People covered in honey

[JTPhotography]

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

3. Honey is incredibly expensive, must've been a huge budget for this silly shoot.

 

[Overread]

Lets try and remain respectful to models in photography shall we - even if they are not members of the site.

 

[Overread]

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common.
I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway.



Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.

 

[JTPhotography]

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common.
I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway.



Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.

First, as someone else said, it can kill them if ingested. Second, there is a difference between a babies getting stuff on their bodies during the course of their daily activities and a parent allowing a photographer to dump stuff on the kid for their own financial benefit.

 

[weepete]

As with a lot of foods honey can contain bacteria. If it has been heat treated it's fine as that will kill the spores making it perfectly safe.

 

[unpopular]

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe?

It is not the physical properties of honey that is the issue. Honey specifically *can* contain a form of botulism spore that affects babies. I don't know why infant botulism happens, and why it only affects babies. (ETA - wikipedia has information on this)

I think that infant botulism from honey is rare, if for one thing all parents after the 1970s have been advised to avoid honey. Even before that I don't think infant botulism is common, and wasn't even discovered until the mid 70s. Pasteurization I don't think would help, since it is the spore and not the toxin that is the issue - and I think that this is why it only affects babies - the bacteria is allowed to grow inside their immature intestine. (again, see wiki)

Someone said that the effects of infant botulism are "well managed". According to wikipedia the fatality rate is 1%.

While it is true that your baby is "more likely to be killed in a car accident", feeding (or covering) your baby in honey seems like an unnecessary risk, no matter how small. Babies under 1 don't need honey, it's like feeding them ice cream (but with a CHANCE OF DEATH - caps added for melodrama).

So yeah... citations and stuff. That way Buckster doesn't complain.

Botulism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Clostridium botulinum Pathogens and Protocols PulseNet CDC

 

[pixmedic]

wasnt it mentioned somewhere in a post that the baby was 18 months?
im pretty sure in real time that makes the baby over 1 year.

 

[Forkie]

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

3. Honey is incredibly expensive, must've been a huge budget for this silly shoot.

1. You make a valid point. It would be mediocre portraiture without the honey. It's ok that you don't get it. There are people in the world who do things without a point to make.

If you watch the video, he explains that he originally wanted to shoot a guy who reminded him of a bear and wanted to photograph him eating honey, like a bear does. He had the model dip his hand in the honey and was interested in the way it reflected light, they way it dripped off of the hand and how it reminded him of prehistoric organisms trapped and fossilized in amber. He then decided that instead of his original idea, he would cover the model entirely in honey to see what would happen.

Artistic expression and exploration are surely what we're all here in this forum for, right? We want to improve, learn new things and discover our own creative potential. I personally find it fascinating, the amount of ways different artists and photographers show the human body; covered in powder; body paint; make up; hair styles; fashion. I just think the honey project was a particularly interesting project because of the affect the honey has on the appearance of the body. Or is that we are we all really in this forum to perpetuate the "young girl sitting in a field/on a railway line/" portraits?

2. That's mental. And again, if you read the article and watch the video, the baby is well over the age limit everyone seems to think that honey turns from napalm to sugar. What about photographers who dump babies in the deep end or in the mud (where there might be dog poo! ) or allow them anywhere near a bred-especially-for-cage-fighting pitbull?

3. The guy is a well established celebrity, fashion and advertising photographer who I'm sure is doing alright for himself. Not that budget has anything to do with anything.

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common.
I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway.



Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.

First, as someone else said, it can kill them if ingested. Second, there is a difference between a babies getting stuff on their bodies during the course of their daily activities and a parent allowing a photographer to dump stuff on the kid for their own financial benefit.

What, exactly, is the difference between a baby getting stuff (dog poo, mud, dust, puddle water, chocolate) on itself in everyday activities and putting on them intentionally? If done intentionally it can be done safely, in controlled conditions. If a baby accidentally gets dog poo on it's hands and it goes un-noticed, that could make the baby ill if it then puts its finger in its mouth.

 

[photoguy99]

Yep. Take away the honey and it's just portraiture. Hence, the honey.

 

[unpopular]

wasnt it mentioned somewhere in a post that the baby was 18 months?
im pretty sure in real time that makes the baby over 1 year.

