Did photographer cross the line?

Posted in xn--kfs74mzzid01b.com edit by rose on November 23rd, 2008

  • I saw an interesting piece on the internet today, about some photographer who came under fire for his/her portraits of small children who, ahving been candy as inducement, then had the treats taken away, in order to capture images of their distruaght and ter-stained faces. Now all the whil the parents are in attendance and have given approval; is this child abuse, as the photographer is being accused of; did the artist cross the line when comes to doing whatever it demands to "get the shot"? I'm still mulling it over. Any opinions?

    :thumbup: :confused: :thumbdown:


  • Were the children harmed in any way? No. Not physically, and not emotionally in anything more than a temporary sense. The results were effective. And if the parents were there, it's their perogative, not some blogger's. I'd say she's perfectly within her rights. Her tactics may not be mainstream, but they're certainly effective.
    Do you want to make money from making children cry? Yeah, it's not illegal, just sort of sick.


  • Do you want to make money from making children cry? Yeah, it's not illegal, just sort of sick.
    American are overconcerned about child abuse. You can't photograph your children in public and label people as "sex offenders" just because it's a good story for the media.

    Children get upset easily. They throw histerics and get over it fast.

    What's wrong with documenting negative emotions? Are you so sensitive that you can't stand it in art? Or did you decide for yourself that you won't photograph negativism and trying to force your beleifs on others?

    Does violence happen in your universe or do you prefer the rosy-sunglasses newsstream?

    To each it's own. I enjoyed the gallery and the monkey exhibit.


  • People would rather get irrate over healthy American toddlers being denied sweets than middle eastern babies with their skin burned off.

    Well said. This whole debate is really petty, given what is happening elsewhere in the world.


  • but when I visited these photos the only thing that made me cringe was the hideous, overdone, photoshopping.Hear hear! :lol:

    And the price tags made me laugh. ;)


  • There are plenty of situations where children are suffering real abuse in this world that the media could focus on instead, but this has got a nice, glossy finish that's easy to forget. People would rather get irrate over healthy American toddlers being denied sweets than middle eastern babies with their skin burned off.


  • I think people can argue about the purity of art or whatever 'till the cows come home, but regardless, I just think it's a really crappy thing to do to a person, let alone a kid. Maybe someone should take his camera away.


  • We have the capacity to address issues of things being stolen, as well the conditions under which they are made. The same applies to this issue.
    We also have the capacity to address the bigger issues. But we don't. The vast majority of us always focus on these smaller issues, because it's easier. It's the same logic that leads us to rant at the guy behind the counter and then feel like we've achieved something, when it's not him we should be complaining to.


    "That guy just stole my car"
    "Well it's better than being working poor and building cars for 12 hours a day, every day. Stop whining" Fair point, but there's no car being stolen here. Not even the sweets are being stolen. They're being taken back. If someone steals your car you go to the police, you make damn sure you get your car back and/or the thief is caught and sentenced. If on the other hand someone says they're thinking of giving you a free car, lets you take it for a test drive and then says you can't have it after all... then gives you it anyway when you get upset... is that the same thing?


  • This is an old case, but the concept is intriguing to say the least. May be that "nature photographers" bait bears.

    The point is that we are all out for amazing photos. If I was a fly on her wall I could tell you that a (generally) good time was had by all. Contrary to popular belief these kids knew what they were getting into.


  • Taking candy from a baby is mean, but it happens. Creepy, but I don't see how it's child abuse.


  • There are a lot of odd things some people consider art. I can't comment on how the art looks, but I wouldn't like it because of how it is contrived. Artistically, I believe ethics would only come into play if there were long term emotional or physical effects caused by the photographer. Certainly also if the artist tried to portray her work as something other than it is.

    If this were media, ethics gets involved... It is unethical for a photojournalist to interact with the scene more than any typical passer-by (gawker, etc). If the scene changes because of the photographer, it is not newsworthy. (This couldn't include journalistic portraits, of course)


  • As everyone has chimed in by now and this thread just goes to prove that her questionable methods DO in fact get her TONS of discussion / publicity / money... I'll leave you with this idea:

    Maybe the kids were porkers and could stand to lose a candy bar or two. I know a few adults that would probably cry too... THAT'S a photo-op.

    In all seriousness I think it was summed up best by the idea that if we want start solving the world's problems this one should be somewhere near the bottom of the list. That's about as much thought as I'd give this cheap attempt for publicity.

