 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Mothers / June 2006Child Abuse Or Art?
I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a witness, bystander, artist, photojournalist, citizen journalist, etc. But what Jill Greenberg is doing makes me want to throw up. And it shouldn't be allowed. I'm torn about even posting this post because she is obviously using her art as an excuse to do something horrible and is looking for publicity and response and that's exactly what I'm giving her here. But I'm hoping that through others being made aware of what she is doing that somehow pressure might be borne to stop it from happening. So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. -- so that she can then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If you'd like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click through here. http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind. ======== Full story and Jill's husband responds at the url below. http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_arts&Number=294721689#P ost294721689  Signature"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely" Cicero > I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical > for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I > consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind. --------------------------------- The children are upset, but are people never supposed to see such things? No, that is what art is about, expressing the difficult. There is no evidence that they were tortured or abused, and children of that age get upset about every ten minutes, it is not at all unusual or perverted. All we can see by your reaction is that you have little control of yourself or ability to investigate your own response deeply. Steve In one age, called the Second Age by some, (an Age yet to come, an Age long past) someone claiming to be 127.0.0.1 wrote in message <GGDng.2133$Wz5.1834@fe07.lga>: >I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical >for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I >consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind. Of course, "provoking" them involves the giving of a lollipop which is then taken away, nor are the pictures provocative in any sexual way, so one wonders by what delusional definitions these photographs qualify as either "abuse" or "pornography?" > I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical > for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Full story and Jill's husband responds at the url below. > http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_arts&Number=294721689#P ost294721689 That's some sick sh.t - tormenting a baby to make it cry so you can photograph it. Toddlers cry enough spontaneously that what she is doing isn't necessary. It's also not ethical. -L. > I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical > for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_arts&Number=294721689 > #Post294721689 I didn't see anything in the article indicating she was doing anything horrid to the children to make them cry, and if my memory of my kids at that age is any indication, all she'd have had to do is, well, hang out for a bit -- they're pretty emotionally variable at that age! I didn't find the pictures something I'd want to look at for very long, but don't find them offensive, either. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > In article <GGDng.2133$Wz5.1834@fe07.lga>, > I didn't see anything in the article indicating she was doing anything [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I didn't find the pictures something I'd want to look at for very long, > but don't find them offensive, either. I would be offended, if she was trying to get them upset, even if it was just taking away a lollipop. How would you like it if someone intentionally upset you to take your photo? I really doubt all she did was have the kids around the studio waiting for them to get upset at any random moment. If she was doing it as a project, I suspect she was provoking them. > I would be offended, if she was trying to get them upset, even if it was > just taking away a lollipop. How would you like it if someone intentionally > upset you to take your photo? I really doubt all she did was have the kids > around the studio waiting for them to get upset at any random moment. If > she was doing it as a project, I suspect she was provoking them. If you read the husband's "defense" the lollipop trick was one of the things she did - he doesn't say what else she did. I just think it's wrong. Kids that age get frustrated and cry enough as it is. -L. Was that lighting or some photoshop technique that gives the pictures that "glowing" quality? In one age, called the Second Age by some, (an Age yet to come, an Age long past) someone claiming to be LaTreen Washington wrote in message <44a1af94$1_2@x-privat.org>: >Was that lighting or some photoshop technique that gives the pictures that >"glowing" quality? Could have been either -- I'm inclined to it being lighting, however. > I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical > for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > those within the gate freely" > Cicero It is child abuse! It disgusts me! To purposely upset a child and traumatize him or as a means of your own artistic gain, while knowing it will cause a stir, thus promoting your with the controversy is disgusting! This person is a bastard! HE is using these children's sufferings as a means to his/her own gain, artistic fame! I personally think he's evil! This reminds me of the scene is the movie Sophie's choice when the little girl started screaming when the Nazi took her away > It is child abuse! It disgusts me! To purposely upset a child and > traumatize him or as a means of your own artistic gain, while knowing > it will cause a stir, thus promoting your with the controversy is > disgusting! What do you say about THE PARHUNTS that allowed the photographer to shoot the pictures? > This person is a bastard! HE is using these children's > sufferings as a means to his/her own gain, artistic fame! I personally > think he's evil! Opinions are like a.sholes, and your's stinks! > This reminds me of the scene is the movie Sophie's choice when the > little girl started screaming when the Nazi took her away Do you think they'll put the brat in an oven? > > It is child abuse! It disgusts me! To purposely upset a child and > > traumatize him or as a means of your own artistic gain, while knowing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What do you say about THE PARHUNTS that allowed the photographer to shoot > the pictures? Ya gotta wonder about that too. BTW, I think they're photoshopped. -L. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.