cry babies

Jul. 31st, 2006 02:20 pm
charliesmum: (Default)
[personal profile] 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.

on 2006-07-31 07:57 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] 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.

on 2006-08-01 12:11 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] 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.

on 2006-08-01 03:39 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] 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.

Profile

charliesmum: (Default)
charliesmum

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 8th, 2025 04:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios