Re: Child Abuse Or Art?
R. Steve Walz
>
> I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical
> for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a
> witness, bystander, artist, photojournalist, citizen journalist, etc.
>
> But what Jill Greenberg is doing makes me want to throw up. And it shouldn't
> be allowed. I'm torn about even posting this post because she is obviously
> using her art as an excuse to do something horrible and is looking for
> publicity and response and that's exactly what I'm giving her here. But I'm
> hoping that through others being made aware of what she is doing that
> somehow pressure might be borne to stop it from happening.
>
> So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three
> years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to
> various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. -- so that she can
> then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If
> you'd like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click
> through here.
> http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm
> Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I
> consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.
---------------------------------
The children are upset, but are people never supposed to see such
things? No, that is what art is about, expressing the difficult.
There is no evidence that they were tortured or abused, and children
of that age get upset about every ten minutes, it is not at all
unusual or perverted. All we can see by your reaction is that you
have little control of yourself or ability to investigate your own
response deeply.
Steve
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be 127.0.0.1 wrote
in message <GGDng.2133$Wz5....@fe07.lga>:
>I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical
>for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a
>witness, bystander, artist, photojournalist, citizen journalist, etc.
>
>But what Jill Greenberg is doing makes me want to throw up. And it shouldn't
>be allowed. I'm torn about even posting this post because she is obviously
>using her art as an excuse to do something horrible and is looking for
>publicity and response and that's exactly what I'm giving her here. But I'm
>hoping that through others being made aware of what she is doing that
>somehow pressure might be borne to stop it from happening.
>
>So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three
>years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to
>various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. -- so that she can
>then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If
>you'd like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click
>through here.
>http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm
>Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I
>consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.
Of course, "provoking" them involves the giving of a lollipop which is
then taken away, nor are the pictures provocative in any sexual way,
so one wonders by what delusional definitions these photographs
qualify as either "abuse" or "pornography?"
L.
127.0.0.1 wrote:
> I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical
> for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a
> witness, bystander, artist, photojournalist, citizen journalist, etc.
>
> But what Jill Greenberg is doing makes me want to throw up. And it shouldn't
> be allowed. I'm torn about even posting this post because she is obviously
> using her art as an excuse to do something horrible and is looking for
> publicity and response and that's exactly what I'm giving her here. But I'm
> hoping that through others being made aware of what she is doing that
> somehow pressure might be borne to stop it from happening.
>
> So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three
> years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to
> various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. -- so that she can
> then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If
> you'd like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click
> through here.
> http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm
> Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I
> consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.
>
> Full story and Jill's husband responds at the url below.
> http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_arts&Number=294721689#Post294721689
>
That's some sick shit - tormenting a baby to make it cry so you can
photograph it. Toddlers cry enough spontaneously that what she is
doing isn't necessary. It's also not ethical.
-L.
dragonlady
"127.0.0.1" <127....@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical
> for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a
> witness, bystander, artist, photojournalist, citizen journalist, etc.
>
> But what Jill Greenberg is doing makes me want to throw up. And it shouldn't
> be allowed. I'm torn about even posting this post because she is obviously
> using her art as an excuse to do something horrible and is looking for
> publicity and response and that's exactly what I'm giving her here. But I'm
> hoping that through others being made aware of what she is doing that
> somehow pressure might be borne to stop it from happening.
>
> So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three
> years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to
> various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. -- so that she can
> then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If
> you'd like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click
> through here.
> http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/inde
> x.htm
> Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I
> consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.
>
> ========
> Full story and Jill's husband responds at the url below.
> http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_arts&Number=294721689
> #Post294721689
I didn't see anything in the article indicating she was doing anything
horrid to the children to make them cry, and if my memory of my kids at
that age is any indication, all she'd have had to do is, well, hang out
for a bit -- they're pretty emotionally variable at that age!
I didn't find the pictures something I'd want to look at for very long,
but don't find them offensive, either.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
toypup
"dragonlady" <meh...@removepacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mehouck-47DE59...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <GGDng.2133$Wz5....@fe07.lga>,
> I didn't see anything in the article indicating she was doing anything
> horrid to the children to make them cry, and if my memory of my kids at
> that age is any indication, all she'd have had to do is, well, hang out
> for a bit -- they're pretty emotionally variable at that age!
>
> I didn't find the pictures something I'd want to look at for very long,
> but don't find them offensive, either.
I would be offended, if she was trying to get them upset, even if it was
just taking away a lollipop. How would you like it if someone intentionally
upset you to take your photo? I really doubt all she did was have the kids
around the studio waiting for them to get upset at any random moment. If
she was doing it as a project, I suspect she was provoking them.
