JPG

103 responses

• 

  Maura Wolfson-Foster   gave props (9 Jun 2009):

  Can't wait to read the story. This is Fantasmagoric!!!

• 

  Brenda DeShazer said (14 Jun 2009):

  Excellent, let's reinforce the stereotype that fat people gobble huge quantities of burgers and sodas.
  You suck. Really. No, I mean REALLY. Whatever rationalization you use for this piece, you're still a creep for the attitude conveyed therein. This is not art.

• 

  Sean T said (14 Jun 2009):

  Yes, Brenda. It's pretty messed up that folks still take these cheap shots, when scientists have proven fat people get big from inhaling the wrong kind of air. You're a stereotype yourself, in fact, Brenda. The indignant semi-pro outrager who can't think clearly but still feels righteous. I love the "This is not art" comment, too. I bet the photographer is pretty bummed now. Nice going.
  Me? I loved this series. Speculative fairytale photography. Well done, vivid, and funny.

• 

  Russel Jones said (14 Jun 2009):

  I think Brenda was using Sarcasm, Satire, ..... something along those lines... at least I wish that were true.
  I am fat, it is from eating to much (and among those things I ate too much of were huge quantity of burgers and sodas!)... I can admit this (and am working on changing it). I don't understand why so many have trouble admitting they are the cause of their own obesity!
  This picture (and the entire series) are interesting, kind of depressing, and humorous all at the same time.
  I also think I have found a website to add to my daily visit list! :)

• 

  Dina Goldstein said (14 Jun 2009):

  Now Now kids...relax..its just my personal comment on today's fast food society. Art or not if it makes you think and dialogue then I'm happy.
  Dina

• 

  Francsico Gonzalez said (14 Jun 2009):

  haha Brenda is probably FAT

• 

  Sonic Russia said (15 Jun 2009):

  Brenda: Your clueless. You have major issues. Seek professional help.

• 

  Simon Windmill said (15 Jun 2009):

  Brenda has a point. I assume she's complaining that it portrays fat people as consuming *huge quantities* of food all the time, that's the issue. Eating a lot of bad food makes you fat, duh, nobody's arguing that - I'm just tired of seeing fat people being shown as lazy, stupid, or thinking only about food.
  However, Brenda and I are both guilty of jumping to a similar conclusion - that a fat person with a lot of food is going to eat it all themselves. The story of Red Riding Hood is that of a girl taking food to Granny, so why did we both assume it was all for Red in this image?
  I still think the "fatty with food" is taking the easy road and is thus the weakest image in this project, but great work nonetheless, Dina.
  (I had posted a little too hastily first time and deleted the comment)

• 

  Sonic Russia said (15 Jun 2009):

  Yes but Brenda's point is so obvious to anyone that can formulate independent thought that it's really tedious to have some one cramming it down your throat like that. Like I said. She has issues.

• 

  Sonic Russia said (15 Jun 2009):

  Oh and the phrasing "This is not art" is completely fascist, whenever someone says that, it's like a red flag. How can anybody tell others what is or what is not art, that's up to each individual to judge for themselves.

• 

  Katie Irvin said (16 Jun 2009):

  I'm pretty sure that people who are 50-80-100 pounds overweight are not this way because they're active, healthy individuals. I think you're entirely incorrect, Brenda, for claiming that stating that people who eat massive amounts of food end up fat and unhealthy is a stereotype. That sounds like an actual fact, to me; most people who eat healthy and who live active lifestyles where they exercise like they should are not morbidly obese.

• 

  Jessica Walker said (16 Jun 2009):

  I really enjoy all of the photos in this series. But to the conversation going on above about portrayals of fat people, and the causes, I think there's a middle ground between Brenda's comment and the objections to her comment. Large quantities of soda and fast food can absolutely make a person fat...but that does not mean that consuming huge quantities of food is the only cause of obesity. Health problems, genetic predispositions, all sorts of other factors can contribute to someone being overweight, even "50-80-100" pounds overweight, even on a diet that many would deem healthy and even with daily, intensive exercise. I think the juxtaposition of a fairy tale character with some of the consequences of fast food society is incredibly thought provoking. I just hope that everyone is not looking at the fat people around them and assuming they have a hidden basket of fast food causing their appearance.

• 

  Latex Lily said (16 Jun 2009):

  I love the series but thematically, again, I think there could have been a more direct commentary.
  Maybe Little Red is a hooker and the Wolf is her pimp. Maybe the Axe Man ends up being a John.

• 

  Jonathan said (16 Jun 2009):

  Hi all, to all of you so certain that fat people "did it to themselves," I'd like to actually suggest that the reasons they are fat are completely unrelated to what or how much they choose to eat or how much they exercise (and is actually as uncontrollable as one's height).
  Now, you are all going to scream at me that I must be a whiney fatty. No. I am a rail-thin adult guy. There is significant evidence that one's fatness is almost entirely determined by your genes. Studies of separated identical twins show nearly identical weight to each other rather than the weights of their adopted parents/family.
  Every person has a genetically determined weight, and it will naturally fluctuate within 10 to 20 pounds around this weight. Unless you starve yourself, your body will not go outside of this natural range.
  I present myself as evidence of this. I do not "watch" what I eat. I don't exercise much, if at all. I have a desk job. But yet, I have stayed within 5 pounds of the same weight for my entire adult life (over 10 years, now). And I am on the low low side of the "normal" weight range. I have never tried this, but I am confident I could eat only ice cream, chocolate, and soda for the rest of my life and not gain weight. I am also confident that someone who is "overweight" could do the exact same thing and not gain weight. There are many studies that back this notion up, but I present a landmark study done in World War II that looked at restricted calorie diets in regards to how the body deals with starvation (which is what any "diet" is, forced starvation). When the people in the study were allowed access to unlimited food after the dieting period, with no counting calories or anything, they returned to their natural weight. They did not become morbidly obese or even overweight. They returned to their natural weight. Here is a link to an analysis of this study: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-weve-came-to-believe-that.html
  Even if one accepts the above as true, one may argue that being overweight is a health risk and will cause you to die early. There is significant evidence that heavier people actually have lower premature death rates across all causes (heart disease, cancer, etc.) I know this goes against what everyone "knows" to be true, but the scientific community has compiled significant evidence that shows being lower weight is actually a higher risk of premature death. Here is a link to analysis: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-it-really-matter-how-your-numbers.html
  For all of you so sure of yourselves and so quick to judge others, I invite you to read some of the other Obesity Paradox articles on Junkfood Science. I used to think I was somehow the cause of my own thinness. I now know this is not the case, and I hope you honestly analyze what I've posted and give it a second thought.
  Thanks,
  Jonathan

• 

  Becky Gibson said (17 Jun 2009):

  Each of us have our own idea of what art is. Art should provoke emotion and create discussion. I believe this work has done just that, and there fore it is art.
  By the way I am over weight and I do eat too much of the wrong foods. When I change my eating habits and eat less processed sugar, fats and cut back on calories, along with increased exercise I loose weight. I have never been nor would I want to be a size 2, but I have felt better and have been able to do more.
  I find the photos both humerus and disturbing. Keep up the good work.

• 

  Michele Peraino said (17 Jun 2009):

  Love the photo... Little Red in the story was a glutenous eater who dilly-dallied her way to Grand mom's House... may be a power walk would have helped!
  Dina, great job on the irony and the ART is thought provoking!

• 

  Abe Seer said (17 Jun 2009):

  Hmmm, I sorta get this but not really. Especially since its kind of a response to Disney and a commentary on the current social climate...but in "Fallen Princesses" why is Little Red Riding Hood included? And I don't get the connection to obesity, the food was for her grandmother wasn't it? I think this would have been much better if Little Red didn't give a crap about her old Grandmother the way most people do today. Or if she were surrounded by "Wolves" out to get her, like one of the young female stars we see on TV. Some of these "artistic" pictures just seem less provocative and more stereotypical than the stories themselves. I mean, Jasmine as a terrorist because she's Persian? REALLY? Why not make her one of these ridiculous shallow socialites that inundate the tabloids instead? Belle getting plastic surgery? I could see maybe the Queen in Snow White doing that, but I think they should have made Belle be abusive to animals...that would have been hilarious! The point is, if you're going to make a commentary on the portrayal of these characters and place them in real life circumstances, they should reflect something about that character and not just randomly ascribe one of our many ills to them haphazardly.
  Disney's abuse of these classic tales is obvious and well documented, and it is true that this whole "princess thing" that has taken over young girls needs to stop. It is reinforcing and creating many generations of spoiled, shallow, unimaginative and unrealistic woman that create problems for themselves and the poor schlubs who date them. Add to that the glowing examples of Britney, Paris, Lindsey, Kim and whatever other Flavor-of-the-month "Mannequin" that the media is promoting this week...you've got yourself a recipe for the kind of girl who's ill prepared to live in this unforgiving world.
  Having said that, anyone who is SO influenced by a cartoon they saw and can't make up their own mind about anything is an accident waiting to happen. Although that's not exclusively a "little girl" thing and has little to do with Disney and its propaganda. Thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for their own actions should be the lessons we pass on to the next generation and not more "shock photography" that doesn't always make sense. But if we did that, we might actually make a difference and apparently nobody wants that.
  Oh well.

• 

  Claudia MacPherson said (17 Jun 2009):

  Congratulations on this series... Just the fact that this photo has created such a stir proves how poignant and provocative your ideas are.
  On another note, I work with 3-4 year old girls. Their obsession with princesses never fails to amaze me so I find these photos incredibly refreshing and moving on many levels.

• 

  Drew Clayton said (17 Jun 2009):

  Everybody's over-thinking the message in this piece. It's simply "What if Red ate the wolf instead of the way you heard it?"
  Personally, I love a milkshake to wash down some tasty wolf burgers.
  Excellent photo and concept, Dina.

• 

  Abe Seer said (17 Jun 2009):

  Ha! Wolf burgers! Are those high in cholesterol?
  I do think that Ms. Goldstein's pictures are very good and my comments are respectfully submitted only to illustrate my opinion and nothing else. It is critical so that we understand different points of view that a discussion be open to all without us tearing at each other like Ms. Hood's dinner.

• 

  Gini Liz said (17 Jun 2009):

  I think some Alix Olson lyrics are appropriate here:
  ------------------
  Little Red Riding Hood was walking down the trail,
  she was carrying the goodies,
  thought "They’ll go stale".
  So, she ate ‘em all up and that was that.
  Then, she threw them all up, fear of getting fat.
  ------------------
  People in this thread have some serious re-learning to do when it comes to body size and their own prejudice and stereotypes. Some commenters seem soooo self-assured that they can judge a person's behavior by their appearance.

• 

  Inés Duaca said (17 Jun 2009):

  Love the author's comment...
  relax.
  Great work...

• 

  alan cohen said (17 Jun 2009):

  What is art? My opinion is ultimately art is communication. Along with other forms of expression (speaking, facial expressions, writing, music) art is a way to transmit an idea from one mind to another. Some art makes such effective use of the chosen media that the idea could not have been expressed as clearly in any other way. The Blue Danube would be a good example. If you accept my definition, then you will acknowledge that communication is not defined by the accuracy of the information, simply that a communication took place. In other words, Ms.Goldstein could by wildly misinformed in her ideas on the connection between food consumption and weight gain but this doesn't change the fact that a communication took place. Of course by this definition alot of "art" isn't art since the only person who understands it is the "artist". If you HAVE to explain it to me then you didn't do a very good job.
  So to make the statement "This is not art" is clearly an emotional reaction to the message. The fact the commenter was able to determine (in their mind) the innaccuracy of the information only disproves the statement that no communication took place. Again, I understand that this is just my personal definition of art and I acknowledge that it is a gross simplification but I still believe that the "not art" chick is talking out of her ass.

