Art or Abuse?

[Michele 1]

Jill Greenberg is a phenomenal photographic artist. She knows what she's doing. In fact, her website is called "manipulator".

She just finished a show here in Los Angeles, of children's pain and upset. Normally, I can see a thing and not be too upset by it; I've attended autopsies, seen lots of pain and anguish in friends, family members, and so on. I understand the journalistic aspect of capturing the human condition, it's joys and sorrows, via photography.

What I can't understand is this. The press release states the following (in part):
"End Times" combines beautiful, poignant imagery, impeccably executed, with both political and personal relevance. Greenberg’s subject is taboo: children in pain. She utilizes this uncomfortable image as a way to break through to the pop mainstream and begin a national dialogue. Jill Greenberg's images are sharp and saturated, stunning and quirky; her work is soaked with realism and imagination."

Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with this, if it were natural and in the child's normal course of his day. However. And it's a big however.

In this series, this photographer took children - about 3 years old - and stripped them naked (no, it's not porno). The she sat them under hot lights (not a really big deal, either). Gave them a sucker or lolly...and then took it away from them. Using this method, she got the child to react the way she wanted it to - crying, upset, angry.

To me, I believe that this is abuse. The intentional disruption of a child's peace of mind for the sake of a shutter click. That she will sell for thousands of dollars, I might add. Sure, a child has temper tantrums. They will yell, scream, fight, argue, cry...that's part of a normal child's repertory of communication skills.

In this series, though, it seems to me to be abusive. This is not a naturally occuring instance - it was manipulated and created for the sake of a photo. Nothing more or less...just a photo. To express the 'artist's vision', she tormented a child into a tantrum, a tearfilled moment so that she could take a picture.

Had it been a normally occuring shot - i.e. the child is upset for reasons not manipulated nor set up - then I could see the value. In this series, I cannot. Perhaps it's the deliberate "angry-fying" of the child; the intentional disruption of it's world. Perhaps it's just that I don't like to see a child used like this. Who knows. But I do know that I consider it less than art by a long shot - and I have a pretty broad view of what "art" is. This is, to me, abuse.

Further, add to that the titling of the shot. "Grand Old Party". "Misinformation". "Revelations". And so forth. To me, that's manipulating children into tears for her personal political and religious beliefs. To then sell these images, as a political and/or theological statement is horrific.

Let me be perfectly clear: had a photo shoot been going on and this outburst occurred naturally, with no provocation by the "artist", I would not be nearly as upset and angry as I am. Yes, children get lollies taken from them on a regular basis. Yes, they get angry regularly, too. But here, it's more akin to abuse when you consider the intent, the manipulation, and the deliberate provocation which occurred. And in a society wherein amber alerts are regular features, children's deaths are often violent, and Michael Jackson gets found innocent...I suppose I shouldn't be quite so perturbed when I see something an artist use children's anguish as a political or theological statement...but I am.

Your opinion? I'd be interested.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 4]

If the object of art is to evoke an emotional responce in the viewer, then is not a logical extension of that also going to include the creation of the piece to begin with?

To my way of thinking, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with exploring ALL sides of emotion.

Lemme ask you this; if the artist had tickled the subject to get a responce, would that make you upset?

Again, to my way of thinking, it's EXACTLY the same thing.

Do I particularly CARE for the finished works? No. Not really. I think they're kinda creepy in several ways, but I'll certainly defend the way they were created since, come on, face it, no real harm was done to anyone.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

IfAgain, to my way of thinking, it's EXACTLY the same thing.

Tickling a kid and making them cry are EXACTLY the same thing?

Hardly. One practice is acceptable because it lends to the positive development of the child. The other practice is detrimental to the child. Can you tell which is which?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Michele 1]

Quote

if the artist had tickled the subject to get a responce, would that make you upset?

Nope. Tickling is fun, good, and elicits laugher and joy.

