cry babies
Jul. 31st, 2006 02:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charliesmumWas 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2006-07-31 09:35 pm (UTC)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.