American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 21, 2006

Agreed about the matters of intent, greater good, commercialism, and sensationalism.

My point is about the experience of the child who only knows that his candy has been taken away.

Should this photographer do this? Probably not. But if she does it, is it the end of the world? Probably not.

jd callow · Jun 21, 2006

I agree that on the face of it, what this woman is doing to get a picture is very disturbing. I also think it is a pretty wild contrivance to associate the crying children specifically with the war.

If we can assume for a moment that the children are treated with much love prior and after it might be somewhat more tolerable. Even still I lean toward distaste.

On a different note.
I really do not like her overly polished (as in the pores and any imperfections polished completely off of the subjects) images. For the most part I find her work very slick and pretty empty.

The crying children being the exception. The very slick presentation is a very significant component to how emotive these images are.

copake_ham · Jun 21, 2006

David A. Goldfarb said:
Agreed about the matters of intent, greater good, commercialism, and sensationalism.

My point is about the experience of the child who only knows that his candy has been taken away.......

David,

There is a key difference b/w what this woman is doing and what your wife does in the evaluation exercise. The former is done for the benefit of the photographer (financial gain) while the latter is done to benefit the child (early life psychological assessment).

unregistered · Jun 21, 2006

"Presumably the child's parent is present at the portrait session."

Actually in the interview, she stated that she often sends the parent out of the room (and made the statement of how she was a bit upset when this happened and 1 child DIDN'T cry), therebye limiting the child that confort level that happens in your wife's assesment test. Having a parent close, especially to that age child, can make a big difference.

And I wonder what goes on really in the kids head...having been made to cry, then all these bright, flashes going off. You can tell from the images on her site that the kids are far beyond the intensity of what would most likely happen in that assesment test. Many of them look more frightened than just crying for a pulled away toy or piece of candy.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for what she is doing and how she is doing it. By making money, and a name for herself in photography, by doing so just makes it worse. And this is no more art that the crap I took this morning.

The supposed anti-Bush titles and reasoning are too stupid to even comment about.

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 21, 2006

copake_ham said:
David,

There is a key difference b/w what this woman is doing and what your wife does in the evaluation exercise. The former is done for the benefit of the photographer (financial gain) while the latter is done to benefit the child (early life psychological assessment).

Once again, I'm in complete agreement.

Put another way, the minor harm inflicted in both cases, whether for commercial gain, aesthetic goals, political statements (thin though they may seem), or educational assessment, is not likely to require years of psychoanalysis to reverse.

Bear in mind that the parents are presumably paying a fair sum to have this harm inflicted on their children, so they would be complicit.

unregistered · Jun 21, 2006

"Bear in mind that the parents are presumably paying a fair sum to have this harm inflicted on their children, so they would be complicit."

Actually if you listen to the interview, she states that some of them are professional models, so they would be getting paid, not the parents paying her to do this.

Maybe you should listen to the interview before you make any further statements.

Will S · Jun 21, 2006

I think there is a subtle yet important difference between giving a child something like a toy to play with for a period of time and then taking it away, and giving them candy which they are thinking they get to *eat* and then taking it away before they can eat it. (Or does she pry it out of their mouth so that they get to taste it?) The latter is a lot more confusing to the child than the former and I could see how it would be more upsetting. I must admit I'm upset by both her methods, her intended usage (and believe me, I despise Bush with a passion), and her lack of a legitimate artisitic goal and aesthetic. She is just plain bad on several levels.

However, calling this child abuse or even torture seems a little over the top. Especially with the parent standing there watching it take place. But I'm sure that there are many conservatives who will call it that and worse for political reasons. *sigh*

Best,

Will

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 21, 2006

Thanks for the correction. The parents would arguably be even more complicit, if they're getting paid. I've listened to the interview, and I still think there are bigger things to worry about than the trauma inflicted on these children.

eubielicious · Jun 21, 2006

I know about this 'inflicting pain on a defenceless child stuff' - I could barely talk before my mum had indoctrinated me as a Manchester City fan (that's football, er soccer), it's been a lot of pain ever since!!!!!!! ;-)

Euan

c6h6o3 · Jun 21, 2006

Poco said:
While every shot of Lux's looks like Norman Rockwell story-boarding a creepy horror movie,

In her dreams...

Norman Rockwell's ability to render a sense of light was worthy of the Flemish masters. Please don't insult his memory in this way.

unregistered · Jun 21, 2006

"However, calling this child abuse or even torture seems a little over the top. Especially with the parent standing there watching it take place. But I'm sure that there are many conservatives who will call it that and worse for political reasons. *sigh*"

What would you call it then...a normal everyday occurance?

The parent was not always in the room, as she stated in her interview.

I for one am the furthest thing from a conservative as you will ever meet. I am, however, a father and the primary caregiver to my daughter, and I can tell you what this woman did is contempable, morally bankrupt and abuse.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

Will S · Jun 21, 2006

Alexis Neel said:
I for one am the furthest thing from a conservative as you will ever meet. I am, however, a father and the primary caregiver to my daughter, and I can tell you what this woman did is contempable, morally bankrupt and abuse.