Let me ask you this - would poking the child with a pin to make them cry be a problem? Why/Why not?

See, for me, if it were naturally occuring - as I said, during a shoot or something - then I would have no real issue with the tears. It's the provocation of it that bothers me, regardless of how it's done. The deliberate infliction of emotional distress - and on a three year old, no less - is what bothers me.

Quote

To my way of thinking, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with exploring ALL sides of emotion.

I agree. I just don't think I'm capable of tormenting a child deliberately to express my own opinion of political or theological topics. Am I capable of tickling a child to find a smile or a laugh? you betcha - 'cause to me, that's not tormenting or abusive.

But again, that is the topic, yes? Art or abuse...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 4]

Quote

Tickling a kid and making them cry are EXACTLY the same thing?

You maybe are not aware that being tickled as a child can cause lifetime issues with being touched?

You tell me, which has the potential to do the most harm; taking away a lollypop or tickling?

But beyond that . . . the ACT isn't what is really in question here. It whether or not the manipulation of the child is justified for the sake of art and in that, I maintain that doing either is exactly the same.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[micro 0]

it's cruel. to purposely put kids into this distress, even over a sucker, for the sole purpose of capturing their emotion on film, is sadistic. and it's completely unnecessary. and for quade to equate it w/ tickling is ludicrous.

as you say, she could have easily gotten what she was after by photographing the kids in vivo. but that wouldn't have been so "artsy" now, would it.

michele, come take pictures of my kids after I've ticked them intentionally for the sake of you capturing them giddy w/ laughter, and let's compare them w/ these pics... yeah, that's it...

was any LONG term damage done to the kid? doubtful. but is that REALLY the point? why subject the kid to ANY pointless suffering, for that is what this was, pointless distress. does the kid understand what's going on? can the kid assimilate the grand scheme, the "lofty goal" of this art? hell, most adults won't get it, because there ISN'T ONE! "To stimulate dialogue." What a bunch of horseshit.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[quade 4]

Quote

hell, most adults won't get it, because there ISN'T ONE! "To stimulate dialogue." What a bunch of horseshit.

And yet . . . isn't that EXACTLY what is happening here?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

But beyond that . . . the ACT isn't what is really in question here. It whether or not the manipulation of the child is justified for the sake of art and in that, I maintain that doing either is exactly the same.

Then do you maintain that either ok, or not ok?

. . =(_8^(1)

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

hell, most adults won't get it, because there ISN'T ONE! "To stimulate dialogue." What a bunch of horseshit.

And yet . . . isn't that EXACTLY what is happening here?

i don't think this is exactly the dialogue the artist intended... but if it is, that doesn't say much about the artist, except negative thing that is...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[quade 4]

Quote

Then do you maintain that either ok, or not ok?

Ah! At least you're willing to discuss it!

Go to ANY shopping mall and you'll probably see a photo studio set up to take portraits of children. The basic concept is going to be that these are "happy" photos.

Please, just go and WATCH some of these photos being made and after about an hour, tell me how many of the children actually enjoyed the experience of being manipulated for the photo.

Lemme just mention here that I have a LOT (more than you can possibly in your wildest imagination) experience with taking photos of children of all ages and you would simply not believe how "unhappy" children can get for the sake of a "happy" photo.

Now, does that make anything here "ok"? I dunno.

That said, if you accept the "happy" photo experience, I think you really do have to sort of accept the "unhappy" photo experience.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

Quote

michele, come take pictures of my kids after I've ticked them intentionally for the sake of you capturing them giddy w/ laughter, and let's compare them w/ these pics... yeah, that's it...

In a heartbeat, Michael. You know that without doubt.

Quade, I understand your points. I don't agree with them, but I understand them. I don't agree with the premise of this particular artist's work - to abuse (and yes, I see it as abuse) a child to acheive a certain look for a shot which makes the artist some money - with the titles of "Grand Old Party" and "Spin."

