This past Sunday, the New York Times Magazine ran a story entitled “Can Genius Really Be Cultivated? The Rise of the Gifted-Child Industry.” For that story, the following photograph was plastered on the magazine’s front cover (without the rip — that was supplied by my young daughter):
My first reaction upon seeing this photograph was annoyance. What did we really see here? A white boy with his hair combed to part on one side, dressed in a white collar and a buttoned tweed jacket. In short, an upper-class twit in training. This is not, I thought, a graphic signifier of “genius” or a “gifted child.” No, it’s a signifier of two things. First, the photo signifies all the collective prejudices we have about who a genius is, and who a genius is not: male (not female), white (not brown-skinned), and uptown (not downtown). Second, the photo signifies a real source of educational advantage in this world. If you’re male, you don’t encounter pressure to “dumb down” to be attractive to the opposite sex. If you’re white, you don’t suffer from tracking by people who translate your skin color into an automatic presumption of “stupid.” If your parents are well-educated, then you have the advantage of active and involved parents who can help smooth your way with the educational bureaucracy and can help you learn to learn. If your parents are rich, well, then, they can buy you a whole load of grooming, plus entry into the “right” prep schools.
In short, this picture bugged the bejezzus out of me because it does not display a genius: it displays the graphic summation of all the prejudice and unequal opportunity our society has to offer children. It is, I thought to myself, an indication of our sickness as a people.
Then I took a step back. Perhaps I was being unfair. After all, this was a picture of a real kid genius somewhere, right? And no matter how that kid got there — by natural talent, by grooming, by sheer determination — well, he got there all right, and that particular kid’s shoulders are just too narrow to bear the burden of the overall tendencies toward unfairness in our whole society. He’s just a kid after all — he’s not responsible for our collective problems. So, I thought to myself, give the kid a break as he builds a bridge at the age of 8, or composes a new symphony, or cures toenail fungus, or something. And give him a pat on the back for his individual achievement.
Then, turning to page 6, I find that this is not a photograph of a child genius at all. It is an “imaginary portrait” by German photographer Loretta Lux, an artist who takes her friends’ kids, dresses them up in clothes she picks, poses them as she sees fit, then digitally enhances the photographs until they give precisely the message she intends. The digitally modified child we see is not the actual child whose photo was taken, and is not a real child genius.
The New York Times Magazine, in choosing a photo of an imaginary child genius to grace its cover rather than choosing to use a photo of a real child genius, had the freedom to pick exactly the image it thought was right. It thought the image of a white upper-class boy twit was most fitting. And it used that image (along with other images of exclusively white, mostly male, children in the body of the article) without comment, making a point whether it meant to or not.
So I go back to my first reaction. Blech. New York Times, join the 21st Century.
Double blech. I actually invested time in reading the article. That’s 20 angry minutes I’ll never get back. It’s ridiculous that this level of prejudice is acceptable in this publication.
Hi,
I’m not backing or critisizing but making a note. If an articles’ point is to display pictures or report about such people, then surely real pictures would be logical to be posted. However, since the article here seems to be relating to the ability to ‘create’ a specific type of upbringing and result etc. in that case it makes a lot of sense to have a picture similar to the one which is displayed here. The reason is because the picture shows a boy who might not have his own major advantages, but everything else is present- all external points which can possibly inhibit growth are eliminated etc… Therefore, the question is if such a situation can help in development, and that would seem to be what the article would like to speak about… (I assume…)
In other words, I think it may be precisely the issues which you have raised which the article may wish to be bringing out- ie. how much would external issues have an effect on development etc…
But more important than intelligence is good deeds. The highest intelligence is to be able to be good to another person.
All the best,
Lenny
Lenny,
Your note is well-taken. It might be that the photo is meant to be a wry comment on how privilege begets a greater likelihood “genius,” or at least giftedness.
But the article did not (contrary to your reasonable assumption) touch on this issue at all. Not a word. From this, I am inclined to think that the New York Times was not going for irony with this manufactured image.
John Taylor Gatto say that genius and outstanding ability are not at all rare, he feels that it is the rule rather than the exception. He says that some people have differing areas of aptitude and genius, but most of it is belittled or even discouraged as it can’t fit things like ciriculum and teaching/education methods and standards.