Jill Greenberg End Times

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image/0,,-1010329538560,00.html

Jill Greenberg is a well known Commercial Photographer in the United States, her recently controversial work with children where she makes them cry by asking their parents to leave the room, or by giving them a lollipop and then taking it off them leaves no imagination to the Photograph itself. I know why they are crying, I dont like why they cry, I dont like the pictures.

I have several Photographs of my children crying, lets face it, children dont spend their lives smiling dressed in frilly dresses looking like cherubs, they have tantrums, some of which are quite amusing . Would I deliberately devastate my child so he/she becomes Photographers Fodder? Nope. Taking a Lollipop off a child may seem harmless, to the child, its the biggest crush a big person can give them, their rationale is barely exisiting, all they know is a big person gave them something wonderful, with a smile, then one minute later the big person takes it away with a growl. the result is devastation. To ask a parent to leave the child knowing the child will become distressed by their actions, just so the Photographer can get that 'all important shot' for me, is plain and simple cheating.

Her explanation for the Photographs of these babies was '' I am upsetwith the Bush Govt waging war with Iraq, so I wanted to use the children to portray MY message''

How do YOU all feel about this?

Annie

Bonjour Annie

I have moved your thread in the "Layback Café" forum…
Undoubtly your question may raise some strong opinions.

This is the right place for this kind of discussions.

And I'll be the first to plunge!
Faking photographs to submit a message is not necessarely the way to go…

In another thread Asher suggests to add a lot of leaves on the ground around a tree trunk, to emphasise the feeling of autumn… this is not a problem for me. The cheating doesn't hurt anybody and just the garden keeper won't be happy! lol

But i n the case your describing (I followed the link you provided and saw the pics) harassing kids for a political opinion (even if I do agree with) is counter productive!

Se'd better shoot self portrait showing herself crying!
Or make Bush cry and take the photo!
Or even shoot smiling kids with a caption like
"this nice little kid does not know that his father will die in Irak"
or
"this nice little kid does not know that his father is killing people in Irak"

etc. etc. we can find thousands of "way to"…

If her goal is political, cheating has never been a good idea!
Should her aim being "artistic" I wouldn't agree the kids harassness…

And if her aim is political and artistic…

imho

Tease kids to cry for a damn stupid photograph? How phoney, self centered and delsuional!

Frankly, I feel one needs to check oneself in to the HOVSP (house of very sick persons) and demand electroconvulsive therapy, a high colonic enema and a kick in the arse at the same time. After that: the stock and a flogging!

There are enough children who cry as it is when parents there's not enough food, a drive by shooting or abuse wrecks a family or anyof a million tragedies that hurt them.

Jill, a message from the man on the mountain, le medeciin, le professeur, le grand monsieur, moi, Asher Kelman

Read the story of Keith the Photographer with his child with Leukemia. Want more crying children, go the a cancer clinic. You'll cry too, the children with cloth to replace the hair on their heads!

Run naked and photograph yourself with a timer and call it:

"Jill Greenberg running in New york without her clothes on fire with Naplam in Iraq!"

or some such thing but don't abuse kids!

Asher

A while back

I think that it's about being a bully - could actually even instill fear in thses children for years to come. It's sad and abusive to these children. I'd read about this a while back and it never made sense to me.

On the other hand, look at the press and interest she's received. From a marketing standpoint it's brilliant.

Kathy Rappaport said:

On the other hand, look at the press and interest she's received. From a marketing standpoint it's brilliant.

Click to expand...

Well, there's brilliant and brilliant!
If doing such is needed to be known, I prefer not to be! (and I'm not;-)
It let me remember a discussion I had years ago with a man working in headquarters of a big company, he stated that he would agree with anything that would let the company's brand being known, I told him "would you be OK if we put a picture of a dog's **** on white background with your logo on all Paris buses? He said "yes why not!" I want everybody's eyes to catch my brand, they'll recognize it later" and I answered him, "yes, you're right, they will recognize your brand as a dog's ****!"

We never worked together… the company/brand disappeared.

Marketing works on the memory we -the target- remind of a message. If the message is awful we'll remind it… as awful. The contrary is true too but much more difficult to achieve, this is why it has always been some stupid people to think they will get faster recognition using this system… they never succeeded!

Some years ago, in Europe (I don't know in the US) The brand Benetton (fashion clothes) built their new marketing strategy not showing anymore their products worn by beautiful models but showing provocating but true photos of the real world (war, people starving etc.). They did so for at least 2 years afaik, they were a big controversy among the countries, articles in newspapers, their income started to fall, and they stopped and came back to "normal" campaign… they never came back to their previous position on the market…

Marketing is brilliant when it does push a company. But on the long term…

No Question

There is such a thing as negative marketing that will certainly backfire. It's very tricky to do that and survive. Even some positive marketing in one country can have a bad connotation in another. Religion can play into things, personal belief, a word in one language may have another meaning in a different language - important if you are doing something internationally.

By us mentioning it, it has achieved exactly what the perpetrator wanted.

