cry babies

[charliesmum]

Was just watching this video clip regarding this hooplah over artist Jill Greenberg's lastest exhibit.

Apparently, in order to get the shot she needed, she would take a lolly away from the toddler who would then go into tantrum mode. She snapped the picture and gave the candy back.

Apparently some people think Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse. He goes on to say although Although the children are not sexualized, I consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind. Buh? And he compares parents who let her do that to parents who let their kids stay with Michael Jackson. Which, I'm sorry, is just too stupid.

I appreciate the fact it seems a bit cruel to take candy from a baby, but they'll get over it. They're toddlers. If they didn't cry at the drop of a hat, or a lollypop, then her taking away the candy wouldn't matter, now would it?

Norman Rockwell stuck a pin in a baby once to get it crying for one of his pictures, and he's still pretty beloved.

I think the pictures are kind of nice, really. Wouldn't want them on my wall or anything, but they really are rather pretty, in their own, weird way. The whole outcry strikes me as part and parcel of the whole 'entitlement children' thing we see so often - parents who get upset when told to keep their child under control in a public place, for example.

Click here to see pictures then let me know what you think.

Comments

[alienor77310.livejournal.com]

*snicker* It is pornography : you can see nipples.

Seriously, some people need some sense slapped into them until they get their priorities straight. I bet his big brother stole his candy when he was a kid.

[jandyle.livejournal.com]

He thinks that is child pornography of the worst kind? Seriously? Man. I agree, the pictures are pretty in a strange way.

[finmagik.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with you. Children should not be coddled.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Abuse? Pornography?!!

Nope. Speaking as someone who was actually abused, not at all. You give me the choice at that age of having Mom take away my lollipop or shove me down a flight of stairs, no contest. (Sorry to be so depressing, but that type of analogy always drives me up a tree - every minor act of meanness isn't abuse, every minor violation or inconvenience isn't rape, and for heaven's sake, pornography is not a catchall label for "anything I don't like." Sheesh.)

It IS rather cruel, but no more so than a bunch of other things people do to toddlers - there are kids who'd scream like limbs were being ripped off if you bathed them, or tried to put them to bed, or took away the butcher knife they were about to teethe on. The real question, which everyone seems unable to grasp, is "is the result worth the cost?" (the answer being clearly "yes" in those cases, and perhaps less clear here).

[chavvah.livejournal.com]

every minor act of meanness isn't abuse, every minor violation or inconvenience isn't rape, and for heaven's sake, pornography is not a catchall label for "anything I don't like."

Yes, thank you. Taking away the kid's lolly is a mean trick, but it's not abuse. Especially since, after the photo is taken, they give it back.

I think that the fact that these kids are willing to scream their hearts out over having a lollipop taken away shows just how well they are treated by their parents to begin with. When I was a kid, if someone took something away from me, it was a fact of life and I knew better than to yell about it.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

"I think that the fact that these kids are willing to scream their hearts out over having a lollipop taken away shows just how well they are treated by their parents to begin with. When I was a kid, if someone took something away from me, it was a fact of life and I knew better than to yell about it."

Ooooh, *excellent* point. That's also true.

[zambonigirl.livejournal.com]

Sometimes children think they're being punished if you remove something. Especially if the parent's favored punishment is to take a toy or privilege away. I'm not defending either side here, but what the artist is doing is a tried-and-true method for pretty much every child, everywhere. Also, these kids can't communicate like you and I can. Little Ones cry, particularly if they're under 5. It gets them the attention that they want, and it often accomplishes their goals. It doesn't mean that they're spoiled, necessarily (though they can be), it can mean any number of things. I would assume that a lot of these children are more hurt and confused than anything. There's one little girl who looks particularly confused to me, but I don't know her, so I could just be projecting the faces that my niece gives.

[chavvah.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying these kids are spoiled, don't get me wrong. And as I said, I do think it's kind of a dirty trick to play on the little ones. I just don't think it qualifies as abuse to take candy away from a child who, in all likelihood, comes from a loving and supportive home, and I think to say that it does qualify as abuse disrespects abuse survivors.

[zambonigirl.livejournal.com]

No, I agree that it's not abuse or pornography (dear lord, that person has subsriptions!), but I do agree that it's wrong. Especially if this parent ever tells her child that she can't just take a toy away from a friend of hers without asking first.

[dindin.livejournal.com]

LOL. I saw that on Good Morning America. While a part of me aches for the wee little ones, their parents were there for the whole thing and the candy was only taken away briefly.

Let's alllll take a deep breath.

[wolfma.livejournal.com]

They're a bit disturbing; I can hear all those kids crying as I look at the pictures. It's not a nice thing to do, but it's not porn, not even close.

But, for all of that, the kid got candy. The worst abuse here is giving the child a sugary snack instead of a healthy one.

[alienor77310.livejournal.com]

The problem with a healthy snack: half eaten granola bars in wide-open mouths really isn't photogenic :-)

[wolfma.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[zambonigirl.livejournal.com]

I don't think that she's any more sick or disturbed than Anne Geddes, but then I hate Anne Geddes' work with the passion of a thousand flaming suns, so I don't know where that leaves us.

Actually, what I find the most wrong about all of this is that she feels she needs to "punish" a child in order to make it cry. These are toddlers. Just hang around for five minutes. They'll start crying. You don't have to be cruel to them in order to do that.

Aside from that, I don't like this work very much at all. I won't call it pornography, but I will call it exploitation to a degree.