• 

  alan cohen said (17 Jun 2009):

  Oh crap, I forgot. Great stuff Dina. I really enjoy you taking down the unrealistic stereotypes revolving around women, their appearance, relationships and the idea that physical attractiveness equates to "good person"

• 

  Jonathan said (17 Jun 2009):

  I respectfully disagree with your comment, Drew. You said 'Everybody's over-thinking the message in this piece. It's simply "What if Red ate the wolf instead of the way you heard it?'
  Your reasoning is exactly why I posted my diatribe yesterday. The title of the photo is "Not so Little Riding Hood" and it shows a picture of a heavy woman in the act of drinking soda and eating food. It seems pretty clear that the message of the photographer is this habit caused little red riding hood to get overweight.
  I am not overthinking the message. I am flat out disagreeing with the message because the statement this photo makes reinforces myths that have been resoundingly disproven for over 50 years, yet still pervade our collective "truths."
  What if the photographer had photographed an Asian woman and given the photo the title "Not so straight-eyes."? You would cringe right? You wouldn't blow it off as some commonly held fact. It would be a racist comment and extremely offensive. But the woman in that photo would be no more able to change the shape of her eyes than the woman shown in this photo can choose her weight.
  The misconception that weight is caused by eating and exercise habits is incredibly damaging to everyone in our society. Heavy people are that way naturally and can't do anything about it unless they starve themselves for the rest of their lives. That notion sells billions of dollars of weight-loss products and makes thin people feel superior and heavy people feel out of control.
  To the photographer: the rest of your series was so much better!

• 

  Jonathan said (17 Jun 2009):

  Finally, for those of you so sure that eating fast food makes you fat, I dare you to try it... If you are not already restricting your calories (and your weight is at it's natural level), try to eat as much fast food as you want (but don't force feed yourself, just eat when you are hungry and until you are full). I would bet my life savings that you won't gain more than 10 or 20 pounds, if even that much. You will not become "morbidly obese" if you are currently "normal." I am proof of this. I eat fast food every weekday. My BMI is 18.5. I have not become even normal weight. The last time I took a 30 minute walk was 2 months ago. Now, there are healthier things you should probably eat over the long-term, yes. But it won't make you fat.

• 

  Paul Yi said (17 Jun 2009):

  i admire your originality in creating your own photos....awesome work....your photos remind me of the Disney movie called "Enchanted" where the world of make believe is mixed with the world of reality....^_^

• 

  Paul Yi said (17 Jun 2009):

  all the comments above made me think of this famous saying:
  "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

• 

  VanDee said (18 Jun 2009):

  Good on you for speaking up, Brenda! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who have a great metabolism, or who learned self-restraint when they were tiny kids, standing in judgement on those who have weight problems.
  To those who start on fat people - so you're not fat. Does that mean you are a perfect person, with no personality defects whatsoever? And furthermore, what's objectively worse - eating too much food and harming your own body, or committing hurtful acts that harm the quality of life for other people?
  Fat is the "easy" scapegoat, because it's visible, but really, in a society where food is plentiful, what's the "crime"? Why so much criticism? If food were globally rationed you'd have a point, but it's not (how much food is thrown away unconsumed each day?), so why don't the thin people admit that their phobia is purely aesthetic not moral?
  What's so offensive about this photograph is that "Not So Little Red Riding Hood" is portrayed stuffing her face, not just with junk food, but with the food INTENDED FOR GRANDMA. Over-eating is equated with stealing: this isn't just an aesthetic judgement on fat people, it's a moral one as well!
  Fat people have it hard enough in a stupid judgemental society without having "art" that perpetuates these stupid judgements too.

• 

  Miss Miles said (18 Jun 2009):

  Ok, to be honest: I've skipped 2/3 of the debate because you guys are boring me. To be honest: I like it. And yes, I'm a bit tubby :) The entire series is pretty cool. That's my 2cents - no debate about it please!

• 

  Miriam Heddy said (18 Jun 2009):

  In her response, photographer Dina Goldstein called us "kids" and told us "it's just my personal comment..."
  Referring to those critiquing her work as children while taking on the role of calm, rational adult ("Now Now kids...") suggests a lack of respect for adult dialogue, and effectively diminishes us. In Ms. Goldstein's eyes, we aren't thinking adults responding to photos with a political critique on real issues that affect our lives. No, we're just children who need to be told to "relax."
  And of course Ms. Goldstein reminds us that this is "just" a "personal comment," a hedge that is problematic in many ways.
  Ms. Goldstein, as any thinking feminist would remind you, the personal becomes political when you share it in a public forum, at which point you have purposefully engaged and put your "comment" out there in ways that affect the rest of us.
  And why should we relax? In what ways has this photograph made the world a place in which fat women *can* relax and live in peace?
  Fat women such as myself live with ongoing, daily fatphobia. People see us and, yes, believe we are "fallen"--having failed to enact proper womanhood, which, in part, is defined through self-restriction, not taking up too much space, and through being childlike, passive, and living in hope that some prince will see us as beautiful enough to be worth saving.
  Unlike Brenda, I do believe this is art, but it is art that perpetuates rather than questioning existing prejudices that make it difficult for real world women to live happily with their human, non-princess-like selves.
  This photograph, and the comments of the artist, actively diminish the lived experience of fat women, and in that respect, I'd categorize this as a failure, even if it does provoke dialogue.
  Though perhaps something good will come of this if the artist sees these comments and reconsiders the way in which she has categorized adult women like myself as "fallen" without ever having met us.

• 

  Jonathan said (18 Jun 2009):

  Well said, Miriam. Thank you.

• 

  Juanita Johnson said (18 Jun 2009):

  I think that those who assume that people who are overweight are NOT active have a lot of narrow-minded ideas of what makes people fat. Might I remind you that there are skinny people in this world who are just as unhealthy as the morbidly obese. More than that, I happen to be a fat person who works out at least 4 times a week if not more, I eat healthy, and I'm on the go all the time. Sometimes weight is merely an issue of a poor metabolism. At the same time, I do see the irony in this picture. People who are overweight are automatically perceived to eat fast food all the time. I don't think it's about the stereotype; I think it's about addressing the fact that there IS a stereotype. There's an equal amount of people who eat fast food on a regular basis and aren't fat, so what do you say about them?

• 

  Desert Yeti said (18 Jun 2009):

  I think this series is a great idea, well executed, funny, and artistic. As for the obesity issue, I offer:
  "I'm a mother of two screaming babies living in a trailer with a lazy good for nothing husband and I find your portrayal of Snow White to be really offensive and not art."
  "As a professional woman in her 40s who's had plastic surgery, I find your satire of Belle deeply troubling."
  "As a high school cheerleader who has struggled with alcoholism since age 15, I think your picture of Cinderella is tasteless and not art."
  The point? Anyone can find offense in anything if they think about it long enough.
  Brenda, I'm sorry you're offended by this image, but the beauty of a free country is that you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. You're also assuming that the satirical humor was aimed at disparaging overweight folks...which I don't see as the case here at all...it's satire of our society and its ills, one of which may be society's prevailing attitude toward overweight people. But mostly, get over yourself.
  @Jonathan: If I wanted to discuss art with a nutritional geneticist, I'd go find one. This isn't the body weight version of the "nature vs. nurture" discussion, it's about art as social satire.

• 

  Jonathan said (18 Jun 2009):

  Desert, I don't get what you are saying. This photo made a very particular comment. I feel that this comment is unfounded, and additionally, harmful to our society. I backed up my position with well-supported scientific research to help others understand why this photo perpetuates a myth. What would you rather I do? Whine, go sit in my room and cry, just shut up?
  What is social satire if it is based on myth and conjecture? And I really don't think this piece was saying, "look at how stupid we are, we think eating a lot makes us fat, isn't it funny how wrong we are?"
  One can't make a piece of art with a very specific easily interpreted message about something that is false and then claim ignorance to the falsehood by saying, "but it's art!" No one is asking to take away the photographer's freedom to make this art. However, you can't post it for public consumption and be free from any sort of criticism or critical analysis.

• 

  Michael Hanna said (18 Jun 2009):

  I don't think this photo says anything that hasn't already been said, but I do think it was said here with a sense of humor and sarcasm. Maybe the photographer has some demons in her closet about expectations she had for the world- and maybe that's all this is.
  On the other hand, maybe she's like me and thinks that big people eating fast food in the woods is hilarious... never know!

• 

  Desert Yeti said (18 Jun 2009):

  @ Jonathan: This is what I'm saying: You have an agenda that has very little to do with discussion of this piece of art. Your agenda (forwarding the HYPOTHESIS that obesity is entirely predetermined) doesn't provide meaningful or thought provoking discussion about a fairy tale parody of society's ills. I recommend you get a blog, outline your position (links to reputable scientific evidence would be nice) and then just use a link to that blog in contexts like this so that people can pursue it if they wish. If, on the other hand, they'd like to have a constructive discussion about body perception, societal bias, and satire as art, they may continue to do so in the context of a wonderfully thought-provoking series of photos.

• 

  Dina Goldstein said (18 Jun 2009):

  I posted my series Fallen Princesses last week on JPG. Since then the project has hit the web and many blogs. My original intention was to share it with my JPG community...as the project is not yet finished.
  Without my consent the pictures have been copied from the site and circulated around the world. Ok now that this is the case I'd like to address a few issues .
  I'm getting lots of comments on JPG, some positive and some over reactionary. I appreciate the thoughtful input but feel that perhaps people are over thinking and projecting their own insecurities in their commentary. This is very prevalent for the Red Ridding Hood image which yes features an overweight Ridding Hood...
  I am interested in what my community has to say and what kind of photographic work their doing....but feel very disappointed after having gone to several of of my commentators pages and noticed that they have no pictures up of their own.
  This is photo community , not just a forum for discussion.
  Get off of the computer and get shooting!

• 

  Jonathan said (18 Jun 2009):

  Desert, I did post links to reputable scientific evidence. Not conjecture, real studies. Studies of hundreds of thousands of people. See junkfoodscience.blogspot.com for starters. I understand what you are saying about other venues for discussion. But honestly, would you have read what I had to say if I just posted a link? You probably would have just seen the image, thought "haha, she's fat because she eats too much. That's so true." And then you would have moved on with your day unchallenged to really analyze that message.
  Also, while I understand where you're coming from, Dina, I don't see how it matters if I've posted photos on this specific forum in order for my comments to be relevant. Are you saying only like-minded photographers are allowed to critique you? You have posted photos in a public forum. You made a statement, in public. I understand I am not critiquing the technique of the photo, etc. but I think it is closed-minded to discredit rational discussion because it might not agree with your views. What is art if there is no discussion of what the art says?
  Art elicits meaning differently for each person based on their own life experiences and biases. I grant that most whole-heartedly, yes. I have stated why this photo hurts me, and I've tried to help others reach a better understanding based on my life experience and research. I am not overreacting. This photo pains me, and I find it frustrating the number of people that dismiss that pain so easily.
  Dina, thanks for your time and thought provoking work. I look forward to seeing your social commentary in the future.

• 

  VanDee said (19 Jun 2009):

  Dina,
  I like the way you split the comments into "positive" and "over reactionary"! I always thought the traditional pairing was "positive" and "negative", but I guess that substituting "negative" with "over reactionary" allows you to dismiss criticism without having to think about why this photo has caused the reaction it has.
  "[P]erhaps people are over thinking and projecting their own insecurities in their commentary" - interesting reaction, for an artist! I thought much of modern art was designed to make people react, and subsequently to examine the issues raised? It sounds as if people have done so, and that your only problem is that you have received criticism for your facile and judgemental approach to the issue.
  When you placed this in the public domain, you opened yourself to the possibility of both compliments and criticism. Learn from that criticism - ask yourself "Why did the viewer misread my image in this way?" - and you may improve as an artist. Stick your head in the sand and refuse to listen, and you never will.

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (19 Jun 2009):

  For 99.9% of people obesity is a simple equation: More energy in than energy out = fatness.

• 

  Jonathan said (19 Jun 2009):

  Thrash, while you have not supported your statement in any way (what's different about the 0.1% you cite?), but anyway, I'd like to comment on what you have argued. By your reasoning, overweight people are continually taking in more energy than they expend, correct? We've all heard the "one extra soda a day is 15 pounds a year" comment. One soda a day is a tiny amount of consumption. Over a 50 year adult lifetime that equates to 750 lbs.! Where are all the 750 lb. people? The truth is the human body is incredibly good at automatically regulating its caloric intake. I think many skinny people think they are somehow barely keeping a lid on their own obesity by restricting their food intake, but in reality, naturally skinny people will be skinny no matter what they eat. Naturally heavy people will be heavy no matter what they eat. Heavy people are not continually gaining weight. Please see Kate Harding's Shapely Prose blog post for a good further analysis if you are interested: http://kateharding.net/2007/08/03/devouring-the-world/

• 

  Amy said (19 Jun 2009):

  1st -- Great job! I love the series!
  2nd -- I am enraged that THIS is the pic that incites such dialogue. While on another page there's Rapunzel who lost her hair from suffering with Cancer! Cinderella is an alcoholic! Jasmine is fighting in a War! For those of you who are insulted because Obesity was the focus of the photo, I invite you to read the comments on those photos -- someone called the Rapunzel photo "Hysterical". Face facts -- obesity is a CONTROLLABLE disease - no matter how you look at it it IS controllable. Cancer on the other hand, no, people suffer from it. THAT should enrage you! Not a fat girl photo.

• 

  Jonathan said (19 Jun 2009):

  Amy: please show us your "facts". All you have done is restated common belief. I have tried to reasonably and rationally debunk your "truth".
  As for your comment about the cancer photo, I offer this: My interpretation of that photo is, what is beauty? Rapunzel is known because of her beautiful hair. In that photo, cancer has taken away that "beauty" and we see the true, unique, human being beneath the hair. I think that is a strong message. We are all vulnerable, and at the end of the day our lasting impact shouldn't come from our looks.
  In this photo, we are shown a woman who has made herself unbeautiful (in our society's eyes) by her own choosing. Since there is significant evidence it isn't a choice, I don't find this photo to be very constructive and actually harmful.

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (19 Jun 2009):

  Jonathan: It is a fact that very, very few people have physical/genetic problems that cause them to gain weight while eating very little. A lot of overweight people assume they have such a problem. Most of them don't.
  Your reasoning re soda consumption assumes no energy usage. Have a read of this:
  http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/wecan/learn-it/balance.htm
  America has an obesity problem. It didn't have one in the past. The difference isn't caused by physical or genetic problems. It's caused by sedentary lifestyles and consuming too much. As other nations climb the wealth scale and move towards a rich, western lifestyle, their obesity rates also climb.
  It's time to stop excusing obesity and to start doing something about it.

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (19 Jun 2009):

  Read this too:
  http://www.endotext.org/obesity/obesity7.2/obesityframe7-2.htm

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (19 Jun 2009):

  And here is another view of Sandy Szwarc:
  http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/obesity_and_diet_the_first_law_of_thermodynamics.php

• 

  alan cohen said (20 Jun 2009):

  First I find it very exciting that any artwork can cause this much discussion. Dina you should be proud. AMY: Why are you "enraged" that this pic engages people so much? It makes perfect sense. Body image is a very personal, emotionally charged issue. The pain and shame associated with it can cut right to the core of a person’s self-esteem and literally destroy a person, inciting suicide. People will therefore fight savagely in defense of themselves without realizing it. Also Amy I find fault with your logic. I am not enraged at a hurricane that destroys a city precisely because there is no way to control it. I might get enraged over the very controllable response to it by our government.
  Are you implying that cancer or alcoholism are more serious, that THEY deserve more discussion than obesity? Which of the three kills more people (directly or indirectly) each year? Which one is more costly to our society, financially or emotionally? Which one hurts more, physically or emotionally? Which pain lasts longer? How do you assign a value to suffering? Whether or not you believe obesity is self induced the suffering is still real. The USA may or may not have brought the bombings of 9-11 on itself but does that make the pain of the American people of lesser value than a Tibetan monk killed by the Chinese?
  Because Cinderella is drinking in a bar does that automatically mean that she is an alcoholic? You are assuming a lot. I kind of agree with Dina in that people are clearly projecting a lot of baggage onto this picture. Great discussions but don’t lose focus.

• 

  Jonathan said (20 Jun 2009):

  Thrash, I don't find your links very compelling. I am not disputing the fact that the energy in must equal energy out. However, the body adjusts its metabolic rate based on activity. For instance, in your first link a table is presented showing calories required for an adult female at 1800 a day for sedentary and 2200 a day for active. That is a difference of 400 calories a day! Taken over a lifetime, that is over 2500 lbs.! Are you honestly claiming a sedentary person will gain that much weight, while all they have to do to avoid it is exercise? (for that matter being only moderately active will gain you 1250 lbs. over a lifetime, according to your link and reasoning) No, the answer is the body ramps up its caloric intake when the body is active to automatically balance the calories expended. You must restrict calories below what the body needs in order to lose weight. Going the other way, the metabolic rate slows as the body loses weight (goes into starvation mode). If you look at the metabolic needs of a naturally 150 lb person versus a naturally 200 lb person who has restricted calories to be 150 lb, the latter will need to eat far less food. They will always have to starve themselves while the other eats without any restrictions. That is a red flag to me. Is the human body really that bad at knowing what it needs? How did humanity survive this long, and if being naturally heavy predisposes people to an early death, why do we still have such weight diversity today?
  Your link with a critique of Szwarc attacks the writing style and implies she doesn't have a handle on the basic science. Think whatever you want about Szwarc, but the results of the studies she is analyzing stands. The information most interesting to me on her site is the information from the studies themselves. You did not show any study that contradicts the study links I posted.
  The information I found most interesting from your endotext.com link was at the bottom of the page. They state: lower rates of cigarette smoking in recent years have increased weights (since smoking artificially lowers it), and also there are now more people of racial minorities in the United States (many of whom are naturally heavier, since certain groups are naturally genetically heavier).
  None of the information you posted showed any sort of causation. It only showed a bunch of correlations.
  Getting back to the point of this photo. Please show me a study of actual people that finds eating fast food will cause you to get heavier.

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (20 Jun 2009):

  Link to study (PDF) which shows direct correlation between siting of fast food restaurants and obesity: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/fastfoodJan09.pdf
  Obesity - Its Many Causes
  Researchers mostly agree that an imbalance between the energy (i.e. food) consumed by an individual and the energy they expend leads to either weight loss or weight gain. However, hundreds of genetic and environmental factors affect how much we eat and how active we are. The challenge today is that the majority of our population consume more energy than they burn, making obesity more and more common.
  For example, research involving twins has clearly shown that there are genetic factors at play in the obesity story. Environmental, economic and social forces affect the development of obesity, especially among certain sub-groups of the population. The availability of fast-food products and changing family eating patterns, along with technological developments that decrease the need for physical activity at work and at play, are examples of how external change can affect the individual and their body weight. Researchers are only beginning to unravel the mysteries of this complex condition. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/20406.html
  According to CCHS data, children and adolescents who reported eating fruits and vegetables five or more times a day were substantially less likely to be overweight or obese than those who consumed them less frequently. About 4 in 10 children and adolescents (41%) reported that they ate fruit and vegetables five times a day or more.
  The survey also found that among children aged 6 to 17, the likelihood of being overweight or obese tended to rise with time spent watching TV, playing video games or using the computer.
  As might be expected, the likelihood of being obese was related to diet and exercise. Adult men and women who ate fruit and vegetables less than three times a day were more likely to be obese than were those who consumed such foods five or more times a day.
  Although other factors may be driving this relationship, the association persisted when age and socio-economic status were taken into account. However, because the CCHS data are cross-sectional, the causality of this relationship cannot be determined.
  Physical activity, too, was related to the prevalence of obesity. People who spent their leisure time in sedentary pursuits were more likely than those who were physically active to be obese.
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050706/dq050706a-eng.htm
  Medical reasons
  In less than one out of every 100 cases, there is a medical reason for obesity. Conditions such as Cushing's syndrome (over-production of steroid hormones in the body) and an under-active thyroid gland are rare causes of weight gain.
  Certain medicines, including some steroids and antidepressants, can contribute to weight gain. Also, taking the contraceptive pill and quitting smoking may increase your appetite. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Obesity/Pages/Causes.aspx
  The amount of food Americans eat has been increasing since the 1970s, and that alone is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US today [1]. Physical activity—or the lack thereof—has played virtually no role in the rising number of expanding American waistlines, according to research presented at the 2009 European Congress on Obesity in Amsterdam last week.
  http://www.theheart.org/article/970183.do
  Swinburn B. Increased energy intake alone virtually explains all the increase in body weight in the United States from the 1970s to the 2000s. 2009 European Congress on Obesity; May 6-9, 2009; Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Abstract T1:RS3.3.
  The article critiques Szwarc's misuse of science rather than her writing style. However, the way she writes does play a part in her misuse of science.

• 

  Jonathan said (20 Jun 2009):

  Directly out of your post: "However, because the CCHS data are cross-sectional, the causality of this relationship cannot be determined." Show me causality. You have only showed correlations.

• 

  Jonathan said (20 Jun 2009):

  http://www.theheart.org/article/970183.do was not a study of individuals. It was an analysis food supply and an independent look at weights. Again correlations, not causation. "increased food consumption was presumed to be the cause of the weight increase."

• 

  Jonathan said (20 Jun 2009):

  http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/fastfoodJan09.pdf looked at proximity to a fast food restaurant and weight. It did not analyze individuals. Not causality.

• 

  Jonathan said (20 Jun 2009):

  "and quitting smoking may increase your appetite." Are you suggesting smoking is better than being heavy?

• 

  Fig Taylor said (20 Jun 2009):

  Amy, unlike cancer and (debatably) alcoholism, obesity is not a disease; it's a pseudo-medical term that, in the hands of most lay-people is used to mean "fatter than I can stand to look at" or "fatter than I find physically attractive". While fat is correlated with some illnesses and might exacerbate others, it is not in itself a disease. However the medicalization of obesity as defined by the BMI scale, (a wholly inefficient means of gauging health), provides fatphobes with a "reason" to vilify, demonize, ridicule and patronize fat people for the alleged benefit of their health. As do images like this one, I regret to say. There is nothing remotely poignant or provocative about yet another image that portrays fat people as greedy; rather it is lazy, clichéd and, in a world rife with stigmatization and unexamined prejudice, harmful.
  Thrash Cardiom Certain medications, (steroids, for instance, HRT or some types of birth control), thyroid or endocrine disorders, (such as polycystic ovary syndrome in women), and insulin resistance, can all have an impact on weight gain, how and where that surplus weight might be stored by the body and whether or not it's retained, regardless of diet and/or exercise. Numerous other factors,
  such as poverty, genetics, disability, long-term illness,depression, extended deep sleep deprivation, (as experienced by sufferers of fibromyalgia or sleep apnoea), serial-dieting and eating disorders can also have an impact on body-size; as can a combination of several of the above.
  I think if you add up all the fat people that fall into these categories alone you will find there are substantially more than “very, very few”. Of course poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle can be contributors too, but these are by no means the exclusive province of the fat – any more than diabetes, high cholesterol, cancer or heart disease are. Oh – and the reason America has an obesity problem is because the
  World Health Organisation decided on a whim to lower the BMI figures denoting overweight, obese and morbidly obese some years ago, thus rendering billions previously considered "normal", (ergo healthy) "obese", (ergo unhealthy), overnight.

