Richards 0
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteKey word: parent, as in, for their own good...
The money paid for the taking of the pictures will go toward the college fund of the child. One could argue that an emotional outburst never to be remembered can be used in the greater good of the child to allow it to go to college...
Yes, I realize it is stretching it a bit...but like has been said before. I see no difference between this and young child actors....etc
Rebecca 0
It's a stretch, and it still doesn't make it art.
I mean, is anything done "artistically" necessarily art?
If an artist makes it, is it automatically art?
Or is it sometimes just a photo with some abstract blah-blah attached?
What's the criteria? I mean, I know my personal criteria, but is there some objective measure to classify something 'officially' as art?
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
I mean, is anything done "artistically" necessarily art?
If an artist makes it, is it automatically art?
Or is it sometimes just a photo with some abstract blah-blah attached?
What's the criteria? I mean, I know my personal criteria, but is there some objective measure to classify something 'officially' as art?
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
no.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
Rebecca 0
Quoteno.
Perfect! On with the debate until someone wins!
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
QuoteQuoteno.
Perfect! On with the debate until someone wins!
As the SC wheel turns.....
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteIt's a stretch, and it still doesn't make it art.
I agree, but it not being art also doesn't make it abuse.
I wouldn't allow my children to be photographed this way. But that still doesn't make it abuse either or art.
Can't you freaking read?!
The title of the thread says it is either art OR abuse.
You HAVE to pick one.
The title of the thread says it is either art OR abuse.
You HAVE to pick one.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
SkyDekker 1,465
I pick C
QuoteI pick C
Ahh, so it is art AND abuse.
Good choice sir.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
SkyDekker 1,465
Art is abuse by definition.
Rebecca 0
QuoteArt is abuse by definition.
Hold it! I thought we just agreed there WAS no definition?
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteHold it! I thought we just agreed there WAS no definition?
On what Art is...but we do know that Art is Abuse by definition....really it is quite simple
Rebecca 0
QuoteQuoteHold it! I thought we just agreed there WAS no definition?
On what Art is...but we do know that Art is Abuse by definition....really it is quite simple
"We" do? How do "we" know this?
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?
Divine power.
duh.
duh.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.
Michele 1
QuoteAnd yet . . . I'm just guessing here . . . parents conciously make choices and do things, maybe even with some regular frequency, that results in the child crying. Things like, make the child take a bath or put away a toy or whatever . . .
Point is, they've -conciously- chosen to do it knowing full well that they're going to make the child cry.
As a parent, sometimes you need to do things which will upset the child - i.e vaccinations, no chocolate, bedtime...but it's a parenting thing, and a responsibility, not a manipulation to make a child cry so you can take photos.
I have a shot of my littlest niece; she was screaming her 2 year old head off...we didn't realize it at the time that she had grabbed a catcus. Might I give that shot to her when she's older? Perhaps, depending upon how her sense of humor develops. Will I sell it? Hell no. Would I intentionally give a catcus to a child to see what their reaction would be? Hell no. That would be abusive. Intentionally inflicting physical or emotional pain is not an acceptable thing to do for any reason, let alone one that is clearly stated as a political/theological one...
QuoteWhat's the difference?
One is a parent bringing up a child to be a productive member of society. The other is a manipulation of a child's emotion in a negative way to achieve a personal (i.e not for the child) goal. That, to me, is a pretty clear difference, even though I'm not a parent.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
micro 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou 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.
Nice new avatar, Rob! If I were ghey...
I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...
Lindsey 0
Lemme tell ya, if a kid's -worst- problem is that they've had a lollypop taken away for the purposes of a photograph, that child has perhaps the most blessed childhood I've ever heard of.
Yep....they'll learn early that people will manipulate them for financial gain. May even do 'em some good in the long run.
linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
billvon 3,096
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> That said most people would agree that there has to be consistency
>and that there should be an observable cause and effect relationship that
>the kid can figure out.
Agreed. And if someone took a picture of them crying during that time, no problem. If someone punished them just to get the picture, then that's pretty slimy.
>and that there should be an observable cause and effect relationship that
>the kid can figure out.
Agreed. And if someone took a picture of them crying during that time, no problem. If someone punished them just to get the picture, then that's pretty slimy.
Thats fine if it is done to help develop a sense of right and wrong in a child and to teach the idea that ones actions do have consequenses. That said most people would agree that there has to be consistency and that there should be an observable cause and effect relationship that the kid can figure out. Hurting a kid to take a picture teaches the kid that it is OK to be mean of it serves to amuse......and kids are great immitators.
Richards