I just couldn't say what he wanted me to say. Doing the shot and then saying "It's not my fault. It was the photographers idea!" would have made me an irresponsible asshole. I would have been hanging the photographer out to dry when I knew what was going on and endorsed it by participating. That's not ok either.

I honestly think that they were under the impression that people were going to like it and support what they did. The fact that there was almost universal backlash is likely not what they expected. Whether there should be this much backlash, whether it's proportionate to the role that each party played and whether it's fair... That's not something I can really delve into much more without potentially getting in trouble for political discussion

Zack Zoll wrote:
What we've done is start a new discussion with high stakes and potential implications, and the guy that did it isn't even really ready to have that battle. The art community ought to rally against this guy, because all he's doing is making it harder for actual artists to express actual feelings on the topic further down the line.

I 110% agree with this and this is really why NOBODY should be defending this idiot. It comes down to integrity. If he's not going to have any, it needs to be shown as an anamoly and a personal failure on his part, rather than being applied to the artistic photography community as a whole. I do find it interesting that his actions have this possibility, but nobody's concerned that her actions will reflect on the comedy scene. This is just a little tangent, but the how's and why's of this are interesting to think about.

Zack Zoll wrote:
This guy deserves to get shit on big time - whether you think he should be for his statements about the president, certainly for causing chaos in the art and photography world for no reason, and for leaving his partner out to dry. I hope he never gets a gig again.

He most certainly does, for the simple fact that he's an irresponsible asshole who obviously isn't invested enough in his work to stand by it. He obviously does shit for publicity and attention. He's the Kim Kardashian of the art photography world. People like that piss me off and I join you in the hopes that he's working the Walgreens 1 hour photo department in short order.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Lieza. First off, if you ever find yourself up here, or me there, we should have a beer - if only so I can learn from your example of how to talk shit in a totally calm, almost respectful way.

Seriously, well done.

It's science. When I started my degree, I learned very quickly not to get emotionally attached to ideas and theories, because the whole point of science is to prove them wrong.

Glens Falls is only a few hours away from where I grew up. I haven't been back in that area since... 04, I think. Every time I do, all of my old hockey injuries remind me that playing hockey wasn't the best idea, lol.

 

Zack Zoll wrote:
I will say that I don't think who has the idea matters normally - 'it was his idea!' wasn't a valid excuse in elementary school, and it's not now. The only reason I'm stuck on that is because by claiming ownership, Shields is pretending to be responsible, but not actually accepting responsibility. To me, that's worse than denying responsibility in the first place. I'm not saying I wouldn't be angry if he said it was all her idea and he just went along, but then there would at least be some Dumbass in there, rather than 100% Asshole.

I got that from him too. He claimed responsibility and then threw up the "I'm an artist" schtick, like it was some kind of an ultimate defense that should shield him from any and all criticism. Perhaps, in some or even most situations, it should. This time... I think it's those parallels with that other group that releases very similar images that are universally disturbing. There were 100 different ways that he could have done this and probably gotten away without much criticism. The timing and execution were an epic failure and something he obviously wasn't prepared to deal with. Unfortunately, nobody hasvanynway to make him do it, so they're moving on and thrashing the other party involved much more than she probably deserves. It's like joint and several responsibility and it shouldn't he that way.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Maybe it's because I'm such an enormous stand up comedy fan, but in an ideal world I don't think comics should be held accountable for almost anything they say. The nature of comedy is such that being successful often requires creating a persona - think Tracy Morgan, Stephen Colbert, or Larry the Cable Guy. George Carlin's biggest hit was all about saying the words that would get him banned from television ... and then he was a train conductor on a children's show.

I mostly agree with this and do believe that satire and parody are important parts of comedy. There are unacceptable target's and the concept of "too soon" that most comics respect. At least when I was growing up, the children of politicians and celebrities were mostly off limits and comics were called out for it. Jokes about Chelsea Clinton's looks come to mind, as she spent most of her awkward teen years in the public eye. Put the "other group" connections, who have been very active lately, with the fact that Trump has an 11 year old who was reportedly traumatized and it seems that too many raw nerves were hit.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I don't fault Squatty Potty for kicking Griffin to the curb. It's just business, and even a poop stool (heh) company has to think of perception and how it affects the bottom (heh, again) line - same for all the shows she was on or attached to.

Insert "career in the crapper" joke here. I certainly wasn't surprised that she lost endorsements over this. It's pretty standard when a celebrity screws up or a common person makes themselves famous for doing something stupid. Most of the time, it's temoprary and can be mitigated. Michael Vick is still playing football and still has endorsements, even after legitimate crimes that were exponentially more horrific than this image. But... He admitted fault, served his time and made an effort to make amends for what he did. He handled it well, from a PR standpoint. These days, that's all that really matters. Sincerity is secondary to hitting the right emotional metrics.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I just think it's incredibly unfair that some comedians can get away with this, and others can't - and they never know until they try. I don't normally agree with the 'If I were a man' defense, as it's usually a way to avoid accepting that you were in the wrong. In this case though, I think it's entirely true. And when she gets herself all done up, she's a very attractive woman as well, which makes it worse.

Which is why I was upset to see her post a photo of herself without makeup, horribly lit, and apparently intentionally so with her apology. I don't know if that's giving in or playing for sympathy, but either way I don't like it.

Personally, I think there were a few reasons that she didn't get away with this. George Lopez did something similar and didn't suffer much backlash at all. He released a cartoon drawing of a Mexican man (it's claimed to be El Chapo) holding Trump's decapitated head. There were important differences, though. He was not the person physically doing it, but had a perceived connection to the sentiment, by nature of his ethnicity. It was a drawing, rather than a photo, which made it less real and less viceral. It was timely, as it was in response to direct comments that were made about Mexicans. He also has a perceived right to comment on those statements because he is Mexican. Griffin didn't have any of those things working for her. It was an actual image of her doing something very graphic and didn't seem to have a connection to any specific event that would be relevant to her. Instead, it was a seemingly random attack on someone and a seemingly positive reference to a group that is universally hated. It has little to do with her being a woman and more that the timing and execution were horribly flawed.

The press conference also made it worse. Her first response was perfect, from a PR standpoint. She was contrite, she admitted her mistake and she appeared humble. This is likely the reason for not wearing makeup. It made her look like she was so sorry that she's been crying all day and so guilt ridden to even care about something as trivial as makeup. Had she left it at that and laid low for a while, it would have blown over. She would have had to pay some penance for it but she would have recovered. Doing the press conference, complaining about the consequences and claiming to be bullied... That was what really did her in for a lot of reasons. Especially the bullying part. That's what invited criticism that she's bullying children and prompted people to dig up her past words and conduct, like what she did to Sarah Palin and her children. Regardless of opinion about Palin, insulting and terrorizing a small child with Downs Syndrome isn't going to be funny. Ever. In any context. The circumstances surrounding the why's and how's of that that situation made it even worse. That, coupled with a comment that was likely a smartass dry humor quip about going after Barron Trump before anyone else does and she's now a bully that has a habit of picking on defenseless children. She has a proven track record. Whether or not she meant any of these things is irrelavent. It's all about public perception and, for the most part, she's being perceived as a bully who can dish it out but can't take it.

Perceptions are everything and more important than the truth. She should have left it alone after the initial apology. It would have been forgotten and, after some time had passed, a few self deprecating jokes would have smoothed it over.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Like you said, blame on all sides.

Also, thanks for letting me know GWAR weighed in - I had no idea. Funny stuff. They're way too over-the-top to be anything but a small doses band for me, but I always get a kick out of those guys. Regardless of how you feel about their music or their stage show, artists can learn an awful lot from them.

I'm the same way about GWAR. They're hillarious, but they're kind of a one trick pony that gets old easily because they're just so ridiculous. Whatever they do, the response is generally "Yeah, that's GWAR," and it allows them to get away with just about anything.