• 

  Kate said (21 Jun 2009):

  To start, Jonathan: My entire problem with your approach this.... it's art, not a thesis on the Obesity of the World Today.
  You keep asking people (ie. Thrash) for facts for every single statement made. It's likely most of the statements are statements of opinion and of fact.
  Art IS indeed intended to provoke thought, emotion, feeling, discussion etc but it shouldn't be ALL fact based thought. It's not what art is.
  Art is feeling and emotion and perceptions. The way Ms Goldstein presents these photos is HER PERCEPTION. Her creative, thought provoking outlet to make art and to simply create.
  Yes, it's intended to provoke ideas, thoughts, reactions, but anytime anyone posts anything, you demand facts to back it up. A lot of these responses are opinions and everyone is entitled to theirs.
  My opinion on your perspective of the reason you're not gaining weight due to your facts: You likely have the metabolism of a horse and are simply one of those people who just can eat anything and not gain any weight. I know a lot of people that are just like that though most of them don't have the same perspectives on society's weight problem as you do. They know they're lucky to be able to eat what they do, in the quantities they do. I've watched my friend's brother put away a 32oz steak, 2 helpings of potatoes, serving of other veggies, roughly 10 dinner rolls, and probably around a 2-liter of soda in one sitting and not gain a pound ever. It's nauseating on a personal level, I admit :) but it's how he's built inside.
  I am pretty much average sized female, not rail thin, not obese. I could exercise more than I do but my weight isn't a large problem.
  I think (OPINION: be warned, there is no fact in my statement, entirely personal thoughts and I don't plan to research my thoughts to prove I'm correct since it's entirely possibly I may be completely wrong on a scientific basis and I'm perfectly fine with that) that there are some people that have problems with obesity due to things like addictions to food, problems with energy, lack of motivation and sheer personal laziness or depression. I believe there are people that have problems with obesity due to genetic issues and metabolic problems, reasons more specifically to do with their body and genes and nothing they can control short or doctor's visits and medication and even then, may still just be out of their hands entirely.
  In contrast to the obese medical conditions, you have anorexics and bulimics who have a mental condition where they starve themselves to death. There are too many reasons for every person in the world to not be the picture perfect ideal of the "normal" person, which I personally think doesn't exist.
  People come in so many shapes and sizes and it's the beauty of variety.
  But now that my reign as Tangent Queen has ended, back to the photo.
  I think it's wonderful, thought provoking, expressive, the composition is great, the colors are great and keep up the good work :)
  
  I really enjoy this series a lot. Growing up with the massive princess phases (which I thankfully mostly didn't get addicted to--I don't really do pink lol) it's nice to see a creative contrast to everything that I'd grown up with.
  It makes me smile :) Great job Dina.

• 

  Jonathan said (22 Jun 2009):

  Kate, if this photo is not a thesis on the obesity of the world today, what is it? It is not just a pretty picture. It seems pretty direct to me. I keep asking for facts, because that is the only way to prove it is perpetuating a harmful message (and no one has disproven me, here, yet). What if this photo made a statement reinforcing a myth that a certain racial group has inferior intelligence (one that has generally been accepted by many majorities across history)? Would you be as blasé allowing that myth to perpetuate without demanding evidence? If the "truth" this photo portrays is so obvious and clear, why is it so hard for anyone to refute what I'm stating with direct proof? It would be pretty easy to do the study I am suggesting. Just have people use different diets. One eating just "health" food and one eating fast food. The message of this photo is so overtold and pervasive in our society it can't hide behind the art defense without additional evidence.

• 

  chris goodrow said (22 Jun 2009):

  First of all, Dina, I'd just like to say how much I really enjoyed your images. I found them both artistic, thought provoking and some of them even funny.
  Secondly @ Jonathan: This photo pains you and you find it frustrating the number of people that dismiss your pain so easily? You say that you've stated why this photo hurts you. I really haven't seen that explanation. I have seen you say that you're a skinny person and think you always will be. I was always a skinny kid and have always eaten a lot of food. I realize for myself that it was because I had a high metabolism. This isn't a black and white issue here. Some people have really low metabolisms and some people have really high ones and we have a lot of people that fit into the wide spectrum between. I've never met anyone who is over 300 lbs who eats healthy on a regular basis and exercises regularly either. Jonathan, before you have a fit, keep in mind that I said I've never met that person. That isn't to say that there aren't any. To put the blame of a person's weight solely on the fact that they have a high or low metabolism is a great way to take away all accountability for our own health.
  If a person, has a very low metabolism, while it may be difficult, they will have to eat much less and probably exercise much more than other people to attain the same lower weight. It isn't entirely "out of our hands". Before you get on me about my lack of research, I know many people that have gone on diets (which aren't all about starving people). Diets aren't inherently bad ideas. In fact, many diets are actually beneficial and do help people lose weight IF THEY KEEP AT IT. The same goes with exercise. I'd like to think that every one of us have known people in the past that have lost weight due to exercise. You can post any links that you want , but they surely aren't going to go against the experience I've had in seeing other people lose weight by dieting and exercising.
  While smoking does artificially raise your metabolism, I would like to think there are other reasons why people gain weight when they quit smoking. I'm also basing this on my experiences with smoking and quit smoking along with other people that I know. We actually tend to eat more when we quit smoking. It's sort of a substitution that takes place.
  Below are a few links since you find them so necessary. Please keep in mind that you can find links on both sides of every argument.
  http://www.endotext.org/obesity/obesity7.2/obesityframe7-2.htm (st. vincent health)
  http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/obe/obe_causes.html (national institute of health)
  http://www.medicinenet.com/obesity_weight_loss/page2.htm (owned and operated by WebMD)
  http://www.healia.com/healthguide/guides/obesity-overweight/what-causes-obesity (quote from there "Evidence suggests that there are only a very small number of cases of extreme obesity that are caused by genetic mutations in the system the body uses to regulate its fat levels"
  to name a few.
  While I realize that these links may not be quite as scientific or factual as junkfoodscience.com, but there you go.

• 

  Jonathan said (22 Jun 2009):

  Hi Chris, I appreciate your honest discussion. As for your comment that I haven't stated why this photo pains me, I don't see how I have to personally be fat to be hurt by this image. Plenty of people I love and care about deeply are hurt by prejudice just like that portrayed in this picture. Also, on a personal note I used to be the one arguing that everyone should be some ideal weight. I feel extra burden knowing I have contributed to others' pain and want to do everything I can to improve things for others.
  Based on the rest of your post, I think you misunderstand my argument. I never argued that one couldn't lose weight by dieting and exercising. I am arguing that it is unnecessary to do so for one's health, and that people, no matter what their weight is, are not in control of it based it on the food they eat or exercise they do or don't do (unless they choose to diet, obviously).

• 

  chris goodrow said (22 Jun 2009):

  Jonathan. While up to this point, I really haven't agreed with much of what you've had to say, you've at least made some sense. I've read the last paragraph in your last post a number of times and to be quite honest, I don't know what to make of it. It makes little to no sense. So, you never argued that one couldn't lose weight by dieting and exercising, yet you are saying that no matter what their weight is, they are not in control of their weight based on the food they eat or exercise they do or don't do? Those really seem like conflicting arguments.
  I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I just really don't understand that last paragraph.

• 

  Jonathan said (23 Jun 2009):

  Sorry about that, it was not worded that well. I'll try to clarify. My argument is that each individual has a genetic natural weight that the body will tend toward. The body will try very very hard to stay at this set point. If a person restricts the calories consumed so that they eat less than what their body is asking for, then yes, they will lose weight. However, their body will resist this weight loss by lowering the body's metabolic rate to conserve energy (starvation mode). Now, if one eats solely based on hunger cues (which is the body's way of indicating consciously to us how many calories it needs), then the body will stay at the set point it wants. This is what I mean by no one has any control of one's weight. What I am really saying is no one has any control of the body's weight set point. There have even been semi-scientific investigations that I know of (there may be studies of this, I just haven't really looked, yet), of the body's reaction to force-feeding (eating more calories than the body is asking for on a continuous basis). The upshot is that even then the body really ramps up metabolic rate and resists weight gain. We so often hear, "oh skinny people, they can eat whatever they want and never gain weight." My argument (and the studies I have cited) argue that the same holds true for people who are naturally heavier. Once the body is at its set point, in general a person that eats solely based on hunger cues will not gain or lose weight (diseases, drugs such as cigarettes, etc. can mess with this, I admit, but this is not the case for many people).
  Whether or not you agree with me, do you understand what I'm arguing?

• 

  Jonathan said (23 Jun 2009):

  The USDA has a done a study looking into the actual implementation of what I describe in my previous post. It's called Health at Every Size. Half of the obese participants were instructed to use a traditional diet to lose weight. The other half were instructed on how to learn to eat based on hunger cues and to get activity for the pleasure of it, not with the goal of losing weight. From the study, "Every Size volunteers had kept their weight stable, neither gaining nor losing a significant number of pounds. In contrast, the dieters had lost weight by the sixth month, but regained it by the 2-year checkpoint. Their beginning weights and their weights 2 years later weren’t significantly different." Furthermore, "At the start and end of the study, total cholesterol and systolic blood pressure were in the normal range for all the women. Within this range, however, the Every Size women lowered their total cholesterol and their systolic blood pressure and were able to maintain those reductions for the entire course of the study. In contrast, the dieters didn’t lower their total cholesterol at any point in the study. And they weren’t able to maintain the healthful decrease in systolic blood pressure that they’d achieved just after the 6-month reducing-diet phase."
  I totally agree on improving one's health. I just think our focus on weight as the sole indicator of one's health actually prevents positive health changes in real people, as this study clearly shows.
  The study: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar06/health0306.htm

• 

  Keri gave props (23 Jun 2009):

  Simply awesome.

• 

  Fig Taylor said (23 Jun 2009):

  Chris, as a fat person, I'll tell you and Ms Goldstein precisely what pains me about this image. We live in an era where aesthetics are considered to be a reliable indicator of health and health an indicator of morality. Fat people are ceaselessly portrayed as: lazy, stupid, lying, unmotivated, sexually repulsive, inherently amusing, self-deluding, smelly, slovenly, morally suspect, ignorant, blind to their own fatness, sick by default, socially irresponsible and, above all, junk food scarfing gutbuckets. All this despite the fact there are, as I said some comments back, numerous reasons for why an individual might be fat and none of them can be determined by simply looking at them. Regurgitating lame negative stereotypes with the aim of creating edgy art, when those stereotypes ruin people's lives and fuel bigotry and prejudice is unthinking, unfeeling and unimaginative.
  Fat people are human beings, no better or worse than thin or medium-sized people and, as such, worthy of equal respect. What's more, some of us believe we deserve it. I know. the nerve of me.

• 

  chris goodrow said (23 Jun 2009):

  Fig, my statement as to why this image pains you was directed to Jonathan. I was just trying to determine his motivation in all of this and where his pain fits into it. In no way is it my intention to minimize his legitimate pain or yours. I really don't see as how this image gives the impression that heavy people are lazy, stupid, lying, unmotivated, sexually repulsive inherently amusing, etc. Out of everything that you did mention, I suppose there is something to the "junk food" part of it. However, I wouldn't make the leap that it in any way is assuming that all heavy people scarf large amounts of junk food. Now, if we were to do a study, I think you would find that it probably would be heavier people that would be more likely to eat the portions that we are seeing in that basket. I'm a medium sized guy and eat quite a bit of food for a guy of my size, but don't generally eat those portions. I would think most of you would agree that if there were people eating portions like that, it is probably people of the heavier variety.
  I completely agree with the idea that the BMI chart is mostly crap. According to it, I'm overweight, but most people looking at me certainly wouldn't think so. It also doesn't take into account fat or muscle.
  In quoting the author, "I'm getting lots of comments on JPG, some positive and some over reactionary. I appreciate the thoughtful input but feel that perhaps people are over thinking and projecting their own insecurities in their commentary.", I agree somewhat with her assessment. That isn't to say that there isn't some legitimate discussion going on here. But, in all fairness to her, some of the perceptions of what her intentions are in this picture are almost as offensive of the stereotypes many of you are accusing her of. So much has been read into this image.
  Jonathan, on the same line of thought, your last post talks of something entirely different from what you and I were talking about initially. My post was in regard to the effects of eating healthy and exercise have on body weight. I wasn't mentioning anything about the health issues that go into different body sizes and weight. I did notice on your link to the "health at ever size" that the "diet" group didn't exercise as much the second year as they did the first year, which might have some sort factor to gaining the weight back, no? See, this is a study that has one group on a diet AND exercising while the other group is eating "healthier" and "physically moving more". So, in each group, there are two variables. The diet and exercise group weren't consistent with their diets and exercise. I'm not saying that there isn't something to the "health at every size" plan. I haven't done much research on it. It could be very revolutionary. But, with that being said, none of this has anything at all to do with the image. I don't think anything about her image implies her being unhealthy.
  To Dina: It is a shame your work has to be turned into this kind of controversy. I have to say, you're doing quite a good job of restraining yourself. I feel that most of the accusations toward you are unfounded.
  To everyone else: With that being said, I completely agree that there is much bigotry and stereotyping that goes along with heavier people. It was never my intention to say that what a person eats is the sole factor in a person's weight. That would be inane of me. However, I feel it is very irresponsible of any one of us to make claims that a person's diet and physical activity have no bearing on their weight. All that would do would be to take away any accountability in a world full of "victims" and people who have no control over any aspect of their lives.

