Having read some of the other articles about this artist, here's what I find interesting:
She (and the journalists) refer to herself as the artist, and the actual photographer as her "assistant." I didn't find a name or any sort of credit for the photographer in the pieces I read. So her art is not photography. It's a type of conceptual or performance piece, which is mostly based in her writing to give it meaning and make her point. For example, I'd never have noticed the teenage girl in the series "Gelato" without the story that accompanied it.
Most artists I know would consider this work a collaboration between a photographer (which is an art form of its own), and a writer. And yet, the person responsible for composing and producing the images is completely erased, and Ms. Morris-Caliefero claims the images as her own.
I wonder why the "assistant" agreed to forgo any credit? I actually find this much more interesting than the quotes or statements by the artist about being looked at, feeling self-conscious, reflecting the gaze, etc.
These images are actually the work of someone who's been rendered invisible, nameless, and voiceless.
ETA: I do ghostwriting for money, so I certainly don't think transfer of authorship is inappropriate if fairly agreed to. It's just a dimension I find intriguing - the unspoken and unseen, providing work that is all about appearance and exposition.
It is a common misconception that everything an artist does must come from his or her own hand. That is, in fact, not the way that art has been produced for most of its history. Michelangelo did not, in fact, paint the entire Sistine chapel by himself, he worked with a team of assistants. Sculptors throughout history were people that made maquettes, or miniature sculptures, detailing their design, and then these were reproduced at life size by bronze workmen or stone carvers. There's the more recent conceptual art movement in which artists wrote directions to be carried out in various venues by other people. The fact that the artist works with an assistant poses no difficulty in her claim to authorship of these images.
Zizi, I'm sure you didn't mean to sound so very condescending, but you did.
I have a pretty extensive education and experience in art, art history, performance, and art analysis/criticism, as well.
One of the most important things I learned is that disliking an artist's work, or disagreeing about it, does not make someone ignorant or unenlightened.
Indeed, the most experienced and talented artists I've known and worked with/for, use the least amount of academic jargon and tend more to respond viscerally and in a matter-of-fact way to a piece of work.
I am well aware of the philosophical constructs of authorship, apprenticeship, the studio system, etc. It's always been based in a power dynamic, and I think questioning power dynamics is a very useful and intriguing way to look at art.
I think 1) the invisibility/anonymity of the shooter is the most interesting dimension of a piece that is all about being conspicuous, and 2) for reasons/theories of my own, I'm very curious about the one reference to the assistant as "she," and wonder if the artist's assistants are more often or always female.
IME, now that our society no longer functions on an apprenticeship model, women are more likely to accept erasure than men., and men are more likely to push for co-credit.
There is always more to talking about art than "attacking" or "defending" it.