L.
toypup wrote:
>
> I would be offended, if she was trying to get them upset, even if it was
> just taking away a lollipop. How would you like it if someone intentionally
> upset you to take your photo? I really doubt all she did was have the kids
> around the studio waiting for them to get upset at any random moment. If
> she was doing it as a project, I suspect she was provoking them.
If you read the husband's "defense" the lollipop trick was one of the
things she did - he doesn't say what else she did. I just think it's
wrong. Kids that age get frustrated and cry enough as it is.
-L.
LaTreen Washington
"glowing" quality?
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <44a1af94$1...@x-privat.org>:
>Was that lighting or some photoshop technique that gives the pictures that
>"glowing" quality?
Could have been either -- I'm inclined to it being lighting, however.
Catherine Woodgold
> Of course, "provoking" them involves the giving of a lollipop which is
> then taken away, nor are the pictures provocative in any sexual way,
> so one wonders by what delusional definitions these photographs
> qualify as either "abuse" or "pornography?"
In my opinion: it can be OK to take a lollipop away from a child because
it was given to the child by mistake and because it actually
belongs to someone else or because one believes it's hazardous
to the child's health. But if one deliberately
gives a child a lollipop and takes it away again for the purpose
of making the child upset, that's unethical -- unless maybe
the child needs to be made upset for some medical purpose
for the child's benefit, and
I can't think of any situation where that would occur.
Any method of deliberately making someone, who
has not given informed consent to the procedure,
upset in order to photograph
them in that state is unethical IMO, especially so when the
person is a child and therefore vulnerable and under the
control of others who have a responsibility to use that
control fairly and in consideration of the child's interests.
A child that young can't be expected to give meaningful
informed consent, and anyone giving such consent on
behalf of the child is not acting ethically in the
child's interests IMO.
Those who view such pictures for enjoyment or
in order to attempt to comprehend the artist's view of life
are also participating in an unethical act IMO.
Waiting around for the kids to get upset may be
OK, but from the other posts it sounds
as if that isn't what was done.
Healthy Stealthy
> I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical
> for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a
> witness, bystander, artist, photojournalist, citizen journalist, etc.
>
> But what Jill Greenberg is doing makes me want to throw up. And it shouldn't
> be allowed. I'm torn about even posting this post because she is obviously
> using her art as an excuse to do something horrible and is looking for
> publicity and response and that's exactly what I'm giving her here. But I'm
> hoping that through others being made aware of what she is doing that
> somehow pressure might be borne to stop it from happening.
>
> So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three
> years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to
> various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. -- so that she can
> then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If
> you'd like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click
> through here.
> http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm
> Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I
> consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.
>
> ========
> Full story and Jill's husband responds at the url below.
> http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_arts&Number=294721689#Post294721689
>
> "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
> survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for
> he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst
> those within the gate freely"
> Cicero
It is child abuse! It disgusts me! To purposely upset a child and
traumatize him or as a means of your own artistic gain, while knowing
it will cause a stir, thus promoting your with the controversy is
disgusting! This person is a bastard! HE is using these children's
sufferings as a means to his/her own gain, artistic fame! I personally
think he's evil!
This reminds me of the scene is the movie Sophie's choice when the
little girl started screaming when the Nazi took her away
LaTreen Washington
"Healthy Stealthy" <healthy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151500129.2...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> It is child abuse! It disgusts me! To purposely upset a child and
> traumatize him or as a means of your own artistic gain, while knowing
> it will cause a stir, thus promoting your with the controversy is
> disgusting!
What do you say about THE PARHUNTS that allowed the photographer to shoot
the pictures?
> This person is a bastard! HE is using these children's
> sufferings as a means to his/her own gain, artistic fame! I personally
> think he's evil!
>
Opinions are like assholes, and your's stinks!
> This reminds me of the scene is the movie Sophie's choice when the
> little girl started screaming when the Nazi took her away
>
Do you think they'll put the brat in an oven?
L.
LaTreen Washington wrote:
> "Healthy Stealthy" <healthy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151500129.2...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It is child abuse! It disgusts me! To purposely upset a child and
> > traumatize him or as a means of your own artistic gain, while knowing
> > it will cause a stir, thus promoting your with the controversy is
> > disgusting!
>
> What do you say about THE PARHUNTS that allowed the photographer to shoot
> the pictures?
Ya gotta wonder about that too. BTW, I think they're photoshopped.
-L.