• 

  Jonathan said (24 Jun 2009):

  Chris, I think you are taking a correlation and turning it into a causation. You say: "Now, if we were to do a study, I think you would find that it probably would be heavier people that would be more likely to eat the portions that we are seeing in that basket." Your underlying assumption is they are fat because they eat that much food, and they would be skinny if they just didn't eat the food (well, yes, if they starved themselves). All you have shown is a correlation. Based on the research I have cited, I would claim they eat what they eat because they are naturally fat. Can you cite proof of what you claim we'd find in your hypothetical study? I return again to my argument that correlation is not causation.
  As for the issues of health and weight, you are right, it is not directly suggested in this photo. However, I would argue, this photo does imply that message even if the photographer did not intend it (I'm not saying Dina necessary meant it, but the photo "says" it nonetheless) since the issues of weight, fast food, and health have been conflated in our society.
  I don't think this discussion is a shame toward the photographer at all. Is the artist free to say anything they want via their art without any further self-analysis?
  Your final comment is I think one of the most frustrating things concerning the whole weight issue in our society. You said: " However, I feel it is very irresponsible of any one of us to make claims that a person's diet and physical activity have no bearing on their weight. All that would do would be to take away any accountability in a world full of "victims" and people who have no control over any aspect of their lives." How can you be so sure of yourself when you have no evidence you can cite in support of it? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. You claim that you somehow have this moral obligation to enforce your ideals of supposed health onto others, but so far you have nothing to support this scientifically. I have presented scientific evidence that diet and physical activity have little to no bearing on weight, but you brush that aside with no supporting evidence of your own and claim moral superiority. That attitude is what gets to me. Why are fat people accountable to you? It's their body, correct?

• 

  chris goodrow said (24 Jun 2009):

  Jonathan. It is clear you have much invested in this argument. Speaking of frustration, it does frustrate me a bit when you continue to go on about your scientific evidence and entirely blow off the few links that I did mention in here. I actually checked out some of your links and made a few comments that you may have a few points. It's pretty clear to me you didn't make any attempt to look at the links that I mentioned that gave various factors to weight gain, food consumption and lack of physical activity included.
  I don't agree that the photo implies the message that many of you are talking about. Someone else made a post on here that made a damn good point. They made some examples of some of the other pictures and what people those pictures would offend. Her point was that no matter what the picture, someone at some point will be offended. I don't feel the artist was intending to be offensive nor was she "ignorant" and accidentally did so either.
  The picture doesn't show an unhealthy person at all. It actually shows a person taking a walk in the woods taking food to her grandmother. As far as we know, she may be drinking a diet coke, the food may be all for her grandmother and it very possibly could be a statement that, "see, even when people drink diet coke and don't eat junk food, they can still become heavy". It's all in the eye of the beholder and many of you choose to take offense to it.
  As you said, Jonathan, that is your right to see it that way. However, like I said before, I can't help but wonder on your motives.

• 

  Jonathan said (24 Jun 2009):

  Chris, I am sorry I didn't specifically comment on the pages you referenced. I should have, yes (I'm not being sarcastic). I did not address your links because none of them cited any sort of evidence and I had already addressed the points they raise earlier in this discussion. They don't prove anything. They merely restate common misconceptions. What evidence was used to arrive at these conclusions? That's what is needed to prove your point. Your links list many possible causes for obesity (energy imbalance, which I've already shown research countering this argument, lack of physical activity, which I have also provided evidence countering). The remaining causes cited by your links are: genes, health conditions, medicines, smoking, age, etc. which I agree with and are all supported by the evidence I have cited.
  As to your comment about what is offensive: how does the fact that other pictures might offend different people negate the offense people experience from this photo? As others have commented, if the photographer reads all this discussion that has happened because of her image(s), but it doesn't match the message she was trying to tell, then she needs to rethink how to better tell her message. Intentions don't matter. When we analyze this image, we don't necessarily get a separate essay or have a conversation with the artist. We only have the image. What the photograph "says" standing on its own is what matters. And in regards to this particular photo, it repeats very specific images we have seen so many times in the past, that whether the artist intended it or not, it has been interpreted by many people to similarly offend.
  You suggest an alternate interpretation of the photo which is intriguing: "it very possibly could be a statement that, see, even when people drink diet coke and don't eat junk food, they can still become heavy". If someone sees this image and thinks that, that is their interpretation. But in my opinion, if that is what the artist were trying to convey, they could have been much clearer. It is up to the artist to clearly tell their message via their images. If people misunderstand the image, or misinterpret what the artist intended, the burden is on the artist to refine their image. The burden is not on the viewer to set aside the offense they feel and say nothing in response.
  Again, I appreciate that you are honestly discussing this issue. You did indicate that what I posted might have merit, and that you needed more research of your own to reach your conclusion. When I disregarded the information your links, I am not attacking you. On the particular issue of weight and health, it just seems people (doctors included) have repeated a particular message so many times that is now held as undeniable truth. I have yet to see the evidence that led to this truth, and am interested to see it if it exists.

• 

  chris goodrow said (24 Jun 2009):

  Wow, this is going nowhere fast. I have a feeling we have different ideas of what evidence is. Clearly, we're not going to get irrefutable evidence just going by what we see online. I've cited legitimate and reputable sources that have made statements. You have given some sites that talk about some studies that were done. I could have a site up by the end of the day telling you about studies that I've done as well. One of the studies you talk about didn't sound like it was very well done to me. First of all, we're dealing with a very small sample. 19 on each team for the follow up panel? Come on. The "diet" team didn't even sustain their exercise level throughout. You also seem to be arguing against yourself here. I'm quoting this from the same study "At the 2-year point, Every Size team members had nearly quadrupled the amount of time they spent in moderate, hard, or very hard physical activity, compared to what they had reported at the study’s outset." Now, Jonathan, perhaps we're getting into semantics here, but moderate, hard, or very hard physical activity sounds like physical activity to me. So, we have a study that is working the variables of exercise and eating better, no matter what you want to call it. Speaking of semantics, I think we're also having some issues with some of the words that we are using here and how we are going to define them. You've used the words hungry, starvation mode, and full. My step-daughter is hungry once 6 hours has passed since she ate last. Let's ask some people in third world countries their thoughts on that, shall we? Then we start using the word "full". When I'm full, a lot of times I'm hurting. To other people, full may just mean they don't feel hungry anymore (whatever hungry means). You talk about how people's metabolism slows down when they do on a diet. Their body is probably used to having more food, but let's not make the mistake that it means the body needs the more food. Think about an alcoholic when they quit drinking. The body only thinks it needs more alcohol.
  What should we do about evidence, Jonathan? Hmm, I have an idea. How about I quote a few people in this thread?
  Quoting Russel Jones: "I am fat, it is from eating to much (and among those things I ate too much of were huge quantity of burgers and sodas!)... I can admit this (and am working on changing it). I don't understand why so many have trouble admitting they are the cause of their own obesity!"
  From Becky Gibson: "By the way I am over weight and I do eat too much of the wrong foods. When I change my eating habits and eat less processed sugar, fats and cut back on calories, along with increased exercise I loose weight."
  What? What's that, Becky? Are you telling me that when you change your eating habits and eat less processed sugars, fats and cut back on calories along with increased exercise, you actually lose weight? However could that be? Are you an anomaly?
  These are actual people, Jonathan. I think if you talked to more people that have done what Becky says, you'll find you'll get similar answers.
  Now to the art question. I'll be straight up and honest here, Jonathan, I don't know jack about art. I must actually be quite ignorant about it, because reading your last post is against what I thought it was. Apparently, the artist needs to change her message since we all don't agree on our interpretations of it. You make it sound as if the way you interpret it is the way everyone is interpretting it, Jonathan. You say that the intentions of the artist doesn't matter.
  You tell me that it is your opinion that my possible interpretation would need more clarity from the artist. And if I'm reading you right, it's up to the artist to clearly tell their message via the images. You state that if people misunderstand the image, or misinterpret what the artist intended (which the intention of the artists is actually unimportant here, remember?), then the burden is on the artist to refine the image. Did you see that, Dina? You have a job to do and you better get cracking. Maybe put some captions at the bottom so there is no possibility to misinterpret (or have a different interpretation, OMG say it isn't so). Like I said, I don't have an art degree by any means. Perhaps the artist can pipe in again. I would like to know the responsibilities of the artist and the viewer.

• 

  chris goodrow said (24 Jun 2009):

  Oh crap. I just read the terms of use for discussion. One of the rules is to "Keep things succinct. Comments should be relatively short and to the point." Sorry everyone. I should have read those first.

• 

  Jonathan said (24 Jun 2009):

  I never said Dina HAD to refine her image. I just said, if she reads this discussion and feels people have misinterpreted her, then she should ask the question, why was my message not clear enough? If she reads this discussion and says, yes, people are interpreting what I meant correctly (and Dina has said what she meant, directly, herself in her comments above: "fast food makes us fat") then she doesn't need to do anything, but should be open to discussion looking into her statement.
  Also, evidence to me is direct proof, A caused B. Evidence to me is not a summary stating "this is what's true." To take a quote from your "evidence": "People who are inactive are more likely to gain weight because they don’t burn up the calories that they take in from food and drinks." How did the author arrive at that conclusion? The author did not perform a study themselves, and they did not cite other work that, say for instance, actually analyzed real people carefully to see what happens to their weight with change in exercise level.
  You keep bringing up the dieters in the Health at Every Size study and say they just didn't keep up their exercise, they just didn't have the will power. That to me indicates the extreme resistance the body gives to forcing it to lose weight. How many people actually keep weight off after dieting? Very very few. The people that exercised for the sake of exercising actually kept activity level up. That to me is a very positive result. Also, you keep failing to acknowledge that the Every Size members didn't actually lose any weight, even after quadrupling their activity level. That seems to directly contradict the "evidence" from the web page you cited and which I quoted above.
  Your analogy with alcohol is flawed in that the body needs food to survive. Alcohol is not needed to survive, and furthermore is a drug that alters the normal operation of the body.
  Please don't start the argument about starving kids in Africa. That is a completely separate issue and to blame fat people for the starvation of others is pretty poor taste. Do you think Michael Phelps shouldn't eat 7000 or 10000 (or however many he has to eat) calories a day to maintain his swimming career? Following your reasoning, why should skinny people be able to eat all they want, but yet you judge fat people for "stealing food from children." The conclusion I would draw from your argument is we should all reduce our caloric intake, skinny or fat. Why is your idea of ideal weight the "proper" amount of consumption?
  Finally, I think the quotes from people who are fat are still not evidence. They have been told by society why they are fat ad nauseum and now they actually believe it is true. That is not proof that eating "bad" food actually made them fat. It is just further evidence how insidious this issue has become. For that matter, society told/tells me I am skinny because I am careful what I eat and only eat "good" foods. That is total crap, as I have commented above.