To me, that objective takes it right out of the game...she's abusing children to get her own political commentary over. And that, to me, is the epitome of a selfish, abusive person.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Guest]

Quote

she's abusing children to get her own political commentary over. And that, to me, is the epitome of a selfish, abusive person.

Ciels-
Michele

It's a liberal thing.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[quade 4]

Quote

I don't agree with the premise of this particular artist's work - to abuse (and yes, I see it as abuse) a child to acheive a certain look for a shot which makes the artist some money - with the titles of "Grand Old Party" and "Spin."

Ah, I must have glossed over that part in your original post.

So . . . if the photos had been titled something different . . . would that then be ok?

Because, uh, the TITLE of the piece really shouldn't affect your opinion on whether or not the method used to produce the work was ethical or not.

As for making money off other people's suffering. Isn't that simply capitalism?

So, what is your REAL beef with the photos; the "suffering" of the children or the political statement?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

It's a liberal thing.

Bah. So weak Mark. So weak.

Because clearly no conservative parents ever forced their children into a baby beauty contest or whatnot.

"Liberal" has nothing to do with this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Plucky 0]

I can see that this upsets you, but I can also see (what I think is) Quade's point, and personally I don't think it's a big deal, lemme explain ..

.. The methods you suggest she uses can't really be defined as abuse IMO. I don't think the child will be any more traumatised than if, say, a schoolmate took his\her lollipop away, or the parents took it away because it's dinner time. I personally hate being tickled, and as a child it made me instantly angry and I wanted to lash out at anyone who forced me to react in a way I didn't choose to behave right there and then.

The point here I think is why she's doing it. The act itself isn't that bad, but doing it to sell (badly-lit IMO) pictures is not quite ethical, but still, no big deal because I doubt she'd end up selling that much.
She's getting exposure from controversy, but people will still buy pictures they like looking at, and who likes watching screaming kids?

I think it's unkind, but not abusive, and it will die down soon.

[Royd 0]

Maybe she should have set up the studio in a doctor's office during vacinations. Would that have pleased you?
At least she isn't using public money to present something that is intentionally offensive to many people.

P.S. Five minutes after it all happened, those children were either laughing or crying about something else, and probably never give it a second thought.
One reason we now have 30 yr. old children who still live off of mom and dad is this very attitude.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Ah! At least you're willing to discuss it!

You bring a good perspective and some good points on the topic. However, I still see more harm being done by intentionally making a child "unhappy" for the camera, as opposed to goading the child into a "happy" pose.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,114]

>However, I still see more harm being done by intentionally making a
> child "unhappy" for the camera, as opposed to goading the child
>into a "happy" pose.

Right. But I see no difference between these pictures and taking a child to a professional photographer for a 'glamour' shot if the parent knows the kid doesn't like the bright lights. The pictures are in very poor taste, but are no more abusive than any picture showing a kid in a situation he doesn't like for the purpose of the picture.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Maybe she should have set up the studio in a doctor's office during vacinations. Would that have pleased you?
At least she isn't using public money to present something that is intentionally offensive to many people.

P.S. Five minutes after it all happened, those children were either laughing or crying about something else, and probably never give it a second thought.
One reason we now have 30 yr. old children who still live off of mom and dad is this very attitude.

I think you might've missed the point by a hair. Sorry 'bout that.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

. . .she sat them under hot lights (not a really big deal, either). Gave them a sucker or lolly...and then took it away from them. Using this method, she got the child to react the way she wanted it to - crying, upset, angry.

To me, I believe that this is abuse. The intentional disruption of a child's peace of mind for the sake of a shutter click. That she will sell for thousands of dollars, I might add. . .

Just curious (I honestly have no idea), but don't they use similar methods when filming movies and tv shows with young children? I often wonder about that when I see a baby crying in a show. Given production costs, I can't imagine that they would wait for the baby to start crying naturally.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Ah, I must have glossed over that part in your original post.

