So photographer Meg Britton did a shoot where, with the approval of their onlooking mothers, took pre-adolescent girls, styled them to look like hookers, and then placed them on city streets to emulate street walkers, complete with "tells" like rolled money stuck in waist bands or images like the one above that seems to be a john approaching several "ladies," vying for his business.
You know what? The photography is great, technically. Love the lighting, which is what really make a picture. Congrats. The concept, however, is inappropriate.
Evidently, one of the mothers objected to someone thinking the same way.
What was the purpose of this project? Please, don't tell me it was to "raise awareness" of sex trafficking. Plenty of photojournalists have done that, it does not need to be depicted "artistically."
Was it simply to outrage? Okay, super - you succeeded. And in doing so, not only compromised the outrage we should be feeling towards the sexual abuse of children but you have also disrespected adult sex workers.
Let me end with this: one of my heroes of photography was Diane Arbus, God rest her soul. At least she had the guts and integrity to go out and meet the people on the fringes of society, get to know them, and treat them with dignity while photographing them.
She did not exploit people to manufacture the fringe, and especially children.