• 

  chris goodrow said (24 Jun 2009):

  Very true, Jonathan. The "study" did indicate that the people who exercised for the sake of exercising actually did not lose weight. I never denied that. What I did mention is the fact that there were two variables in this study. Essentially diet and exercise. I don't care what names you give them, Jonathan, what the participants were doing in each sample were a type of diet and a type of exercise. I really didn't see the specifics of either, to tell you the truth. It could be very well that the "Every size" sample had what might be considered a poor diet as far as losing weight goes. Who knows? There were some results taken from the study, but there is no way to determine whether it had to do with the exercise issue or the diet issue. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? There were too many variables to come up with a good conclusion on that.
  Actually, my analogy with alcohol isn't necessarily flawed at all. As a matter of fact, if you drank one beer a day for thirty years and then stopped all of a sudden, there probably wouldn't be any withdrawal symptoms. If you feel it is that important to prove that as well, I'll look into it, just not on my work break. My analogy is that when a person eats less than he's used to, the body goes into a sort of withdrawal as well. That doesn't mean the body is going to suffer long term. It also isn't the body saying I need that much consumption to sustain me for the rest of my life.
  You're totally reading into what I had to say about Africa and I have to admit, that really ticks me off. The only point I was making there was what the definition of "hungry" is. When many people use that term over in the United States, it can mean different things. It might just mean that it's about meal time or it could mean I'm feeling weak, I could probably use some food. Or, it could more mean the traditional sense of the meaning, like the hungry people in third world countries. I didn't mean in any way to blame fat people or anyone else for taking food out of the mouths of hungry people. The food that doesn't get eaten here isn't going to Africa anyway. Do you see how you totally twisted around what I said there, Jonathan?
  So, the quotes from people who are fat are still not evidence? One of them actually GD said that when she cuts back on calories, eats less processed sugars,and fats along with increased exercise, she loses weight. That isn't society telling her crap. That is "A caused B"! She did what we're talking about and had specific results, just likes millions of other people in the country have done. The issue isn't so much that diet and exercise don't work, it's usually more the fact that people don't generally work the diet and exercise. Couple that along with issues people have leading to obsessions with food and there you go. People will turn to food to feel better about themselves and then regret and despair tend to come from that. This is from people that I've actually talked to, Jonathan. It's not from a study or numbers. These are actualy people.
  May I quote you? "You will not become "morbidly obese" if you are currently "normal." I am proof of this. I eat fast food every weekday. My BMI is 18.5. I have not become even normal weight. The last time I took a 30 minute walk was 2 months ago"
  You said you are proof of this. It's pretty interesting to me that when you have people on the opposite side of your argument, they aren't proof enough for you, but in your case, we should cite your experience as solid evidence? Try some consistency in your arguments, please. You stated something similar in another one of your posts. You also go on to say "I have never tried this, but I am confident I could eat only ice cream, chocolate, and soda for the rest of my life and not gain weight." Now how come when someone else doesn't have significant evidence for anything they have to say, you're on them, yet you're quite allowed to do it yourself.
  You also said, "I dare you to try it... If you are not already restricting your calories (and your weight is at it's natural level), try to eat as much fast food as you want (but don't force feed yourself, just eat when you are hungry and until you are full). I would bet my life savings that you won't gain more than 10 or 20 pounds, if even that much. " I'll take that bet in an instant.
  I apologize again for being less than succinct. I, like Jonathan, just can hardly help myself.

• 

  Jonathan said (24 Jun 2009):

  Chris, I apologize for putting words into your mouth on the hunger issue, and I did read too much into what you were saying. To answer your question about hunger, I would say it is a conscious indication from the body that it would like something to eat. The feeling of full to me is the body saying, I am satisfied, I am not bursting at the seams, but I am satisfied. I don't need any more food at this point in time to be happy. Understanding these cues does take some relearning as many of us have been taught to restrict our food intake and ignore the natural cues.
  To discuss the issue of personal experience as valid proof, I offer this: you keep returning to the question of whether someone can lose weight if they try hard enough (that is not really what I am arguing against). Some of the people quoted said, "if I cut back on what I eat, I lost weight." I totally believe that to be a true statement (and even myself, already skinny could lose weight if I consciously restricted how much I eat). But that does not automatically imply the reverse: that they became fat because they overate or because they ate the wrong foods. Their body wanted to be a certain weight, so provided hunger cues to take in the proper amount of food to maintain the body's desired weight set point. When I claim myself as proof, it is a different situation. I am specifically saying: "I eat fast food, and I don't gain weight." This photo says: "eat fast food and you will be overweight like this woman." My claim directly contradicts the statement of the photo, which is why it is valid proof. If this photo argued, "no one can lose weight, even if they try," then the comment you quoted would be valid proof, because it directly contradicts the original statement. Do you see the distinction I am making?
  As for your taking of my bet, I wish you well. Hopefully the results will be as enlightening for you as they have been for me.

• 

  chris goodrow said (24 Jun 2009):

  Jonathan, here is the problem that I have with your definitions or ideas of hungry and full. I'm afraid people don't always listen to their body to determine hunger and full like you are suggesting. If indeed, that were what people did, I actually feel the obesity numbers would be lower. There are times my body doesn't feel hungry at all, but either my mind or heart does. There are also times that my body says it is quite full, but my heart and sould declares differently.
  When you go to a restaurant, portions are bigger now than they used to be like thirty years ago. Why do you suppose this is? How do you explain the average weight of people is higher than it's ever been? I'm not making a statement about obese and BMI. I'm saying the numbers are actually higher. Why do you suppose some races or nationalities have higher weight per capita than others? Is it just environment? Do they eat different foods? What do you suppose the reason is, Jonathan?
  When I get a chance tonight, I can actually post some links that get more on the psychological side of things here. There is way more to all of this than just the physical. Overeating has become a national pasttime. I'd actually like to hear from some other people's experiences on this. I'd like to know if you are really heavy, what kind of meals do you eat? How much do you eat? Is it possible you aren't listening to your body when it says it is either hungry or full?
  I think this whole topic has a lot more gray to it than we're looking at. Unfortunately, I also feel that we've strayed a bit from the topic of the image. Ms. Goldstein, if you are reading this, what exactly in your words, is this photo saying? I'm just asking because I'm art illiterate.

• 

  Jonathan said (24 Jun 2009):

  Chris, I again thank you for discussing the subtlety that exists on this issue. As for your comment "There are times my body doesn't feel hungry at all, but either my mind or heart does. There are also times that my body says it is quite full, but my heart and sould declares differently." I would say that all of those are manifestations of hunger and a need for more calories. Furthermore, not only does the body just ask for calories in general, it asks for specific types of food at different times depending on the nutrients it needs, etc. Iron deficient kids will sometimes eat sand because their body is demanding that nutrient. If you try to eat only pizza for three weeks, your body will start indicating to you (in all the ways you mentioned, stomach, heart, mind) that pizza is pretty unappetizing in order to consciously force you to eat something else and get other nutrients.
  I don't think humans, in general, can become obsessed with certain foods unless they artificially restrict those foods from their diet. The obsession and "psychological eating" to me indicate the body's need for certain aspects of "forbidden foods". But if one tried to eat only those foods, one wouldn't be able to keep it up for long. The body would get tired of it and demand something else (probably something healthier, too, if all one ate is ice cream non-stop, for example). For this issue, I refer back to the Shapely Prose blog post I referenced a few days ago entitled "Devouring the World." http://kateharding.net/2007/08/03/devouring-the-world/

• 

  Jonathan said (24 Jun 2009):

  I do not claim to know exactly why it appears we are heavier now. I can think of a number of possible causes. These are going to be generally unsubstantiated, so understand that up front. I think one cause is probably a change in the gene pool due to increased diversity in the US. The percentage of the white population of the US has dropped from 90% to 80% between 1940 and 1990 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf). Black women, for instance, tend to be larger (carry certain genes) than white women. I can't cite how much of an effect this has had, but it is something.
  The smoking rate has declined from close to 43% in 1965 to just under 20% today (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm). According to a publication of smokefree.gov, the average smoker is 4 to 10 lbs. lighter than the same person who doesn't smoke (http://www.smokefree.gov/pubs/FFree3.pdf).
  Finally, Americans are getting older as a population thanks to improved medical care, etc. According to a study from a UC Berkeley scientist, the average age at death rapidly rose in the 1970s due to better treatment and continues to grow. From the article, "As for the spurt upward in 1970, Wilmoth's data shows that survival after 70 [years old] was due overwhelmingly to improved medical practice concerning heart disease, stroke, smoking cessation, and the development of new drugs." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000929072826.htm) The average weight of humans gets larger with age. Since we live longer, the average weight will be skewed higher.
  Again, I am sorry these assertions are not quantified, but I think they are reasonable suggestions that very plausibly have caused some or all of the weight gain so often cited in the media.

• 

  Fig Taylor said (24 Jun 2009):

  Chris, I realise your question was directed at Jonathan but I thought perhaps if I answered it from my perspective as a fat woman – since that is what the photograph portrays – the penny might eventually drop. I’m not here to discuss the pros and cons of dieting or the efficacy of exercise. I reiterate: I’m here to discuss why this image is insulting and damaging to a great many people in the highly fat phobic culture in which we live – a society that equates health with moral virtue and views health as a moral imperative.
  “I really don't see as how this image gives the impression that heavy people are lazy, stupid, lying, unmotivated, sexually repulsive inherently amusing, etc. Out of everything that you did
  mention, I suppose there is something to the "junk food" part of it”.
  Perhaps I should have phrased my last post a little better. Greed and junk-food consumption only are addressed by Ms Goldstein. The other negative stereotypes, (along with greed and junkfood guzzling), are promoted ad nauseam elsewhere. Such as these, for instance.
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/11/flabisntfab
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-388001/Shouldnt-tax-fatties.html
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-554870/A-role-model-ordinary-women-No-Miss-England-finalist-fat-lazy-poster-girl-ill-health.html
  Please read these, and then, if you can stomach it, some of the comments that follow if you want to see unexamined prejudice in action. Or read some of the comments here. Hell, read some of your own, (“I would think most of you would agree that if there were people eating portions like that, it is probably people of the heavier variety”).
The fact is it doesn’t actually matter why someone is fat. What matters is that people regurgitate this ignorant twaddle because they read it daily - and anyone who doesn’t like the way fat people look will use these negative stereotypes to justify and support their bigotry.
  "I wouldn't make the leap that it in any way is assuming that all heavy people scarf large amounts of junk food...The picture doesn't show an unhealthy person at all. It actually shows a person taking a walk in the woods taking food to her grandmother. As far as we know, she may be drinking a diet coke, the food may be all for her grandmother and it very possibly could be a statement that, "see, even when people drink diet coke and don't eat junk food, they can still become heavy". It's all in the eye of the beholder and many of you choose to take offense to it."
  Oh, come on, Chris! Disingenuous much? One doesn’t have to have a degree in visual communication, (which I have, incidentally), to get the gist of this piece. “Not-so-little” refers to the fact Red Riding Hood has put on weight. The fact she’s partaking of a hamper chock-full of junk food would seem to indicate that is why she’s fat. (Because, as amply illustrated in my links, the media never tires of parrotting that particular trope). And, hello? She’s been included in a selection of images of “fallen” fairy tale characters. She has lost something that previously gave her value, (like Rapunzel’s lost hair or Snow White’s lost innocence). Given the title that would appear to be her healthy, (for which read “socially acceptable”) body, and/or her self-control. Admittedly she could also be symbolic of Everything That’s Wrong With The World Today, whether that be the spurious obesity epidemic, mass consumerism or the growing Fat Acceptance movement. But it’s pretty damned obvious, given the tone of the other pieces, that LRRH, is not being portrayed as the poster girl for health, generosity and Diet Coke.

