Photographer makes infants cry then takes their picture

[KurtNYC]

"The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset," the Los Angeles-based photographer said. "It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation."
...
The results have provoked a storm of criticism from internet bloggers. "Jill Greenberg is a sick woman who should be arrested and charged with child abuse," wrote Andrew Peterson on the Thomas Hawk blog.
...
"People in the photography world, anyone who is sophisticated about photography, knows that this is not offensive," collector and former gallery owner Stephen White told the LA Times. "Taking away a lollipop is not child abuse. There's no irreparable harm. I'm just not sure there's any significance to the photographs either."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1830214,00.html

Is it Art?

[u4ic]

1. This was posted before

then the thread was deleted. :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

2. Art or not, it's frickin' EVIL. eom

[jpgray]

3. Dunno if it's art, but those shots creep me out

[Deja Q]

4. Why not take pictures of any given politician instead?

He'll sell more.

And if he's the poor man's Anne Geddess, he's got a long way to go.


But in seriousness, and saying this as a child who cried like that all the damn time, that bastard should be jailed. Adults have enough hell as it is. At least let the children have some friggin' peace.

[KurtNYC]

8. it was a woman who took the photos

and the parents of these kids agreed to participate.

I worked as a model in print and TV advertising as a kid/infant and it didn't hurt me. But there are probably pictures of me somewhere crying my little ass off because I didn't want to stay under those blazing lights any longer.

As for Art, I think these pictures tap into, as that PBS psychologist used to say, our "wounded inner child."

In contrast, I think many of the staged videos that get sent into America's Funniest Home Videos are much closer to child abuse than simply taking a lollipop for 30 seconds.

[Deja Q]

20. Thanks for the edification. As for the tapping into our inner child,

I'd rather not.

Too much pain.

[everythingsxen]

5. It's on the slippery slope of freedom....

As long as no actual harm is done to the children....

I think it's fucked up, personally. However... I think a lot of things are fucked up that other people say should be ok.

[Kire]

6. Giving a lollipop for the express purpose of taking it away.

Is that child abuse?

I think it is.

[Arkansas Granny]

48. I'm not sure if it qualifies as child abuse, but it is surely insensitive

and uncaring, IMO. To make a child cry on purpose for your own gratification sounds like a bully.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

7. It would be one thing if she was taking photos of kids who happened to be

crying.

Making them suffer to further her career is quite another.

[Bombero1956]

9. she could get the same thing from adults

lower the price of gas for one hour and watch the tears when the price goes back up.

I does hurt my heart to see a child so overcome by loss even though its for a lollipop.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

11. True...And she wouldn't even have to do anything.

She could also take photos of kids who are caught in the middle of the Lebanon/Israel mess, if she really wanted pics of kids crying.

The sick thing is, she wants to be the one to make them cry...

[mark414]

18. taking away a sucker is worthy of being called suffering?

this isn't going to hurt these kids, they aren't even going to remember it the next day, she's not doing any physical harm to these children, and it's ridiculous for anyone to insinuate that this constitutes "child abuse."

the pussification of america continues...

[GoddessOfGuinness]

19. To an infant, it is.

And while she isn't doing physical harm to them, she is inflicting psychological abuse...or teasing if you prefer...which they aren't old enough to deal with yet emotionally.

Life will contain enough misery for these children without someone inflicting it upon them purposefully. That sort of meanness is unneccessary, and DOES inflict harm on them. It teaches them that it's ok to act like the adult who is bullying them.

[Ravenseye]

24. Toddlers cry like that ALL the time

I have a 21 month old.

"cheese?"

"no honey you can't have cheese right now."

"WAAAAAAAAAA" *runs away*

----

"Dada Choo Choo please."