[alienor77310.livejournal.com]

The two pics I somewhat "like" are #2 and 4: the hatred in #2 ("You did this to me, you bitch!") and the vengeful anger in #4 ("They'll pay, whoever they are and no matter how long it will take"). They're nobody's fool.

And then, there is #6, who pulls back her sobs. That one hurts.

[zambonigirl.livejournal.com]

And that's *exactly* why I don't like them. You really feel what those kids are feeling, and they're kids. Their emotions are so honest. There's no gray area with children, it's all black and white.

Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

[(Anonymous)]

("They'll pay, whoever they are and no matter how long it will take").

The one she calls G.O.P. should be renamed to "Miss Greenberg is baby sitting you tonight while I go out."

Wait until them kids grow up and get lawyers...

Jill Greenberg making little kids cry adds nothing positive to the world. Just more needless suffering. She is part of the problem, and needs to be confronted about that.

And remember... Bush did not make those kids cry. Jill did.

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

[alienor77310.livejournal.com]

Since this is not my LJ, I will refrain from saying how much I despise anonymous comments, especially those that bring a political issue where there was none.

And remember, Jill did not make me despise you, you did.

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

[charliesmum.livejournal.com]

Any point that person might have won was lost with the phrase 'them kids'.

I did an IP address search, which was fun. All I could figure out was they are in Willingboro, which is a tow about 30 minutes from me.

It took me a while to understand what Bush had to do with anything, then I remembered the pictures were sort of policical in nature.

I dunno, Bush made Charlie cry...

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

[charliesmum.livejournal.com]

Bush did not make those kids cry. He made my son cry though, after the last election. Really.

I appreciate your POV but I wasn't looking for political opinions, just artistic ones.

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

[(Anonymous)]

Actually... The ?artist? made these photos part of her own political point of view. She has made this very clear on numerous occasions (in fact one of these is named "G.O.P." by her, and another is "nucular (sic)". Gee, I wonder who that refers to?).

Your commenting on these without first gathering all the pertinent information about them is typical of blogs and the ill-formed opinions contained and expressed therein. Jill may present a perfectly normal persona to the world on a day-to-day basis, but these photos speak volumes about her, and I look forward to the day that she is confronted by these children and their lawyers.

As for remaining anonymous on this blog... Gee, I'm glad that I did. The way the site moderator attempted to find me anyway, and then published as much as they found... What if one of your other posters is a complete wack? Or maybe just a passer by reader who is a bit unhinged takes offence at what is said here? You know, a difference of opinion... You could possibly be responsible for a serious problem if they live close enough to go looking for someone (I assume that you might someday think it okay to publish a posters name, address, and phone number, since you show that desire).)

You are being... shall I quote Jill "big brother"ish.

This will be my last post here. I did not post anything that could even remotely be considered a reason to track me down, but you tried to anyway. I'm glad that you are not better with technology and I suggest to all that your blog be abandoned as a potential personal information hazard.

As for the artistic quality of these sick and twisted photos; sometimes the way you get where you are going is infinity more important than where you end up.

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

[charliesmum.livejournal.com]

Um...this is my personal log. I checked the ip simply because I have a couple of friends who read my blog but don't have accounts, and I was wondering if it was one of them. Plus, since this is my personal blog, I was curious as to who would come here and post anonomously about something silly.

And again, I wasn't commenting on the artist's political motives. I was commenting on the discussion around how she got the children to cry. That part has nothing to do with what she called her pictures. I don't care about her political leanings.

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

This is supposed to be art? Someone actually gets paid for this? This is not considered a tremendous waste of time, effort, and resources?

It's not child abuse, it's not pornography, it's mean but no meaner than kids are to each other on a regular basis. What's the big deal?

[leakyandsnort.livejournal.com]

Hm. I question the parent who is giving a child under 3 such a potent choking hazard more than I do a photographer.

The photos are hilarious. Nieves would be an excellent candidate.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I left a comment for that person along the lines of, yeah, it's *totally* worse to take a kid's candy away than to rape her repeatedly for the cameras so some sicko can whack off to her pain.

God, people, get a fucking clue.

As for the pictures themselves, well, I agree with everything chavvah and lietya have said above about the ways in which stupid/naive people define "abuse". I like the pictures pretty well - I'm not sure I'm a big fan of them stylistically, but there is something about the pure nakedness of emotion that you can see in children that somehow tends to get clouded over in adulthood, as we learn to hide what we're feeling and as we become more inured to both pain and joy. I do not regard the project as terribly cruel, especially since the kids get the lollipops back after the picture is taken. There is something creepy about an adult evoking pain in a kid *for the sake of evoking pain* (because that's what it is - the pain is what she wants to shoot, after all), but a kid that young isn't noticing those nuances. Faced with the prospect of *either* having her diaper changed For Her Own Good *or* having her lolly taken away for a minute For Art's Sake, most one-year-old kids are probably going to pick having the lolly taken away because it involves less net inconvenience.

[crossbow1.livejournal.com]

I don't know, but those are excellent pictures.

[lunarlake.livejournal.com]

Hope you don't mind me responding a week later, as I'm wont to do...

Pornographic?? Pppfftt! Please. No. Sheesh.

Do I like them? No, but I get too much of this already in daily life. ;-) But it does seem to show us an aspect of our true nature, in a way. We're all crybabies. ;-) So it is art? Most definitely in my book.

Bill Moyers is right. And the accusations of child pornography are ludicrous. I agree that person needs some sense slapped into them.