• 

  chris goodrow said (24 Jun 2009):

  Comments noted, Fig. I'm sorry if I came off as insensitive or an enemy of the "fat" community. That certainly wasn't my intention at all and I never really considered myself a bigot in any regard. I'll stop there lest I protest too much, eh?
  On a sidenote, I have a question. It has to do with the word "fat". I've been trying to be careful to not really use that word as I've always kind of thought it was offensive. I've seen a number of people use it for themselves. Is it kind of like the "N" word where it's ok for a heavy person to use it but not someone who isn't or does it just kind of depend on the person and probably better to be on the safe side and just not use it at all? I don't mean to sound ignorant. I'm just curious.

• 

  Fig Taylor said (25 Jun 2009):

  Thank you for your gracious response, Chris.
  I made a conscious decision to reclaim the word "fat" as a neutral descriptor almost half my life ago, though it is, as you observe, a word that causes many people discomfiture. This is because it has gradually evolved to become an insult in society. I would suggest this is because fat itself has become synonymous with all the negative stereotypes I listed earlier and people are eager to distance themselves and their loved ones from it. (I have, for instance been told many times, "Oh but you're not fat/really fat/ what *I* call fat", etc. I suspect this is is partly because I don't epitomize the stereotype and partly because "fat" is commonly used as a self-deprecating term too and friends don't want us to put ourselves down.
  However, the fact "fat" was originally a neutral descriptor like "short", "brunette", "blue-eyed" or "wavy haired", (all of which describe me too), differentiates it somewhat from terms like the N-word and "queer", which were deliberately offensive from the get-go. You'll find most people who are politicized about fat prefer the neutral descriptor to "overweight" and "obese" which have a measure of judgement attached to them.

• 

  Leah de Jager said (29 Jun 2009):

  My Goodness. Talk about having a chip on your shoulder. To all the people getting their noses out of joint because this propogates the 'fat people eat too much junk' stereotype: you could also complain the Belle photo propogates the 'beautiful women must have had plastic surgery' stereotype, or complain the Snow White pic propogates the 'unhappy barefoot mother' stereotype, or... do I have to go on? Conceptual photography/imagery uses stereotypes to help get its idea across. The idea here is that "little" red riding hood could have ended up not being quite so little, and over-eating is one way that might happen.

• 

  Leah de Jager said (29 Jun 2009):

  And to Jonathan - the show "Biggest Loser" proves your 'facts' wrong. People who weigh 140kg have not been genetically programmed to weigh that much. Yes, their genetics might make them a bigger/chunkier person, but not 140kg. For a woman, her lowest realistic weight might be 80kg rather than 60kg, but genetics is not going to make her 140kg. A health condition might, but genetics? No. I look at a certain family I know: I can see that genetics plays a role in most of the children being 'large', but one in particular is morbidly obese, while one is of completely normal weight. The other two are 'chunky' but still healthy. What's more, the morbidly obese one was not that overweight when she was a child. Don't try telling me it's her genetics that make her that way.

• 

  Fig Taylor said (29 Jun 2009):

  Leah, I repeat: in addition to poor diet and sedentary lifestyle, (which are by no means only the province of the fat), certain medications, (steroids, for instance, HRT or some types of birth control), thyroid or endocrine disorders, (such as polycystic ovary syndrome in women), and insulin resistance, can all have an impact on weight gain, how and where that surplus weight might be stored by the body and whether or not it's retained, regardless of diet and/or exercise. Numerous other factors, such as poverty, genetics, disability, long-term illness,depression, extended deep sleep deprivation, (as experienced by sufferers of fibromyalgia or sleep apnoea), serial-dieting and eating disorders can also have an impact on body-size; as can a combination of several of the above. The fact is you can't tell from looking at a fat person how they became fat any more than you can determine the state of their health.
  I suspect I'm wasting my breath though, so I'm going to bow out now and leave you to cherish your prejudices ... based on cheap, exploitative, reality television and knowing one fat family.

• 

  Fig Taylor said (30 Jun 2009):

  Actually, Leah, I'm not going to bow out quite yet - since the more I think about your "I know this one family..." argument, the weaker and more irrelevant it seems. Assuming the family you referenced do have a genetic tendency to be fat, (as opposed to having a genetic tendency towards some medical condition that might have an impact on their weight), it's like saying you know a family who have a genetic predisposition to be tall. Two of the kids are 6'1", one of them is 5'11" but the other one is 6'6" and was never hugely taller than the others as a child.
  Tallness, like fatness, has variations. And, just because you can't imagine your body having a higher "lower realistic weight" than 80kg, doesn't mean the same applies to a woman with a completely different set of genes, ancestors and general physiology to you.
  With regard to the poor child who has the misfortune to weigh more than you think she should, or more than you believe qualifies her to be "healthy", I'm assuming your comment, "Don't try telling me it's her genetics that make her that way", is intended to convey that you know what did. Let me guess? Eating too much? Even though there are many other equally plausible reasons why she might be? Even though, in all probability, she probably ate exactly the same as the rest of her family growing up? Well, fancy that. Looks like we're back at square one again, doesn't it?
  With regard to your first comment, I interpret the image of Belle undergoing plastic surgery to be an ironic reflection on society's obsession with maintaining the image of youth and beauty at all costs. In that respect I can see a link between that image and this one, though whether that was Ms Goldstein's intent I'll never know.

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (1 Jul 2009):

  I see the obesity rates have risen in 23 states and have fallen in none. Yep, those genetics and other non food intake/lack of exercise reasons are really increasing the fatness of the US population.
  I am totally amazed by the idea that 30% of the US population are obese and that their food intake and lack of exercise aren't the main reasons..

• 

  anne smith said (7 Jul 2009):

  Oh My Lord... Lighten up!
  I came on here to view some great art and I get a blog full of people talking about obesity rates and their life struggles with their weight.
  I diddnt read half of the comments because they were too long, too personal and too emotional.
  Offended or not by this picture this is NOT the forum to discuss it. Go make up your own website where people can discuss how they feel about obesity and fight back and forth to your hearts content (promise you that you wont actually get anywhere either).
  No one is forcing you to like the picture - But that doesnt mean you have to turn this comments page into a war and peace novel about your own personal crusade. If you dont like it.... then go out and make your OWN ART that reflects your feelings towards this issue rather than incessant ramblings on a blog.
  Fantastic pictures Dina....
  And you have achieved something most people will never do. You've made a piece of art and you've made people sit up and take notice. You got a response and whether those comments are good or bad... its what gets an artist noticed..... even all the way down in New Zealand which where im from.
  Great stuff

• 

  Chandra Peltier said (8 Jul 2009):

  This is a very interesting series, and I was particularly taken with the image of Rapunzel. I'm not sure why you chose to focus on her basket of goodies when the original tale was ripe with sexual tension, not straying from the path on the way to grandma's, and the "stranger danger" of the predator wolf. The red of her cape signifies sexuality, given to her by the grandmother, a figure often seen in the distant past as potentially dangerous because of the stories such women could relate containing knowledge regarding the elimination of unwanted pregnancies.
  Still, a fascinating series!

• 

  Jonathan said (13 Jul 2009):

  Thrash: I saw a graphic on the news the other night that showed a "rise in obesity". The largest growth occurred in the South...which, coincidentally, is the region with a large percentage of African Americans (who are naturally genetically heavier than most other racial groups). This seems exactly consistent with a genetic basis to me doesn't it? And before you claim it's because of the "unhealthy" food in the Southern diet, I lived in the South for five years, ate whatever I wanted of the traditional diet, and was skinny the whole time.
  
  Leah: The show "The Biggest Loser" actually proves my argument quite well, not yours. Search the Internet for status updates on past contestants. How many have kept the weight off?
  
  Anne: If you like your art spoon-fed to you with no rational discourse, fine, I'm not going to convince you of anything. However, you implied that I shouldn't have commented at all. What about all the people that posted in agreement with the photo (with fairly hurtful comments, too)? Should only congratulatory comments be allowed? As I've said previously, I used to agree with you, but I changed my mind once I truly saw what the evidence shows. Challenging images like this is how minds are changed.

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (13 Jul 2009):

  An OECD report has come out that states that New Zealand is ranked third in the world-wide obesity stakes (1 in 4 obese compared to the US's 1 in 3). The NZ population is overwhelmingly of European based decent. The blame is placed squarely on poor eating habits and lack of exercise.
  
  In addition, a recent study has shown that genetics plays little part in childhood obesity compared to the obesity of your parents. In fact, the weight of your same-gender parent has far more effect. If you are female and your mother is obese then your are 10 times more likely to be obese. If you are male and your father is obese then you are six times more likely to be obese. This is not genetically related.
  
  http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/2591948/Genetics-not-to-blame-for-childhood-obesity.

• 

  Thrash Cardiom said (13 Jul 2009):

  Jonathan, if you wish to continue down the genetic route, particularly that of African Americans being more likely to be obese (which is the conclusion I draw from your writing), I suggest you back it up with some evidence that shows it to be genetically based (and racially genetically based at that) and which also discounts poor diet and exercise as being cause.

• 

  Jonathan said (14 Jul 2009):

  Thrash, I have already shown plenty of evidence that discounts poor diet and lack of exercise as a cause of people being heavy, but I'll give you more.
  
  The genetic evidence I present below further shows this, but recalling things I've already posted: results from The Minnesota Starvation Experiment from World War II showed even with unrestricted access to food after starvation (dieting) the participants returned to their natural (pre-dieting) weight. The Health at Every Size experiment showed that even with a quadrupling in physical activity, participants did not lose any weight.
  
  Now, on to your comments.
  
  Your anti-genetic evidence actually seems pretty genetic to me, i.e. a strong correlation between parents and children's weight, but ignoring that fact, I disagree with the analysis of the scientists in that study and claim their conclusion lacks scientific merit. They claim a lack of genetic basis (and postulate behavioral causes) without actually testing for the behavioral causes. You can't will something to be true, especially in science.
  
  A much better test of genetic cause is study of identical twins reared apart from each other. They have the exact same genes, but they have experienced a different environment (notably different parents). Albert Stunkard performed exactly this study, multiple times, and reached the same conclusion every time:
  
  "Using data from the Danish Adoption Registry, Stunkard and colleagues found that adopted children developed a body mass index (BMI) similar to that of their biological parents. 'Genetic influences have an important role in determining human fatness in adults, whereas the family environment alone has no apparent effect,' his group wrote in the January 23, 1986, New England Journal of Medicine."
  
  "Data from the large Swedish twin registry affirmed and extended the importance of genetics by showing that identical twins reared apart have a BMI as adults that is the same as that of twins raised together. Stunkard and colleagues reported these findings in the May 24, 1990, New England Journal of Medicine."
  
  http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/12/14

• 

  Amber Gallun said (15 Jul 2009):

  I think it's really interesting that this photo has provoked the "what is art and what isn't" conversation. This conversation has been going since the dawn of art. As things have progressed, the definition of art has become looser and looser. It used to be art had to result from carefully constructed forms, and display technical skill, like in painting or sculpture. And then you have Duchamp signing a urinal "R. Mutt" and placing it on exhibition. These days, so long as somebody can come up with some kind of interpretive explanation for their piece, we can call it art. Sometimes, this explanation isn't really necessary. Some artists purposefully deconstruct meaning and make it their goal to create a lack of purpose or meaning in their art. Others leave it up to the viewer's interpretation. In fact, in this world, there is no sound definition for "art." Art happens when the artist, the viewer, and the critic come together and determine "this is art." One thing I do know, though, is that something being offensive to a viewer isn't a drop in the bucket when it comes to determining whether or not something is or is not art. Think Adres Serrano's "piss christ" or Jeff Koons blatant porn photography series. These have majorly offended thousands and are considered art by millions. The problem of what is art and what isn't will never be defined, and I think that's actually pretty essential.

• 

  Karen said (31 Jul 2009):

  I love this photo series and have to admit, I'm surprised this is the piece that has generated the most controversy. However, I would like to weigh in on the debate.
  
