I have nothing against the art institute, in fact I must compliment them on an excellent campaign to get the word out about the exhibition this summer, everywhere I look I see it.  Before I threadjack here I just want to reiterate that I think the Duluth Art Institute is just great and I am sure they will have even more compelling, thought provoking, and mesmerizing campaigns in the future under the direction of AnnieD and the rest of their crew.  

However, I do feel that National Geographic has exploited the girl in the picture, though and I'd love to hear what others think about it.   Her name is Sharbat Gula, and she has never been paid a single dime of royalties for her image as far as I know.  She lives in desperate poverty, and has had a very hard life according to this article:  

Afghan Girl:  A Life Revealed

I know that a certain journalistic objectivity is required when covering stories and capturing images, and photographers shouldn't have to pay everyone for their pictures or their story.  But for 25 years now this picture has been trumpeted by NatGeo as one of the most iconic photographs ever, and it is.  Just ... I wish that Sharbat Gula would have gotten a little more credit and maybe a tiny fraction of the $ that have come in to NatGeo over the years from exploiting her image through posters, coffee table books and who knows what else.

As one of the professors who spoke at the gallery, I actually focused most of my talk on exactly this issue of the exploitation of Sharbat Gula. I showed the photos of Sharbat Gula that were part of the later issue of National Geographic. Our discussion raised questions about who benefits from representations of "exotic" peoples. 

I agree with you Wildgoose, National Geographic has exploited this image. However, they (and others) have also been able to use it as the basis of educational pieces relating to refugees in Afghanistan and elsewhere. This is part of the complexities of this weird, globalized/localized era.

The later article, where Sharbat Gula allowed herself to be rephotographed, simply says that she is "taken care of," which seems very paternalistic and nonspecific. She has also said she does not want to be photographed again, nor does she want to be further interviewed by journalists--I hope that request is honored.

It is worth visiting this exhibit, especially with friends, to discuss these kinds of issues.

This is a great exhibit, definitely worth seeing. I look forward to taking it in one last time, before it leaves.