I think it was assumed the baby was over a year, but I don't think he was. By the looks of him or her, I'd say closer to 10 months? It's kinda hard to tell.

either way, don't dump honey on babies, mmk?

 

[Forkie]

wasnt it mentioned somewhere in a post that the baby was 18 months?
im pretty sure in real time that makes the baby over 1 year.

I think it was assumed the baby was over a year, but I don't think he was. By the looks of him or her, I'd say closer to 10 months? It's kinda hard to tell.

either way, don't dump honey on babies, mmk?

It says in the video the baby was 18 months.

 

[paigew]

I saw this on fb earlier. First it doesn't look like an 18 month baby to me...but I guess who am I to argue. I think its wrong to put it on animals and babies.
Also kinda a waste of natural resources...he used 900 buckets of honey. #savethebees

 

[pixmedic]

we could go on all day about stuff people do with their kids that i think is wrong...
the point is, a lot of those things are personal parenting decisions, and while some may seem extreme or even crazy to us, if there were any legal issues with what was going on there i am pretty sure something would have been done about it considering the pictures and video were published in a very open medium.

 

[JTPhotography]

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

3. Honey is incredibly expensive, must've been a huge budget for this silly shoot.

1. You make a valid point. It would be mediocre portraiture without the honey. It's ok that you don't get it. There are people in the world who do things without a point to make.

If you watch the video, he explains that he originally wanted to shoot a guy who reminded him of a bear and wanted to photograph him eating honey, like a bear does. He had the model dip his hand in the honey and was interested in the way it reflected light, they way it dripped off of the hand and how it reminded him of prehistoric organisms trapped and fossilized in amber. He then decided that instead of his original idea, he would cover the model entirely in honey to see what would happen.

Artistic expression and exploration are surely what we're all here in this forum for, right? We want to improve, learn new things and discover our own creative potential. I personally find it fascinating, the amount of ways different artists and photographers show the human body; covered in powder; body paint; make up; hair styles; fashion. I just think the honey project was a particularly interesting project because of the affect the honey has on the appearance of the body. Or is that we are we all really in this forum to perpetuate the "young girl sitting in a field/on a railway line/" portraits?

2. That's mental. And again, if you read the article and watch the video, the baby is well over the age limit everyone seems to think that honey turns from napalm to sugar. What about photographers who dump babies in the deep end or in the mud (where there might be dog poo! ) or allow them anywhere near a bred-especially-for-cage-fighting pitbull?

3. The guy is a well established celebrity, fashion and advertising photographer who I'm sure is doing alright for himself. Not that budget has anything to do with anything.

1. I don't get it, I don't see it as creative nor do I think there is anything special about the photography. Take away the honey and you have mediocre portraiture.

2. I also think that all of the people responsible for pouring honey, real or not, on that baby should be arrested and prosecuted for abuse.

How is warm honey (as I suspect it was warm to make it flow and for a comfort aspect) any much different to oils or mud or flour or the 100001 other things that babies manage to coat themselves in head to toe? Heck the use of baby oils is widespread and very common.
I fail to see how it is cruel to use honey and yet not cruel to use oils - especially considering that the honey is likely washed off moments later with warm water anyway.



Also now I'm reminded of oils the use of Honey is very much like the use of body oils that we see often in photography to define muscles and body shape; however here it adds that "melted" effect.

First, as someone else said, it can kill them if ingested. Second, there is a difference between a babies getting stuff on their bodies during the course of their daily activities and a parent allowing a photographer to dump stuff on the kid for their own financial benefit.

What, exactly, is the difference between a baby getting stuff (dog poo, mud, dust, puddle water, chocolate) on itself in everyday activities and putting on them intentionally? If done intentionally it can be done safely, in controlled conditions. If a baby accidentally gets dog poo on it's hands and it goes un-noticed, that could make the baby ill if it then puts its finger in its mouth.

Dumping honey on a baby on purpose is effed up. If you don't think it is effed up, there is nothing I will be able to say to change your mind. I won't argue it.

 

[photoguy99]

Do you have any babies?

If I were asked to do this with my 19 month old I know how I'd do it. She'd watch some other people get doused. She'd taste the honey and feel it.

She's not dumb. She would either ask to get in on the dumping action by pointing excitedly, or she would not.

If, and only if, she asked, we'd shoot.

Just because you're 18 months old doesn't mean you're not a person capable of giving consent.