  I see partial truths to both sides of the argument regarding what may or may not cause weight gain. Most intriguing to me is the argument from Jonathan: “[T]he reasons they are fat are completely unrelated to what or how much they choose to eat or how much they exercise (and is actually as uncontrollable as one's height).” Jonathan, it appears to me that you consider your strongest argument to be your personal experience. Yes, you have listed other web sites, but this seems to be the example that you cite the most frequently. To this, I wonder if your argument is in fact a deductive fallacy. My understanding of your argument is this: I can eat what I want and not gain weight. Therefore, all people can eat what they want and not gain weight.
  
  In fact, generalizing from one person to many does not constitute "proof" that your theory is correct. At best, I can see that your example shows that there are more factors beyond food choice that affect weight gain. Let me ask you a question, Jonathan. I know a smoker that does not have lung cancer. Does this mean to you that smoking does not cause lung cancer in some people?
  
  Secondly, as a scientist, I have to say that I place a lot of emphasis on the source of my information. In my case, I will look predominantly in journals that cite their sources and are peer-reviewed, because this process adds to their legitimacy. Jonathan, I am immediately suspect of your sources, not because they go against mainstream, indoctrinated ideas, but because they do not come from what in my mind I consider legitimate sources.
  
  In example:
  
  http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-weve-came-to-believe-that.html
  
  This blog does reference a scientific study, but you are not linking us to the actual study, but a *blog* about the study. How are we to know that the blogger’s interpretation is what is actually printed in the study? Furthermore, this study (with its small, homogeneous sample size) seems to claim that there is a genetic reason for maintaining weight, but nowhere in the study (as far as I can tell) does it actually examine the genetics of its participants or specifically address this aspect within the design of the study. And finally, this study has shown that restricting calories can affect a person’s weight. Is it so unbelievable to suggest that drastically increasing caloric intake would have the reverse effect? I find this blog interesting, but it cannot be the cornerstone in your argument.
  
  http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-it-really-matter-how-your-numbers.html
  
  Again, you are citing a secondary source. This argument regarding BMI supports your overall cause, but not address your main argument that what you eat cannot affect your body weight.
  
  http://kateharding.net/2007/08/03/devouring-the-world/
  
  Again, to me this doesn’t seem an entirely reputable site. It’s one person’s opinion, not a scientific study. Just because she stops craving something after eating it in excess doesn’t mean that the same "self-control" is reflective of the general population. To quote the author in a previous post: “Poor nutrition and a sedentary lifestyle do cause health problems, in people of all sizes.” (http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/) I would agree.
  
  http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar06/health0306.htm
  
  This appears to be the most reputable site you have given us so far. And as far as I can tell, health at every size is a great program! I’m glad it’s working. My interpretation from this article is that it was the participant’s choice whether or not to engage in physical activity or healthy eating habits (they were not required to do so), and the group that was selected for the “health at every size” program stuck with the program longer than those in the “diet” program. Great. But that doesn’t say anything about the effectiveness of dieting (just that it’s harder to stick with it). You are correct in saying that the participants may not have lost weight, but I don’t really know any details about what they ate or if they exercised from this article, and so this does not appear to substantiate your claim without more information.
  
  http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/12/14
  
  This is an interesting article with which I do not disagree. I do believe that genetics has a definite role in the health and weight of a person. But this does not disprove that eating unhealthily will cause changes in the body. In fact, the article even says,“Over the years, Stunkard has shown that the environment can lead to obesity in genetically vulnerable people.” That’s right. The environment may also have an effect on people, especially if they are “genetically vulnerable.”
  
  I believe those are all of the outside sources that you supplied. Your argument is an interesting one, but I don’t believe you can substantiate your claim with the sources that you have provided. I have a few other suggestions of material that you should read if you can gain access (for some of the articles you may need a subscription to the journal to be able to read, but the abstracts should at least be available):
  
  http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/62/1/19.pdf
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/838081
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1436763?dopt=Abstract
  
  http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/208/1/1
  
  Finally, I would like to give my unsubstantiated opinion, which is that regardless of whether a person is over or under weight, it is healthy to eat fruits and vegetables, to engage in cardiovascular fitness and to increase muscle mass. Thanks for keeping us on our toes, Jonathan. I hope you take a look at some of the sites I provided and tell me what you think.

• 

  Merle Pace said (1 Aug 2009):

  Sorry, I had to stop reading the comments. My head was exploding. This is a photograph and I take photographs. I am not a professional photographer. I take photographs because I have always enjoyed doing it. To me, art is subjective always. I have been on both sides of the "Fat Fence" being anorexic for nearly 10 years, a normal weight for nearly 10, and then, due to my anorexia, my thyroid went out of whack and became hypoactive and I gained over 40 pounds without changing my eating or exercise(I don't eat fast food, I do pilates, yoga and run). After years of trying to find the right does of medication, I am a normal size again. So, yes, some people can gain weight without eating fast food or junk food.
  
  That being said, I don't see how anyone can ignore how American society has become about "more, faster, now". People don't take the time to cook, portions in restaurants are out of control and much larger than in Europe(I have lived in Greece and England and there is a difference-I also walked a lot more in those places or biked places). You can get in the mind set here where you crave and want fast food. In the 1950s having a burger and soda pop with fries and shake was a "treat". Today it is an everyday meal for many people and soda pop is a drink for thirst instead of water. Years ago, it was a reason to meet friends at the soda fountain now and then and again, have a fizzy treat-not to quince thirst.
  
  OK, all of that is my opinion on the weight/food issue and anyone can dispute it of course. As far as the photograph goes, yes, Dina the photographer could have taken many different avenues to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, but this is her version. For everyone with other ideas, I suggest that you try out these versions on your own and let this just be Dina's version.
  
  Whew!

• 

  Alana Balquist said (8 Aug 2009):

  I would suggest no one get too upset with Jonathan as it is clear he is uneducated. It's important to not gather support from random websites when it comes to.. well pretty much anything. I find it funny that you think just because you eat fast food everyday, and do not gain too much weight, that the situation would be the same for everyone else. People are different.. We are not carbon copies of each other and I suggest you look at APPROVED journals to find any support for OPINIONS you may have.
  
  I feel that way for Jon and everyone else in this forum.

• 

  Alana Balquist said (8 Aug 2009):

  By the way.. this photo is awesome.

• 

  Sally b said (29 Aug 2009):

  It is a stereotype. People are fat or overweight for a lot of reasons. I had a friend with brain cancer who was on steroids and gained 50 lbs. I am sure the kind of harsh comments posted here about fat people were leveled at her. I am fat, and I don't eat a lot, however, I also don't exercise. I struggle with depression. People can have depression, physical problems of other sorts, etc. If you ever gain weight, it is very hard to lose it again. Societys attitudes towards overweight people are seen in many comments posted. Harsh, critical, unsympathetic and in some cases, almost hateful. Instead of looking at the whole person and finding out what is good about them people say fat or thin-like or don't like. Shallow, shallow, shallow, and I thought it was a cheap shot at fat people too, it's a beautiful photo in it's technical quality but is not insightful at all. I don't consider it art either, but I think a lot of things aren't art that get that label-and I am not uneducated about art.

• 

  Zarina Silverman said (1 Sep 2009):

  There is much more here than meets the eye. I do not believe the photographer is ridiculing fat people. To the contrary I find this treatment to be deeply thoughtful. Fairy tales are laden with symbols of some of the darkest areas of our collective unconscious. Fat is a touchy subject for most women because it has been so vilified and is so misunderstood. But I think what is left out of the conversation is the fact that fat can also be deeply comforting, a safe cocoon or a trusty repellant in a world where women's sexuality is still feared and misunderstood by both sexes. At its heart, Red Riding Hood has always been a cautionary tale for the coming of age. I think this is a very powerful image, and a truly excellent series. Brava!

• 

  Ryukoe Endo said (13 Sep 2009):

  Brenda... I think it is just obvious you are upset because you are probably fat too. It's ok though.
  
  It was a great social commentary. A genius series really and I would like to see more. Excellent composition too.

• 

  Silentkitty =^.^= said (15 Sep 2009):

  I love this work "Fallen Princesses"... It's just so interesting. It amazes me how many people have commented on this certain photo... and also "Jasmine at war". Touchy touchy there people. LOL Lets see... a lot of you people think A LOT of people that are fat are healthy as a horse...LOL A LOT of smokers think they wont get cancer... I can go on and on and on and on....LOL It's true, even when we grow into adults, even old folks we still think we're ALWAYS RIGHT. LOL Only a few of us actually ""Grow Up"" People!... Fat people aren't dumb(I have no idea why someone would think or say that???) But a lot of people that are fat DON'T eat correctly, are lazy and don't exercise. Some and a small percentage of people have a SLOW Metabolism. I also don't understand why Fat people make fun of people that eat correctly, exercise and wake up before 12pm... hahaha look those people are in good shape take care of themselves and WORK HARD??? People make their own decisions if you want to be Voluptuous((fat)(I rather use that word for people that like to be overweight)) then go and be proud. People are beautiful in anyway... but don't be in denial. Your fat, your fat?!? It's what you choose. Also "Fat Food isn't unhealthy and doesn't cause people to be overweight?????????"LOL REALLY People LOL In the 1900's people weren't poor as much but kids and families where ACTIVE! We're are now in the year 2000 and we have fast food and technology that almost does everything for us. We're lazy now and I admit it... now you other people should do the same^^ LOL Oh and for those that don't think certain things are not art, you can't say something isn't art just because you don't like it. If you don't like it fine but you have no say that something isn't art!!! Especially just because it's been done many times and it offends you???

• 

  Nicole Fraga said (22 Sep 2009):

  My God, most of you people are ridiculous. I honestly haven't read every comment because this has gotten out of control. Like Dina said, this image isn't an attack on obese people, it's a commentary on a fast food society. Anybody who thinks a heavy fast food diet doesn't contribute to weight gain is diluted. Watch "Supersize Me" if you're so convinced.
  
  And while I realize that some people are genetically predisposed to be large, a huge majority of overweight people have only their lifestyles to blame for their weight gain.
  
  And about Jasmine at War - if you paid any attention, you would have realized she's not supposed to be a terrorist. She is a princess defending her country. Quit looking for things to complain about, you silly people.

• 

  Boring Bore said (7 Oct 2009):

  Brenda, being fat is f'ing disgusting. It's a sign of laziness, and apathy. Stop stuffing your faces and get on a treadmill once in awhile. Don't try to blame everyone else for your poor choices and weak will. You sound like a f'ing alcoholic with that kind of pathetic talk.
  
  You're obviously too stupid or self-absorbed or both to get the irony and humor of this photo series. Be gone...

• 

  Pearl Caster said (11 Oct 2009):

  Look, you two that swooped in to crap on Brenda: I don't think you understand/appreciate what Brenda is complaining about here. The picture is representative of a huge stereotype in our society: that ALL fat people guzzle pizza, pop, etc. That ALL fat people get fat because of overeating. With that image comes the idea that ALL fat people can't control themselves, over eat, are piggy slobs.
  
  That that's not true. And it's unfair. Heaps of fat people eat healthy foods and do exercise. Fat isn't always about overeating or being lazy. And it's frustrating to suffer from prejudice day after day because people make horribly wrong assumptions about you. Nobody should live like that.
  
  Brenda was complaining about people who hate and misunderstand fat people. And unfortunately both of you went and proved her right.
  
  Just like not all gay men are feminine lisping campy fashionistas, not all fat people are burger-guzzling couch surfers.

• 

  Kate said (11 Oct 2009):

  You know... when I posted here in... Oh what... JUNE... I'd really have thought the whole "omg don't rip on fat people" debate would have ended maybe 3 months ago.
  
  Maybe.
  
  Dear Jonathan and Everyone Who Decided to Link Excessive Facts About Obesity That Have Little to Do With Art: Write a blog.
  
  Diana: Your photos are still made of win :)

To add your comment, Log in or sign up!