See Dead Link Removed

If you think it is child abuse/neglect then you should report it.

Thanks,
Will

blansky · Jun 21, 2006

This has all the class of someone calling someone up and telling them that they are the police and their loved one was just killed in a car accident.

Then, of course saying "just kidding" after the initial horror had set in.

No long term trauma. Just a temporary bit of emotional pain.

Michael

BruceN · Jun 21, 2006

Will S said:
However, calling this child abuse or even torture seems a little over the top. Especially with the parent standing there watching it take place. But I'm sure that there are many conservatives who will call it that and worse for political reasons. *sigh*

Best,

Will

Wow, that's a good one! Conservatives leveling charges of torture for political reasons. That must come from "mirror world."

How's this for a headline - "Sadistic photographer tortures small children in order to protest the alleged mistreatment of murdering, decapitating terrorists by the current administration."

Actually, that kind of has a ring to it! Let's go with it...

unregistered · Jun 21, 2006

Will S said:
See Dead Link Removed

If you think it is child abuse/neglect then you should report it.

Thanks,
Will

Why Will...you too scared to? Or are you just leaving it to someone else to take a stand? In either case, your tone is confrontational. Take it somewhere else...I don't play that game.

But since you brought it up, there are 3 statements in that link that could apply, although 2 are the broad terms used by the brochure, and 1 states actual California law. Since we don't know how the children were affected by this, the California law is most likely too broad.

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Willful harming or injuring of a child or the endangering of the person or health of a child means a situation in which any person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon, unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the child to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered.

Emotional Abuse Penal Code § 11166.05 Serious emotional damage is evidenced by states of being or behavior including, but not limited to, severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others."

It would be interesting to see what the law would say if this specific act was brought to their attention, along with her interview. My only hesitation would be that by doing so, this photographer becomes "cause célèbre", much like Sturges became after he took some photo's to a hole in the wall photo lab (miles away from where he lived and further than a more pro lab was located BTW) and all of a sudden he's famous for being a persued photographer by the law. That's the last thing sane people would need this photographer to become.

In any case, you must find her behaviour acceptable.

I feel sorry for you.

Uncle Bill · Jun 21, 2006

I find making babies and toddlers cry for the shot cruel and and sickening. I don't have kids of my own, but I have a nephew who is about two and a half and I am doing my part to see his childhood be a happy one. As for Jill Greenberg and the parents of the kids photographed, they should be ashamed of themselves, calling it art is a very flimsy excuse.

Bill

blansky · Jun 21, 2006

I found this goggling.

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html

It's interesting the number of people that have no problem with it.

Michael

MurrayMinchin · Jun 21, 2006

What's next for her? How will she up the ante? Maybe pretending to kill childrens pets when they come in for an innocent child-pet portrait session?

What those with nothing to say with their art will do to get noticed...sad really...

Murray

BruceN · Jun 21, 2006

I can't help but wonder if she maybe gets off on that sort of thing and "art" is just her excuse...

Bruce

unregistered · Jun 22, 2006

$4,500 a print? $.01 is too much.

michaelsalomon · Jun 22, 2006

might be good for a birth control advertisment

BrianShaw · Jun 22, 2006

Ara Ghajanian said:
She's the girl who pulled up her own dress in kindergarten to get everyone's attention.

For a while, my opinion of her was quite low. Now it's starting to change! ;-)

eubielicious · Jun 22, 2006

Despite my somewhat flippant comment earlier about my football team, I put this kind of work on the level of the so-called 'happy slapping' incidents that were in the news not so long back - you know the one where (mainly) school children were randomly attacking strangers and capturing the incidents on their mobile phones. Thankfully that craze seems to have passed unless it's just not newsworthy any more.

Euan

eubielicious · Jun 22, 2006

michaelsalomon said:
might be good for a birth control advertisment

I think a trip round any supermarket or shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon would do that!!!!!

Euan

catem · Jun 22, 2006

I'm not saying I approve of what Greenberg is doing - I certainly don't.

But ....but.....I can't help but think, that's her point. I intensely dislike manipulation of any sort, especially of children, and I certainly don't like to see suffering. But....I've had toddlers of my own and know that feelings can be desperate to them for a few minutes, but there can be smiles and laughs the next. That's not to devalue the intensity of the emotion they quite briefly feel, but to give a degree of perspective...(by the way, do they get the lollipops in the end??).

It's also quite possible that they are all spoilt brats....Does this make a difference at all? Or not? I'm not saying it does, just posing a question...Of course that initial spoiling could be seen as another, far more insidious form of "abuse".

And if we are so upset by this....then what about those children in Iraq who are enduring such unmentionable suffering?
Unfortunately for Greenberg I'm not convinced that there is a viable link between what is happening to these children and what is happening to children in Iraq; but.....but....

American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

copake_ham

unregistered

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

unregistered

Will S

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

eubielicious

c6h6o3

unregistered

Will S

blansky

BruceN

unregistered

Uncle Bill

blansky

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

BruceN

unregistered

michaelsalomon

BrianShaw

eubielicious

eubielicious

catem

American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency