quade 4
Recommended Posts
Michele 1
QuoteSo, at least in part, what I'm reading is that a large portion of the complaint actually IS the statement being made by the artist and not so much the methods involved.
It's not about party lines. It's about abuse of a three year old child for political and theological statements, as well as personal financial gain. It's not got a whole lot to do with which party the titles fall in line with. Had she titled them otherwise, I'd still have issues with how the shot was achieved, and to what aim she manipulated the children into tears.
It's not a republican rant...it's not a democrat slam. It's the method involved, and the goals she had, when she created a shot. Abuse is illegal - if I make photos of someone beating their kid and called it "Poor White Trash", I'd be pillioried. And rightly so.
QuoteThe MESSAGE has absolutely no relevance on the ethics of the creation of the piece and must be considered as a separate issue entirely.
If the MESSAGE is created prior to the shot, and the method obtained to make that shot objectionable, then the message is part of the manipulation and the goal of the shot. You know as well as anyone else when you start a shoot you have a goal in mind...and to abuse a child to get to that end to me is abhorent.
That's the point; there isn't some real big political underlying message from me here; rather, it's about the use/misuse of a child and the blatant manipulations and coercion to get the goal shot - which is political and theological.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteI think the photo elicits laughter; there is the possibility that kid did that to himself. Leave a baby alone with a bowl of spaghetti and its going all over the place.
Leave a kid alone without a bowl of spaghetti and it will eventually cry.....I fail to see the difference.
aprilcat 0
QuoteQuoteI think the photo elicits laughter; there is the possibility that kid did that to himself. Leave a baby alone with a bowl of spaghetti and its going all over the place.
Leave a kid alone without a bowl of spaghetti and it will eventually cry.....I fail to see the difference.
Sooner or later a kid is going to cry ANYWAY, so my point is...WHEN do you take the shot?~~April
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
aprilcat 0
Very well said. By the way, I had an opportunity to take pictures of a potential murder. I couldn't do it. It took me all of THREE seconds to think that one out.~~April
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
quade 4
QuoteVery well said. By the way, I had an opportunity to take pictures of a potential murder. I couldn't do it. It took me all of THREE seconds to think that one out.~~April
Really?
To my way of thinking it would be unethical and irresponsible to make the concious decision to NOT take the photo.
Admittedly, taking the photo puts the photographer in potential danger, but what if taking the photo leads to the capture and conviction of the murderer?
Here is one story of a fairly famous photo;
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/faas.html
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
aprilcat 0
QuoteQuoteVery well said. By the way, I had an opportunity to take pictures of a potential murder. I couldn't do it. It took me all of THREE seconds to think that one out.~~April
Really?
To my way of thinking it would be unethical and irresponsible to make the concious decision to NOT take the photo.
Admittedly, taking the photo puts the photographer in potential danger, but what if taking the photo leads to the capture and conviction of the murderer?
Here is one story of a fairly famous photo;
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/faas.html
I was not in fear for my personal being. I've been threatened while behind the lens before and know how to choose to stay or get out of a situation.l My concern is working with the film. I'm not a journalist nor would I ever want to BE a journalist. I have issues with seeing people in trouble and thinking 'oh..this is going to be a GREAT photo' when I could be covering their wounds or taking pictures of homeless people when I COULD be getting them some soup.
To me, there's something pornographic in taking those sort of pictures; I'm not interested in making money or fame off the misery or other people. I'd testify in court, hell, they couldn't shut me up! But I can't use my instruments in that way. It's more about clicking the shutter, you have to live with what you've done through the image. I like sleeping at night...just my choice.~~April
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
Rebecca 0
Michele - I'm in agreement with the points you've made.
This is sort of a "tail wagging the dog" scenario, which eliminates the integrity needed to call a photograph art.
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
This is sort of a "tail wagging the dog" scenario, which eliminates the integrity needed to call a photograph art.
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
quade 4
QuoteThis is sort of a "tail wagging the dog" scenario, which eliminates the integrity needed to call a photograph art.
Can you articulate that a little better?
I'm unclear what "integrity" is required for a piece to be called "art".
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Rebecca 0
QuoteQuoteThis is sort of a "tail wagging the dog" scenario, which eliminates the integrity needed to call a photograph art.
Can you articulate that a little better?
I'm unclear what "integrity" is required for a piece to be called "art".
By integrity, I mean capturing something real.
Yes, the tears are real, the children are real, and their emotion is real, but that doesn't make a picture art. I can smack a kid under good light and snap a picture too. That doesn't mean I've captured something with my skill as an artist. I haven't created anything more than tears.
The fact that these are 3-year-olds certainly factors into it. You can dress up an adult or an older child to pose or play a character and name it something creative or disturbing and voila, art.
Anne Geddes takes adorable babies, dresses 'em up, puts 'em in fabric veggie patches and sells millions of photos because they're so damn cute. And the babies are either sleeping or laughing, which, aside from the hungry, sleepy or dirty-diaper tears, is how babies are naturally.
The point is, the photographer made these kids really mad IN ORDER to take a picture, as opposed to observing it naturally, or getting them in some other "make-believe" sad mode.
I'm not sure I just communicated my concept fully, but it'll have to do.
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
quade 4
Quote
The point is, the photographer made these kids really mad IN ORDER to take a picture, as opposed to observing it naturally, or getting them in some other "make-believe" sad mode.
Children of this age can not distinguish between "real" and "make-believe". It's part of what makes the whole "Santa Claus" thing work.
But I digress . . . I want to go back up to the top of your responce.
Quote
Yes, the tears are real, the children are real, and their emotion is real, but that doesn't make a picture art.
What does?
What quality about anything transforms it from something that is not art, into art?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Rebecca 0
QuoteWhat quality about anything transforms it from something that is not art, into art?
I dunno, but whatever it is, according to my own sensibilities and fairly broad exposure to a lot of credible art, this ain't it.
Well-shot pictures, sure. Evocative subjects, yes. But art? No.
I could run over a dog to have a poignant roadkill subject, but it was me who killed it, not a random car.
There's a line there somewhere, and her work doesn't cross it.
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
Shotgun 1
I have to agree with you, quade. While I can't say definitively whether this particular art exhibit constitutes "abuse" or not, I can't see any difference in most other "art" that involves children - photographs, movies, tv shows, etc....
QuoteI have to agree with you, quade. While I can't say definitively whether this particular art exhibit constitutes "abuse" or not, I can't see any difference in most other "art" that involves children - photographs, movies, tv shows, etc....
You repeated yourself. So I must repeat myself, since no one was listening the first times.
GOOD FUCKING POINT.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
MarkR 0
QuoteWhile I doubt she has broken any law (maybe emotional abuse but then I don't really know), she has certainly acted in an unethical manner. Deliberately manipulating an infant to inflict torment for the purpose of making the child cry for a picture is heartless and mean spirited.
That's how I see it.
There's a huge difference between taking a picture of a child in its "natural environment" and forcing a child into an negative emotional reaction.
If a child cries, the natural reaction of any sane and compassionate person should be to comfort it. Setting a kid up and then provoking emotional stress is just way wrong.
Look at the attached picture of my daughter. Look into her eyes and the way she is enjoying those strawberries: She is happy and content.
Now: Could/would you take away those strawberries - just to make her cry?
If you could/would, I am unable to have any respect for your sorry heartless ass.
»Somewhere between the lies and truths borderlines get shady.
Somewhere between the yesses and nos you can find the maybe.«
Somewhere between the yesses and nos you can find the maybe.«
Shotgun 1
QuoteYou repeated yourself. So I must repeat myself, since no one was listening the first times.
Isn't that the way it works in Speaker's Corner?
Richards 0
QuoteLook at the attached picture of my daughter. Look into her eyes and the way she is enjoying those strawberries: She is happy and content.
She's cute. That joy she is experiencing is the only emotion an adult should deliberately try to bring about in a child. Only a sick person would deliberately try to interfere with that happiness.
QuoteNow: Could/would you take away those strawberries - just to make her cry?
No. The idea is repulsive
QuoteIf you could/would, I am unable to have any respect for your sorry heartless ass.
Agreed 100%.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteQuoteYou repeated yourself. So I must repeat myself, since no one was listening the first times.
Isn't that the way it works in Speaker's Corner?
In my ineffectual way, I try to change that.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
Then I don't understand why you and others have made these statements;
From your original post;
From a post shortly thereafter;
From aprilcat;
The photos in the link Michele posted, I found to be beautiful IF I IGNORE the message assigned to them.
The artist intentionally set the frame as an 'editorial', then closes interpretation by GIVING it a title that doesn't leave perspective to the image, but takes it to another discourse. Any type of closed film/photo is going to lead the mind away from the image and to the intention of the artist.
***
So, at least in part, what I'm reading is that a large portion of the complaint actually IS the statement being made by the artist and not so much the methods involved.
The MESSAGE has absolutely no relevance on the ethics of the creation of the piece and must be considered as a separate issue entirely.
Afterall, I could easily take a photo (ethically) of virtually anything and give it an ironic or sarcastic title. In fact, it's done all the time.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites