American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

blansky said:

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

Click to expand...

In my state, Maryland, Family Law 5-701 defines this as emotional abuse.

"Mental injury means the observable, identifiable and substantial impairment of a child's mental or psychological ability to function."

Greenberg's camera really helps out here with the "observable, identifiable" part of the statute. I'd turn her in in a heartbeat.

Just for the purposes of discussion - and lets be clear I'm being devil's advocate here - Sally Mann has in the past been accused of being manipulative and abusive towards her children.

If you believe this (which I don't, but there is an element of one or two photographs i am uncomfortable with, and I think it certainly is a difficult and complex area) -

Could Greenberg's work be seen to be a FAR less damaging engagement in that it was over within minutes and (as a mother I'm fairly convinced of this) in the toddler's mind over within minutes of the end of the episode? It did not go on throughout a whole childhood as Sally Mann's work did.

I'm far more worried about the whole idea of letting 3-year-olds be models in the first place, for perhaps a large part of their childhood.

As a father of two young girls I find it disturbing that someone whould elicit such a emotional response to make a profit. And make no mistake about it, at $4500 a print it is all about the profit.

As far as the images themselves are concerned they are simply a gimmick that also exploits the suffering from the Iraq war for a profit.

In todays lofty upper world of fine art nothing says "buy me" more than a good gimmick.

Jim Chinn said:

As a father of two young girls I find it disturbing that someone whould elicit such a emotional response to make a profit. And make no mistake about it, at $4500 a print it is all about the profit.

As far as the images themselves are concerned they are simply a gimmick that also exploits the suffering from the Iraq war for a profit.

In todays lofty upper world of fine art nothing says "buy me" more than a good gimmick.

Click to expand...

I think this is her worst offence - her point becomes trite and self-seeking.

Ultimately, I can't think the children have suffered unduly in 'real' terms, (and some manipulation by photographers is common, if usually less blatant and unpleasant). But they have been drawn into being a part of something they couldn't hope to understand or consent to..... maybe that's the worst part of all.

Stargazer said:

I'm far more worried about the whole idea of letting 3-year-olds be models in the first place, for perhaps a large part of their childhood.

Click to expand...

Me too.

Stargazer said:

I'm far more worried about the whole idea of letting 3-year-olds be models in the first place, for perhaps a large part of their childhood.

Click to expand...

Can we say Jon-Benet Ramsey?

Jim Chinn said:

As a father of two young girls I find it disturbing that someone whould elicit such a emotional response to make a profit. And make no mistake about it, at $4500 a print it is all about the profit.

As far as the images themselves are concerned they are simply a gimmick that also exploits the suffering from the Iraq war for a profit.

In todays lofty upper world of fine art nothing says "buy me" more than a good gimmick.

Click to expand...

It isn't even a good gimmick. The images are very strong, but there is nothing in them that says here is what *this* war brings other than the titles. Had these been children who were affected by the war, and especially if these children were Iraqi I wouldn’t have a problem with their moments of grief.

I have a larger problem with the parents who are pimping their children than I do with the photographer. As it is, there is plenty of reprehensible conduct to spread around, but it is, to me a bit of tempest in a tea pot.

mrcallow said:

It isn't even a good gimmick. The images are very strong, but there is nothing in them that says here is what *this* war brings other than the titles. Had these been children who were affected by the war, and especially if these children were Iraqi I wouldn’t have a problem with their moments of grief.

I have a larger problem with the parents who are pimping their children than I do with the photographer. As it is, there is plenty of reprehensible conduct to spread around, but it is, to me a bit of tempest in a tea pot.

Click to expand...

The only gimmick employed is the mannered lighting style. The photographs themselves do not "say" anything about the war. You have to be told that there is an association between these pieces and anything external to them. Therefore, they do not stand on their own, since the artist's intent is not conveyed through the art but has to be conveyed in words. So I do not take this photographer seriously.

"he photographs themselves do not "say" anything about the war."

I agree

Alexis Neel said:

In any case, you must find her behaviour acceptable.

I feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

No, I don't find her behavior acceptable. You are the one "playing the game" by insulting me.

Get a life

I read this entire thread, looked at the photos, tried to listen to the discussion but couldn't and I tried to see something other than disgust but I couldn't. I can't imagine what she could be thinking? Except my theory that when people don't do something well enough on it's own merit they often turn to controversy to further their effort. I've seen this with radio talk show hosts, etc. Perhaps this is her way of becoming "a household name".

After reading this thread for a couple of days I took a look at her photographs. As a mum I have lots of opportunities to photography my children throughout their range of emotions. I have to say however if any of my children for whatever reason become really upset when I have a camera in hand my first response is to put the camera down and help my child.