"no honey, no tv right now." (choo choo is Thomas the tank engine)

"WAAAAAAAAAA" *flails on floor*

----

Now personally I wouldn't do this, but if this is psychological abuse, then every toddler everywhere suffers similiar abuse 3-4 times a day, for no real reason other than they want something they can't have.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

34. Different story.

I have 2 kids...I've been there. Sure there was crying when they didn't get what they wanted. But I never gave them something for the purpose of taking it away and making them cry. Kids this age know the difference when someone is simply denying something they want and when someone is taking something that has been given. The first is not abuse, the second is.

[smoogatz]

23. It's cruelty, for God's sake.

Why do it, unless you're just being an exploitive asshole? Why commoditize someone else's unhappiness?

[Telly Savalas]

26. It's still being a dick

especially when one considers how frequently kids that age are prone to cry anyway. If anything is indicative of the pussification of America, it's the dumbfuck photographer who's too damn impatient to wait for the kids to cry on their own. "Oh, my, my! My precious Art is too important to spend time interacting with a child!"

[GoddessOfGuinness]

35. Exactly.

Well said.

[elehhhhna]

10. why not just pinch them? It's faster.

What a cretin.

[jmowreader]

12. It's not art, it's contraception

There's a brand of rubbers in Germany called "ABC Anti-Baby Condom."

If they ever decide to bring ABC-brand condoms to America, they need to put a Jill Greenberg photo on the box.

The advertising possibilities are even better: create a building-size vertical billboard. Put a 100-foot-high Greenberg photo on the billboard, write "You Don't Want One" on the top, and put a pack of ABC Condoms at the bottom.

Guys will wear three of them at once just to make sure.

[fudge stripe cookays]

14. And so very effective with me!

:D

:hi: mow!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Eh.

In movies and TV shows they have to be able to make babies cry on cue. Usually by having the mother, who's just off camera, leave the set temporarily.

I guess taking the lollipop away works too.

[leeroysphitz]

15. It's art. It just is.

Art isn't required to be pleasant.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. If it was art, those crying kids...

would be sitting around a table playing poker.

[Ravenseye]

25. If it's on velvet you've got a sale

[KurtNYC]

41. Here you go...

Ron English, 2004

[anarch]

42. what about those kids who beat people up and take pictures of it

on their cell phones? 'Happy slapping', I think they were calling it...evidently it was sort of a fad in England for a while. Is that art, too? :shrug:

[Xithras]

52. Bad art, but still art.

It's not the subject that bothers me, but the art itself. Poorly manipuulated, ugly, and meaningless. The photographer can attempt to attach whatever false meaning to it that she wants, but GOOD art conveys its own message. The only message I get from this is "a bunch of crying kids". Anyone with a $100 digital camera and photoshop could do the same thing. In fact, I'm fairly sure I have some similar shots of my OWN children somewhere.

As for the crying kids, I don't have a problem with it. The photographer didn't hurt the children, she just took the lollipop's away and made them have a temper tantrum. Anyone with kids should understand that the kids were 100% fine the moment the lollipop was handed back after the photo shoot. It's not child abuse to make a kid cry, it's child abuse to physically or emotionally injure a child. Taking a lollipop away may make them mad, but it's not anything that's going to harm them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. Yeah, maybe it IS art. But she's still a jerk. -nt

[Placebo]

21. This is awesome.

This is art. It's not child abuse. She isn't a bitch.

This kicks ass.

How original!

[Telly Savalas]

27. Yeah, it's some really deep and profound shit, aint it?

I'm so moved.

[Placebo]

28. Oh please.

Just because you don't "get it" or it's not your taste doesn't mean you have to mock and belittle it.

There is so much art out there which would never make it past the "Feel Good" Police, but thank God they don't run the museums and schools!

[smoogatz]

22. Father punches out photographer. Photographer cries.

Father takes his fucking picture. Here ya go, asshole...

[WritingIsMyReligion]

29. This isn't new, if you think about it.

Babies are made to cry on cue all the time, for movies, TV shows, whatever. I'm not saying it's a great idea, but I'm sure she isn't the only person in the world doing this.