    You know, you're right, the subject deserves a lot less space than it's been given, I mean, with all the outrage this incident has caused I've forgotten all about the wholsale slaughter in Iraq, the perpetually fruadulent search for a bearded madman in Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of a dictator with an Oedipal complex, and a bloody, decades old real estate war in the mid-east. Thanks, I'd almost forgotten all of that.


  • Were the children harmed in any way? No. Not physically, and not emotionally in anything more than a temporary sense. The results were effective. And if the parents were there, it's their perogative, not some blogger's. I'd say she's perfectly within her rights. Her tactics may not be mainstream, but they're certainly effective.


  • To be honest, the debate seems less about Greenberg's work, and more about Hawk's over-reaction, and the ensuing soap opera. Whatever their public lines, I'm sure both of them are loving the publicity. Calling Greenberg a child abuser and child pornographer is as silly as when some politician compares their opponent to the ****'s, or themselves to Rosa Parks.

    I'm a father of 2 young children, and watching the news (both international and local) almost makes me cry, but when I visited these photos the only thing that made me cringe was the hideous, overdone, photoshopping.

    EDIT: hmmm.... that would be: " N A Z I "


  • I have to agree with darin here.

    I don't find it child abuse at all, and to mention so is completely over zealous. I wouldn't be able to do this, I don't have a problem with photographing it, but I wouldn't want to be the one making them cry, their parents can do that if they are so careless (see next paragraph). Kid's fall down and cry at parks all the time; go photograph them. As far as the harm being only temporary, well so is a punch in the face as long as no bones are broken, and even then bones heal. While that's overboard, a slap in the face is certainly temporary, leaving only a hand print at most. So I mean how far is she willing to go?

    Also, I would be more ****ed with the parents than with the photographer. Who lets a stranger give their kids candy then take it away to make them cry. If anything I think the parents should be under attack for this one. As far as what I said about letting the parents make them cry for my pictures, I still wouldn't personally be comfortable with that... but there is no way I would make them cry myself, it just doesn't feel right.

    And people will buy anything with an anti-bush theme


  • I am reminded of a question I asked about the videographer on survivor austrailia when the man burned his hand. they kept shooting while he was in large pain. The producer said he would have fired him if he had stopped shooting to help.

    The explaination that hit home is everyone knew the rules and the camera man followed them. In this case the parents knew exactly what to expect. they are ultimately the ones responsible for the care of their child.


  • Good grief... it's not like she is hitting them to make them cry...


  • I really dont' give a rat's a** what she does, they are good photo's IMO, and they really show human emotion.

    What I do think is complete horse s*** is that she tries to connect it to US government policies.


  • As everyone has chimed in by now and this thread just goes to prove that her questionable methods DO in fact get her TONS of discussion / publicity / money... I'll leave you with this idea:

    Maybe the kids were porkers and could stand to lose a candy bar or two. I know a few adults that would probably cry too... THAT'S a photo-op.

    In all seriousness I think it was summed up best by the idea that if we want start solving the world's problems this one should be somewhere near the bottom of the list. That's about as much thought as I'd give this cheap attempt for publicity.


  • Well said. This whole debate is really petty, given what is happening elsewhere in the world.Now, now. This IS a photography forum, and anyone is free to debate, discuss, or question the motives or antics of another's work.

    Like it or not, this topic has been of interest recently to the photographic society. No one has suggested this displaces the importance of global issues.


  • Meh. It's part of her gimmick. She apparently does whatever she needs to do to get the children upset enough to cry real tears - of anger or frustration or whatever - taking candy away, and remove clothing to make them uncomfortable are a couple of the things I've read. She then photoshops these images to where they take on a borderline surreal look, and has also slapped some kind of political statement to the entire body of work, calling it "End Times" and making it an anti-Bush statement. It's a stretch, but apparently she's making money. So who is the artistic whore? ;) The photographer, the parents, or the people buying this imagery?

    She also did a series on monkeys, who looked to be having a better time of it in front of her camera than the children.


  • Somebody should take his camera away and see how he feels.


  • I think people can argue about the purity of art or whatever 'till the cows come home, but regardless, I just think it's a really crappy thing to do to a person, let alone a kid. Maybe someone should take his camera away.

    Yeah, someone should hand her--it was a her, right? anyway someone should hand her one of those 29MP Hassleblads, let her go hog wild with it, and then snatch it from her, photograph her bawling, and then display it atop Times Square--with 29MP one could probably manage it--damn I want one, but I just spent my last 20K on Stones tickets.


