charliesmum | cry babies

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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.

cry babies

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)

Re: Jill Greenberg (future crybaby)