Did photographer cross the line?

[Dakarthanblu]

I saw an interesting piece on the internet today, about some photographer who came under fire for his/her portraits of small children who, ahving been candy as inducement, then had the treats taken away, in order to capture images of their distruaght and ter-stained faces. Now all the whil the parents are in attendance and have given approval; is this child abuse, as the photographer is being accused of; did the artist cross the line when comes to doing whatever it demands to "get the shot"? I'm still mulling it over. Any opinions?

:thumbup: :thumbdown:

 

[markc]

I think people can argue about the purity of art or whatever 'till the cows come home, but regardless, I just think it's a really crappy thing to do to a person, let alone a kid. Maybe someone should take his camera away.

 

[darin3200]

Her name Jill Greenberg. Personally I think she is sick. She tries to cover for these photos by giving this long, drawn out explanation how her photos touch on the national physche and somehow makes a connection to america's polticial and ideological situation and something about iraq.

But technically she has the right to. This is where it gets interesting. Another photog calls her out on it, just saying that she's sick and it's unethical. Greenberg threatens to sue for libel and go crazy.

From the second link

Perhaps the greatest irony of the work is Greenberg's overlaying of a political message, one preaching compassion and intelligence at that, to a process that involved the willful manipulation of toddlers to break down their toddler-sized psyches and leave them in a pool of their own tears. I agree with the artist and many others in this country in her assessment of the current administration in Washington. But Greenberg's own tactics are a mordant, grotesque "nursery-school version" of the most conspicuous of those same policies and practices.

Links for the story
http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html
http://thinkingpictures.blogspot.com/2006/07/case-against-jill-greenbergs-end-times.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/business/01online.html?ex=1154318400&en=9d776614d7e2c74d&ei=5070

the pics
http://paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm

 

[craig]

This is an old case, but the concept is intriguing to say the least. May be that "nature photographers" bait bears.

The point is that we are all out for amazing photos. If I was a fly on her wall I could tell you that a (generally) good time was had by all. Contrary to popular belief these kids knew what they were getting into.

 

[ksmattfish]

Taking candy from a baby is mean, but it happens. Creepy, but I don't see how it's child abuse.

 

[tasman]

Somebody should take his camera away and see how he feels.

 

[Dakarthanblu]

I have to admit to not being in the know as it concerns her political statement, I just thought the pics were creepy, and that the explicit approval of the parents in attendance smacks of exploitation, not unlike parents who dress their kids up like small adults and have them prance on stage for a gawking--and paying, audience. I'm tempted to side with the artist but, in this age when hacks like Christo and, what's his face--David Blaine, the so-called performance artist. can command a country's attention with the artist's equivalent of the fart joke, well then, I guess we'll turn a blind eye and present a full wallet to just about any damned thing

 

[Dakarthanblu]

I think people can argue about the purity of art or whatever 'till the cows come home, but regardless, I just think it's a really crappy thing to do to a person, let alone a kid. Maybe someone should take his camera away.

Yeah, someone should hand her--it was a her, right? anyway someone should hand her one of those 29MP Hassleblads, let her go hog wild with it, and then snatch it from her, photograph her bawling, and then display it atop Times Square--with 29MP one could probably manage it--damn I want one, but I just spent my last 20K on Stones tickets.

 

[terri]

Meh. It's part of her gimmick. She apparently does whatever she needs to do to get the children upset enough to cry real tears - of anger or frustration or whatever - taking candy away, and remove clothing to make them uncomfortable are a couple of the things I've read. She then photoshops these images to where they take on a borderline surreal look, and has also slapped some kind of political statement to the entire body of work, calling it "End Times" and making it an anti-Bush statement. It's a stretch, but apparently she's making money. So who is the artistic whore? The photographer, the parents, or the people buying this imagery?

She also did a series on monkeys, who looked to be having a better time of it in front of her camera than the children.

 

[Tiberius]

Were the children harmed in any way? No. Not physically, and not emotionally in anything more than a temporary sense. The results were effective. And if the parents were there, it's their perogative, not some blogger's. I'd say she's perfectly within her rights. Her tactics may not be mainstream, but they're certainly effective.

 

[darin3200]

Were the children harmed in any way? No. Not physically, and not emotionally in anything more than a temporary sense. The results were effective. And if the parents were there, it's their perogative, not some blogger's. I'd say she's perfectly within her rights. Her tactics may not be mainstream, but they're certainly effective.

Do you want to make money from making children cry? Yeah, it's not illegal, just sort of sick.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I have to agree with darin here.

I don't find it child abuse at all, and to mention so is completely over zealous. I wouldn't be able to do this, I don't have a problem with photographing it, but I wouldn't want to be the one making them cry, their parents can do that if they are so careless (see next paragraph). Kid's fall down and cry at parks all the time; go photograph them. As far as the harm being only temporary, well so is a punch in the face as long as no bones are broken, and even then bones heal. While that's overboard, a slap in the face is certainly temporary, leaving only a hand print at most. So I mean how far is she willing to go?

Also, I would be more ****ed with the parents than with the photographer. Who lets a stranger give their kids candy then take it away to make them cry. If anything I think the parents should be under attack for this one. As far as what I said about letting the parents make them cry for my pictures, I still wouldn't personally be comfortable with that... but there is no way I would make them cry myself, it just doesn't feel right.

And people will buy anything with an anti-bush theme

 

[ksmattfish]

There are plenty of situations where children are suffering real abuse in this world that the media could focus on instead, but this has got a nice, glossy finish that's easy to forget. People would rather get irrate over healthy American toddlers being denied sweets than middle eastern babies with their skin burned off.

 

[Digital Matt]

People would rather get irrate over healthy American toddlers being denied sweets than middle eastern babies with their skin burned off.

Well said. This whole debate is really petty, given what is happening elsewhere in the world.

 

[malweth]

There are a lot of odd things some people consider art. I can't comment on how the art looks, but I wouldn't like it because of how it is contrived. Artistically, I believe ethics would only come into play if there were long term emotional or physical effects caused by the photographer. Certainly also if the artist tried to portray her work as something other than it is.

If this were media, ethics gets involved... It is unethical for a photojournalist to interact with the scene more than any typical passer-by (gawker, etc). If the scene changes because of the photographer, it is not newsworthy. (This couldn't include journalistic portraits, of course)