So . . . if the photos had been titled something different . . . would that then be ok?

Because, uh, the TITLE of the piece really shouldn't affect your opinion on whether or not the method used to produce the work was ethical or not.

As for making money off other people's suffering. Isn't that simply capitalism?

So, what is your REAL beef with the photos; the "suffering" of the children or the political statement?

The suffering of a child. That's my beef. Not suffering of a child in the normal course of his daily world - we all know kids will cry and have difficulties. But the deliberate inducing of the tears to provide someone with fodder for their political/religious intent bothers me a great deal...

That's the point, I think, of this discussion. How far is too far, ethically, to go when taking a shot? How far is too far when creating "art"? Memorializing a person's grief is not a bad thing. Deliberately setting up the circumstances so that a person has grief is a bad thing. The manipulation is what I'm talking about...to further one's personal ends and to gain value (i.e. sales) on a child's pain (deliberately induced) is what I'm talking about.

And I think that she went too far.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Richards 0]

Quote

The suffering of a child. That's my beef. Not suffering of a child in the normal course of his daily world - we all know kids will cry and have difficulties. But the deliberate inducing of the tears to provide someone with fodder for their political/religious intent bothers me a great deal...

That's the point, I think, of this discussion. How far is too far, ethically, to go when taking a shot? How far is too far when creating "art"? Memorializing a person's grief is not a bad thing. Deliberately setting up the circumstances so that a person has grief is a bad thing. The manipulation is what I'm talking about...to further one's personal ends and to gain value (i.e. sales) on a child's pain (deliberately induced) is what I'm talking about.

And I think that she went too far.

Ciels-
Michele

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

. . .she sat them under hot lights (not a really big deal, either). Gave them a sucker or lolly...and then took it away from them. Using this method, she got the child to react the way she wanted it to - crying, upset, angry.

To me, I believe that this is abuse. The intentional disruption of a child's peace of mind for the sake of a shutter click. That she will sell for thousands of dollars, I might add. . .

Just curious (I honestly have no idea), but don't they use similar methods when filming movies and tv shows with young children? I often wonder about that when I see a baby crying in a show. Given production costs, I can't imagine that they would wait for the baby to start crying naturally.

This point is most excellent. Party on dudes.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Given production costs, I can't imagine that they would wait for the baby to start crying naturally.

As I understand it, in Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, the little girl met the aliens in one scene and they wanted her face to go from scared, to curiously confuse, then to delight.

So next to the camera, they had a guy in a gorilla suit jump out (scared), then he reached up to remove his mask (curious/confused), then he exposed his clown face under the gorilla mask (delighted).

I'm sure the artist is an asshole, but I don't think it was abuse unless she did something actually damaging.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[aprilcat 0]

But here, it's more akin to abuse when you consider the intent, the manipulation, and the deliberate provocation which occurred. And in a society wherein amber alerts are regular features, children's deaths are often violent, and Michael Jackson gets found innocent...I suppose I shouldn't be quite so perturbed when I see something an artist use children's anguish as a political or theological statement...but I am.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I looked at the photos last night and tried to decide...I agree with your statement here. I'm against manipulating children to make a 'statement'. This brought to mind something that bothered me in the past (and still bothers me):

http://www.smithfund.org/kenneally.html

Do you think you can get a crackhead to pose for free? Of course not. Kenneally HAD to supply the crack and keep the party going to make it worth their while. Would she continue to shoot had a piece of hot glass blown up on the sleeping child's face? Though the messages isn't totally political, these children are put in precarious situations for the sake of a sociological statement. And I'm not buying it.

But it IS art. The artist seeks to tell her 'truth' in both pieces and if they have to scar a few little ones, so be it. I couldn't do it. I never want to 'say' something like this and I really wouldn't have too much discourse with the artists themselves about the pieces (because personally I think they are a$$holes for doing it). I'd say its art, yes, but in obtaining the image, its abusive.~~April

Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!