First impressions can be important. And in this case, I almost fainted when I first saw this image in a recent New Yorker Magazine. A bit of investigation turned up that the photograph was by Annie Leibovitz — part of her study of people who work at the Peninsula Hotel (for the Peninsula hotel).
But all that information came later. First I had to deal with a serious case of the vapors because I could NOT imagine why a hotel would promote itself by advertising its abusive child labor practices! … Small, barely smiling, kids dressed in service uniforms and crowded together for a portrait. No silly props. No having fun. No joy on their faces. No explanation whatsoever within the ad. Just children seemingly forced into labor. One scenario that kept playing over and over in my mind was Kathy Lee Gifford’s almost comic indignation over the photographs of child laborers sewing her signature line of clothing.
Confusion prevailed.
With a very cautious peek, I turned the page. Helpful but just as horrifying. There I encountered the other part of the Peninsula ad: an image of an adult dressed in the same white bellhop (they called him a “Page”) uniform walking all sorts of over-bred dogs (well, he was actually carrying the miniature Chihuahua). Below that image was a rather small explanation that the children on the previous page are actually the offspring of Peninsula workers: “Our staff’s children pose as Peninsula Pages, a symbol of our celebrated tradition of graciousness, benevolence and warmth.”
How so?
For me, the dour tone of the photograph implied a lack of kindliness. Wouldn’t setting up college education funds be a better example of corporate graciousness? Benevolence of what sort? (Maybe the kids got to keep their uniforms?) And the warmth is… where? (Interestingly, another image in Leibovitz’s portfolio for the Peninsula also featured children, but this time they were guests… and although they were of similar age and ethnicity to the children in the “laborers” photograph, they are having all sorts of fun… a bubble bath, goggles, a beautiful scene out the window, etc…)
Despite the best efforts of everyone from school photographers on up, a picture of small children does not automatically reify any particular attributes. In the case of the image in the New Yorker, the photographer failed to imbue any grace, munificence and/or kindness into her image. And I think that because that’s what we expect when we see images of children, the absence is both noticeable and notable.
I don’t know who is at the core of this blunderous presentation of kids: the ad agency, Leibovitz, or the Hotel. But just in case it’s the latter I’ve decided that — should my family ever have the opportunity to stay at a Peninsula Hotel — we won’t be using their babysitting service.
(The entire Leibovitz portfolio can be found at “Portraits of the Peninsula”)
Allison Goodman is the author of The 7 essentials of graphic design (How Design Books, 2001) an entry level text for aspiring graphic designers as well as the graphic design curious. She has worked in the offices of Sussman/Prejza & Co., Inc. and Richard Saul Wurman. Currently, Goodman is a professor at the Art Center College of Design where she has taught since since 1990.
Ms Goodman, do you ever spend time with children that are not your own?
This is by far the strangest, most uptight interpretation of photographs of children and dog walking I have read in my whole life.
The group shot looks fairly typical of the several different expressions one would find on the faces of children in any given group.
The dog walking picture is just cool--and also evocative many past images of the dogs of the rich being walked
How does the third picture excape your horror? Naked, mixed gender children in a bubble bath? Shocking! This is the gross sexualisation of innocence! Oh no! What shall we do?!
On May.06.2005 at 11:07 AM