Bonsoir Ray
I don't think so…
What we mention AND comment is particularly negative…

If the "perpetrator" wished one to speak about her, we did, but I wouldn't like such comments to be written about me! --> Marketing = 0

If the "perpetrator" wished one speak about her message, the message got lost! --> Marketing = 0

In both ways I think the result is more negative than anything else, though the importance to ALSO do comment about abuses, fakes and so on, if we keep silence we become collusive… ;-)

IMO, equating taking a lollipop away from a kid to "child abuse" trivializes child abuse. I know my two kids could hit the maximum reading on their emotion-meter for totally trivial reasons when they were that age, all normal babies and small children can and often do.

That said, what the hell those shots have to do with war is totally beyond me, that's art-world B.S. if ever I heard it. If you want war + children, enter "napalm girl" in Google Images or click here:

http://www.google.com/images?q=napalm+girl&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___US215

>' I am upsetwith the Bush Govt waging war with Iraq, so I wanted to use the children to portray MY message''

This is cheap.

Will_Perlis said:

IMO, equating taking a lollipop away from a kid to "child abuse" trivializes child abuse. I know my two kids could hit the maximum reading on their emotion-meter for totally trivial reasons when they were that age, all normal babies and small children can and often do.


http://www.google.com/images?q=napalm+girl&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___US215

Click to expand...

Child abuse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or neglect of children by parents, guardians, or others

I would think emotional maltreatment covers what happened here. For me, trivialising the fact that these babies were made to cry for the profit of a Photographer, and then PUBLISHED after being made to cry, is a slight contradiction, undermining your own initial statement.

Example: A child complains to his/her drug addict mother that he is hungry and hasnt eaten for a day, the mother says' stop complaining there are children in third world countries who havent eaten for weeks'

Does this mean that the child who hasnt eaten for a day isnt starving? Of course it doesn't, and telling the child there are others worse off than him/herself will not ease the hunger pains. Childen of the ages portrayed in the pictures dont have grown up logic, to them, it's the end of the world when their lollipop is taken off them by the adult, to them, its the end of the world when Mum walks off and leaves them, yes the mum knows she is only going for a few minutes, BUT she wants the child to believe that she isnt coming back so that the Photographer can get the 'devastated ' look

Sorry about the long windedness, but hey ho.

Annie

If you reduce the charge to "Petit & Silly Cruelty" I'll vote to convict. otherwise not. Kids that age can go through that cycle any number of times a day, depending on how active they are, without any damage beyond the usual skinned knee.

As for "maltreatment", I'll refer to Stalin's (alleged) quote about his tank corps, "Quantity has a quality all its own". There's maltreatment and then there's maltreatment. No matter what the motivations for it I can't get too excited about momentary lollipop theft.

Is that the point here, really? Long term effects are not relevant, arent we allowed to take into account the suffering short term? Or is abuse only REAL abuse if it damages you for the long haul? It hurts, wether for a couple hours or a couple of days, po pooing it off as that boring cliche ' Oh children are so resiliant' is intellectually dishonest.

Stalin also said ' the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is merely a statistic' during his mass cull of millions of indiginous Russians. I feel that using Stalins sordid little quotes as a tool to add credibilty to your argument is rank at best.

Late
Bed
Sleep

Annie

She gets big money for that too

She is promoting herself with this and I think also selling the prints. She certainly has gotten a lot of mileage with this series and it's in bad taste in my opinion. I wonder what kind of parent is willing to let their child be her next victim? Not me!

Eric, I agree.

This is kinda monekey-business, the art market is today as every market. And obviously, she wants to get in.
The big question will be anyway, if she gonna get a big daddy with that; collecting her, and giving her work a value.

We'll see. Art or not art, the longer future will tell.

This falls far from the realm of criminal conduct. This is really more a matter of ethics. We would not allow children to play with each other if this type of treatment was outlawed. Kids do far worse to one another on a regular basis. We are made to survive this and much more.

Now, is it ethical? It seems to me this falls into the category of using someones disadvantage to your own advantage. In terms of ethics, this is acceptable if there is proper compensation and transparency. Transparency is not possible in this situation with these subjects. They cannot comprehend.

It is the parents job to determine if "the cost" is worth "the compensation". In this situation, the parents are "the deciders".

It is ironic that this artist likes to comment about Bush's decision making ability (in far more complex circumstances) but her tactics to send a message about Bush end up calling her decision making abilities into question, no?

One word... Repugnant.

Both the use of the technique and the reason it was employed for. And I should mention that I did not vote for Bush either.

-- V

Its one of those debates that is hard to find middle ground on. Kind of like our current political environment.

Again, its ironic that the artist chose a controversial technique to protest someone who many find controversial.

I have to admit - I find the images compelling.

I think we should illuminate the world by showing what is and what can be.

In the process we should limit our damage and not humiliate people!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

In the process we should limit our damage and not humiliate people!

Click to expand...

Yes. Agreed. I'm with you.