[Placebo]

30. Plus, babies are going to cry anyway...

so there's no harm in documenting it for artistic reasons.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

36. Maybe that's why a lot of kiddy stars get so screwed up.

It's wrong to mess with people's emotions that way. I never really thought about that until reading your post. You have to wonder what they do to get the babies to cry on cue. Or do they wait until the kids need a change?

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. It sure as hell is not child abuse.

Jesus Christ, people really get up on their emotional high horses, don't they?

Sometimes I have a hard time telling the difference between the hyperemotional rightwingnuts and the hyperemotional liberals.

:eyes:

I'm with Stephen White, though - I'm not sure if there's any real artistic significance to it. Sounds like the photographer is a somewhat artless moron who has devolved to needing some kind of "hook" to her art in order to make it work for her, because she can't do anything creative or relevant.

[jpgray]

37. Exactly. Like bands who market themselves as "Christian"

If they had talent enough to hack it, their Christianity would not need to be directly advertised.

[MsKandice01]

51. I gotta agree...

I don't consider it child abuse at all. Child abuse has long-lasting, life-altering effects. These kids are not going to be traumatized by having their lollipops taken away.

That said, I think anyone who would want pictures of crying children adorning the walls of their home has some serious issues.

[ContraBass Black]

32. Why are they oily?

[Misunderestimator]

39. LOL!

:rofl:

[Duncan Grant]

33. It's bad art: trivial and ham-fisted manipulation.

"It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." -- Jill Greenberg

Jill, that's so freakin' dishonest. You were grasping in buckets of bullshit with that quote.

My question is: Is it your helplessness and anger that leads you to trivialize political and social situations you apparently can't comprehend? Crybabies, for heaven's sake!

And to manipulate the viewer in such an emotionally cheap manner is vulgar -- to say the least. It's art alright: Bad Art. :thumbsdown:

[Misunderestimator]

40. Agreed.

Unbelievably bad art.

[Phillycat]

44. IAWTC

:thumbsup:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

38. Suppose someone makes the "artist" cry

and takes a picture of it?

Is that abuse?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

43. *Sigh* (again)

[Dora]

45. The photographer is morally twisted. Poor babies.

What an appalling ego trip this photographer is on, and how unimaginative her work.

Those poor babies, their trust and innocence is already being messed with.

Somebody slap that photog silly, please.

[KurtNYC]

46. That's the way I feel about Anne Geddes eom

[Dora]

49. Me too.

I imagine there have been a few tears shed in her studios.

[Rabrrrrrr]

50. Agreed - if this is child abuse, then so is Anne Geddes -

it's just as abusive - if not more so - to put the baby through hours of dressing up in stupid costumes and forcing them to pose and be cute for the enjoyment of twisted, sick adults, then to take a lollipop away momentarily to get a picture of a screaming kid. Same with animal photography that does the cute dressing up bullshit.

It's funny how no one else has mentioned the child abuse of Anne Geddes - which I'm sure is because her pictures are "cute" and "precious" and "sweet".

[Xithras]

53. Why?

I've never seen a Geddes shot with a crying child. As far as I can see, what she does to her subjects is no more "abusive" than what millions of parents do every Halloween. Putting on a costume hardly qualifies as abuse.

Unlike the photographer in this story, Geddes photos at least have some level of artistic merit to them. I think the "Awww" factor earns her more accolades than she deserves, but her photo's are visually pleasing and show some creativity. Still, I rank her only a notch or two above Kinkade :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. How much crying do you think goes into preparing her shoots?

And really, is it honorable to force a child to endure a couple hours of dressing up and being "modeled" and taken advantage of for the sole purpose of making "cute" pictures for our entertainment?

How is it any different than making a kid cry?

How is it any different than the abuse we put upon animals to force them into "cute" pictures?

[ghostsofgiants]

47. Crying or not...

Pictures of JUST kids are boring.

[AngryAmish]

54. Cruelty for profit's sake

Some people will do anything for money. She is a creep.