  • Her name Jill Greenberg. Personally I think she is sick. She tries to cover for these photos by giving this long, drawn out explanation how her photos touch on the national physche and somehow makes a connection to america's polticial and ideological situation and something about iraq.

    But technically she has the right to. This is where it gets interesting. Another photog calls her out on it, just saying that she's sick and it's unethical. Greenberg threatens to sue for libel and go crazy.

    From the second link

    Perhaps the greatest irony of the work is Greenberg's overlaying of a political message, one preaching compassion and intelligence at that, to a process that involved the willful manipulation of toddlers to break down their toddler-sized psyches and leave them in a pool of their own tears. I agree with the artist and many others in this country in her assessment of the current administration in Washington. But Greenberg's own tactics are a mordant, grotesque "nursery-school version" of the most conspicuous of those same policies and practices.

    Links for the story
    http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html
    http://thinkingpictures.blogspot.com/2006/07/case-against-jill-greenbergs-end-times.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/business/01online.html?ex=1154318400&en=9d776614d7e2c74d&ei=5070

    the pics
    http://paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm


  • There are plenty of situations where children are suffering real abuse in this world that the media could focus on instead, but this has got a nice, glossy finish that's easy to forget. People would rather get irrate over healthy American toddlers being denied sweets than middle eastern babies with their skin burned off.
    Again, well said. A healthy child in the West is given sweets and has said sweets taken away. Cries for a few seconds while photos are taken, then presumably is given back the confectionary, stops crying and goes on with his/her healthy comfortable life, suffering no more psychological damage than if he/she had simply demanded sweets from their parents in a store and been told "no". At which they would also have cried. And we're supposed to be shocked and appalled. At the same time, a significantly higher number of children are being shot and blown up, in addition to those who are as a matter of course being starved, abused, murdered, or working themselves to death. But we see that in the papers all the time, and it's happening comfortably far away.

    People are completely within their rights to protest behaviour they consider abusive or unfair... but with any sense of scale and perspective, the same people writing and posting criticism of this Greenberg should surely be taking up arms in response to the other stuff happening in the world?


  • Again, well said. A healthy child in the West is given sweets and has said sweets taken away. Cries for a few seconds while photos are taken, then presumably is given back the confectionary, stops crying and goes on with his/her healthy comfortable life, suffering no more psychological damage than if he/she had simply demanded sweets from their parents in a store and been told "no". At which they would also have cried. And we're supposed to be shocked and appalled. At the same time, a significantly higher number of children are being shot and blown up, in addition to those who are as a matter of course being starved, abused, murdered, or working themselves to death. But we see that in the papers all the time, and it's happening comfortably far away.

    People are completely within their rights to protest behaviour they consider abusive or unfair... but with any sense of scale and perspective, the same people writing and posting criticism of this Greenberg should surely be taking up arms in response to the other stuff happening in the world?

    But just because worse things are happening doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on other issues. It's the type of logic that others have it worse so we shouldn't every complain about anything.

    "That guy just stole my car"
    "Well it's better than being working poor and building cars for 12 hours a day, every day. Stop whining"

    We have the capacity to address issues of things being stolen, as well the conditions under which they are made. The same applies to this issue.


  • hehe, if you actually take the time to look at her work, it is the biggest BS ive ever seen. Australian artists seem to have a fancy for Bulls**tery but shes got it down too.
    Child abuse???? hahahah, i think not, bit mean, but hey, they probly cry more that day if they hadnt got to go to a cool studio with mum and dad.
    Crappy art??? probably


  • My main feeling is that the shots are "manipulative". If trying to portray a representation of sadness or loss can only be acheived by stealing back the candy, then the shot is a setup and not the reportage it purports to be.

    Toying with the emotions of a child in a vunerable environment whilst one makes capital, gets coverage and furthers a reputation in a safe western world...
    Not illegal no.
    Just.. Morally corrupt.


    Thats my 2c worth - anyone have change for a $5 ?


  • I have to admit to not being in the know as it concerns her political statement, I just thought the pics were creepy, and that the explicit approval of the parents in attendance smacks of exploitation, not unlike parents who dress their kids up like small adults and have them prance on stage for a gawking--and paying, audience. I'm tempted to side with the artist but, in this age when hacks like Christo and, what's his face--David Blaine, the so-called performance artist. can command a country's attention with the artist's equivalent of the fart joke, well then, I guess we'll turn a blind eye and present a full wallet to just about any damned thing


    • Protect Your Computer from Viruses-Using Anti Virus
    IBM Rational IDE tops survey