Now, just as an exercise... What if someone who is on his way home to take some frustration out on their undeserving, helpless son or daughter and they see one of these photos and it was enough to make this person look beyond their own frustration or maybe even identify their own frustration and thus change the cycle of abuse in that situation?

Is it worth it then? What if these photos change a multitude of situations like this?

Is "teasing" a child with the candy worth it then? For a moment? Probably (hopefully) just once?

Not that these photos have that power - they may or may not. If they don't have power for good, then why waste the energy of pressing the shutter button let alone hours in post-processing, right? Let alone the child's suffering.

I would like to reconcentrate the debate:
It seems that we do mix different things:

The Why
The purpose of the artist:
"I am upsetwith the Bush Govt waging war with Iraq, so I wanted to use the children to portray MY message''

The What
The choice of subject:
Portraits of crying children

The How
The tools, or the way to get what the artist want into the frame

In this thread, the discussion is imho not the Why and the What (1st is a political staement in which we can agree or not, but is artist's choice/sensibility, the second is undoubtly, in this case, powerful and efficient, imo)

The Discussion is about the How, for the sake of any "good reason", can an artist do provoke suffer to children (but also to any person or even animals- I'm serious there!) in order to prove and show it's own suffer?

My feeling is no. (see my post before)

I also doubt, that the artist have put beside all portraits, the way she got the kids crying…

Nicolas, I agree - focus. In the end the issue comes down to 'Does the end justify the means'. or "shall I do evil for the sake of good'. There are some poweful precedents why this should not be so.

Doing evil to achieve good brings the protestor down to the level of the perpetrator. And nullifies any good that could come out of it.




edit - fixed a typo Kev 2007-10-11

Haven't you ever been with a friend, who says something like, "He LOVES that pacifier - watch, if I take it out of his mouth he cries almost instantly", and then "plop!", the pacifier is out, the baby cries, the pacifier goes back to the baby, the parents giggle and everyone moves on?

If it was a cycle or pattern, then there comes harm. Yes, it might be a little tacky and selfish, but is there any real harm?

Ed, to answer your question, yes, I have been around such folks, but I never liked it and that does not make it right either. In the end, the "how" part of what Nicolas illustrated is worrying. If she had made those images of kids who were naturally crying for whatever reason then that would be fine. The photos might not have had the perfect lighting etc. and it would be much much harder to convey the emotion if the photos were to be made "naturally" so to speak, but to make the kids cry to achieve the effect is going over the top IMHO.

Also, Kevin above summed it up and stole the words from my mind!

-- Vivek

Edward Bussa said:

Haven't you ever been with a friend, who says something like, "He LOVES that pacifier - watch, if I take it out of his mouth he cries almost instantly", and then "plop!", the pacifier is out, the baby cries, the pacifier goes back to the baby, the parents giggle and everyone moves on?

If it was a cycle or pattern, then there comes harm. Yes, it might be a little tacky and selfish, but is there any real harm?

Click to expand...

We have never use "pacifier" with our son ;-)

Only electrical shots!!! (kidding !-)

Nicolas Claris said:

We have never use "pacifier" with our son ;-)

Only electrical shots!!! (kidding !-)

Click to expand...

Any photo's? (also kidding)

Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Any photo's? (also kidding)

Bart

Click to expand...

Sorry all motion blurred by the kid's tremblings! (still kidding)

Edward Bussa said:

Yes. Agreed. I'm with you.

Now, just as an exercise... What if someone who is on his way home to take some frustration out on their undeserving, helpless son or daughter and they see one of these photos and it was enough to make this person look beyond their own frustration or maybe even identify their own frustration and thus change the cycle of abuse in that situation?

Is it worth it then? What if these photos change a multitude of situations like this?

Is "teasing" a child with the candy worth it then? For a moment? Probably (hopefully) just once?

Not that these photos have that power - they may or may not. If they don't have power for good, then why waste the energy of pressing the shutter button let alone hours in post-processing, right? Let alone the child's suffering.

Click to expand...

I somehow doubt a Photograph of a crying child would stop an abuser from abusing and tormenting a child on that baseless possibility is a lame excuse, it is also a million miles away from the 'intent' of the Photograph, which I feel is the issue . Had the 'intent' been to stop abuse based on research that images of crying babies strikes a chord with an abuser and makes him/her stop, I would STILL question the ethics of this Photographer, children cry a lot, maybe not on cue, but with a little skill as a documentary Photographer and CS3 you could make a half decent image of a child crying unprovoked by oneself.

I would find the images compelling if they were children crying in their own environment for normal reasons, tantrum, tiredness,teething,being told off when they do something wrong, as the images stand, I find them offensive, and question why anyone knowing the background and the intent, would take any pleasure at all at seeing them.

I find it rather sad that a Photographer is so desparate for subject matter, attention and publicity, that she would come up with the idea that she did? LOL what did she do? sit down one evening and think , hmm I will bring some kids to my studio and make them cry? Show me some talent and I will credit the Photographer, she has technical skills, but no soul, her Photographs are dead.

annie

her Photographs are dead.

Click to expand...

Amen!
(from an atheist…)