In her interview Greenberg mentions that she thinks in an oversaturated world of images that these cut through. I think she is confused, I don't see how these commercial images have more impact than anything a photojournalist can do in the real world. She has to spend too much time explaining the images because they certainly don't associate themselves readily with the issues she has regarding the bush administration. Interestingly enough she mentions in the interview that she has been approached about doing some work for a children's shampoo (a no more tears one) that could work around her crying children. Kind of reduces the impact she is trying to have if a commercial company thinks it's a great idea for a children's shampoo ad.

For me I don't think capturing the emotion of the children is the issue, rather the way in which those images are captured and the children manipulated in the process. I don't understand the person who feels the need to strip a child bare and then put them into a situation where they feel even more vulnerable, especially in a room with a total stranger just to elicit an obvious response. Taking away a lollipop could elicit many responses, for some kids the end of the earth for others maybe confusion but they will get over it. I believe what these children are experiencing is fear and that makes it even harder to accept. Too many children all over the world have to experience first hand the loss of basic rights and suffer abuse at the hands of others, I don't see the need to recreate this using other children.

I wonder if the parents of these children or the photographer herself would strip down naked in a room of strangers and then allow them to inflict what amounts to abuse to elicit a response.

If Greenberg is serious about issues relating to children, why doesn't Greenberg just put herself on the frontline taking photos of the effects of the war on those children in Iraq or the real issues facing children in America, might that be out of her comfort zone. It probably won't bring in the big dollars. Instead she has presented a highly commercial piece of work that comes across as just that and not the social statement that she set out to make. Certainly not worth whatever was inflicted on these children to get these images.

Kathy

katcall said:

After reading this thread for a couple of days I took a look at her photographs. As a mum I have lots of opportunities to photography my children throughout their range of emotions. I have to say however if any of my children for whatever reason become really upset when I have a camera in hand my first response is to put the camera down and help my child.

In her interview Greenberg mentions that she thinks in an oversaturated world of images that these cut through. I think she is confused, I don't see how these commercial images have more impact than anything a photojournalist can do in the real world. She has to spend too much time explaining the images because they certainly don't associate themselves readily with the issues she has regarding the bush administration. Interestingly enough she mentions in the interview that she has been approached about doing some work for a children's shampoo (a no more tears one) that could work around her crying children. Kind of reduces the impact she is trying to have if a commercial company thinks it's a great idea for a children's shampoo ad.

For me I don't think capturing the emotion of the children is the issue, rather the way in which those images are captured and the children manipulated in the process. I don't understand the person who feels the need to strip a child bare and then put them into a situation where they feel even more vulnerable, especially in a room with a total stranger just to elicit an obvious response. Taking away a lollipop could elicit many responses, for some kids the end of the earth for others maybe confusion but they will get over it. I believe what these children are experiencing is fear and that makes it even harder to accept. Too many children all over the world have to experience first hand the loss of basic rights and suffer abuse at the hands of others, I don't see the need to recreate this using other children.

I wonder if the parents of these children or the photographer herself would strip down naked in a room of strangers and then allow them to inflict what amounts to abuse to elicit a response.

If Greenberg is serious about issues relating to children, why doesn't Greenberg just put herself on the frontline taking photos of the effects of the war on those children in Iraq or the real issues facing children in America, might that be out of her comfort zone. It probably won't bring in the big dollars. Instead she has presented a highly commercial piece of work that comes across as just that and not the social statement that she set out to make. Certainly not worth whatever was inflicted on these children to get these images.

Kathy

Click to expand...

Kathy,

Very well said.

If Greenberg were to treat a dog or a cat in such a fashion so as to elicit distress for a photograph the good folks at PETA etc. would be "all over" her.

Hopefully, some prosecutor in her jurisdiction will wake the hell up and bring charges. This thread, and others like it, which are all over the web, are admissible as evidence that her behavior is NOT acceptable within her profession/avocation or anywhere else!

katcall said:

If Greenberg is serious about issues relating to children, why doesn't Greenberg just put herself on the frontline taking photos of the effects of the war on those children in Iraq or the real issues facing children in America, might that be out of her comfort zone. It probably won't bring in the big dollars. Instead she has presented a highly commercial piece of work that comes across as just that and not the social statement that she set out to make. Certainly not worth whatever was inflicted on these children to get these images.

Kathy

Click to expand...

Agreed. Sadly people who are trying to gain recognition through photography for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups around the world get little or nothing for it. It says something not only about her but the values we hold and where we're prepared to put our cash(using 'we' in loose terms ).

First, having children of these ages as models is something I find wrong in first place.

Cynical as I am I will add some more controversy to this discussion. What about parents who as "discipline measures" for misbehaving of theire children use procedures like forbidden to children to play with theire toys, with theire friends, etc... until they start to behave like theire parents wants. That for me is same as give and take candy for getting child to cry for taking its photograph...

And that photographer woman in cruel way teach children what life really are, that in life you will get something which will be taken away from you, and that you will be exploited in life, by your familly, or your boss, or your partner, or your country, or by whomever... So, she in act doing good thing, in early days of those children she make them not to have any illusion what life really is, and prepare them for real life...

Cynically yours

mrcallow said:

I have a larger problem with the parents who are pimping their children than I do with the photographer..

Click to expand...

Exactly! Children this young are NOT! professional models whether their parents regard them as such or not. Children this age are guided and directed in their activities and behavior by their parents or guardians and cannot be considered mature enough to make considered choices on their own. "Pimping" is exactly the right word here!

haris said:

First, having children of these ages as models is something I find wrong in first place.

Cynical as I am I will add some more controversy to this discussion. What about parents who as "discipline measures" for misbehaving of theire children use procedures like forbidden to children to play with theire toys, with theire friends, etc... until they start to behave like theire parents wants. That for me is same as give and take candy for getting child to cry for taking its photograph...

And that photographer woman in cruel way teach children what life really are, that in life you will get something which will be taken away from you, and that you will be exploited in life, by your familly, or your boss, or your partner, or your country, or by whomever... So, she in act doing good thing, in early days of those children she make them not to have any illusion what life really is, and prepare them for real life...

Cynically yours

Click to expand...

Sometimes my wife and I make our kids cry when we have to make choices for them that their 6 and 10 year old minds can't quite understand, or correct them on the choices they make that are wrong. The difference between us and Ms. Greenberg is we never make them cry for the sake of watching them cry and exploiting them. I think that borders on sadism.

Yes life can be cruel, mean and unfair. Plenty of opportunites for children to experience that first hand without introducing a little extra pain for pains sake.

Unfortunately, as I can see on street, road, work, public transportation,.... people do not live together in America (I just do not know for other places), reasons beside. This photographer (not to call human) just proove it. You kick a dog and a child and let see for what will be charged. It will not suprise me if someone tomorow figure out that can make money shooting children in cloth washing machine or dryer. "Normal" people, as I know, try children stop crying. Well, how many "normals" are around, especialy among young guys. Or word "normal" is changing its basic meaning.

I've nothing against photographs of sobbing children. Diane Arbus did it, you know. (Was that really Anderson Cooper?) I don't even get particularly upset over Joel Peter Witkin's photos of body parts and freaks of nature. Photos of war and death might disturb me but I accept them as a necessary photojournalistic subject. Sally Mann is one of my photographic idols and it never crossed my mind that anyone should consider her abusive of her children.

In other words, I'm a pretty accepting guy when it comes to photographic art.

But....

These photographs cross the line by a country mile. It's virtually the same as if Witkin had murdered and dismembered his photographic subjects for the purpose of the photos. Or as if Eddie Adams had paid the Vietnamese police officer to shoot the Viet Cong prisoner. It takes a sick puppy to come up with this concept and method.

As for the "political statement", she's either posturing for self-promotion purposes or she's self-centered and clueless. Duh. Sorta like an aspiring fourth member of the Dixie Chicks.

On my first attempt, I couldn't look at all Ms Greenberg's photographs after reading this thread. But I went back and looked a second time and realized that had I not known how she made these photos, I still wouldn't look at them. They're repetitious and cold and have no attraction. The only reason anyone would be interested in them would be due to the controversy involved. On that level she succeeds. On all other levels--artistic, political, intellectual and human--the photos are boring flops.

Jim Chinn said:

Sometimes my wife and I make our kids cry when we have to make choices for them that their 6 and 10 year old minds can't quite understand, or correct them on the choices they make that are wrong. The difference between us and Ms. Greenberg is we never make them cry for the sake of watching them cry...

Click to expand...

Actually, as parents our goal is probably NEVER "to make our children cry"... they just do that (as Jim says) as a natural reaction to frustration, inability to fully comprehend, etc. My kids cry all the time but it's never becasue I ~want~ them to!

Not long ago my 8-year-old was throwing a tantrum becasue he couldn't have something his way. His way was dangerous; my way was "responsible". Guess which he felt was more desireable! His tantrum was so very antimated (and annnoying) so to put an end to it I pulled out my camera and shot a picture. I told him that I never wanted to forget this scene. Every time I look at that photo I feel like I've just been kicked in the groin.

Only childless curmudgeons who are still living the aftereffects of a bad childhood could look at these kinds of pictures and enjoy them!

Lee Shively said:

...

As for the "political statement", she's either posturing for self-promotion purposes or she's self-centered and clueless. Duh. Sorta like an aspiring fourth member of the Dixie Chicks.

...

Click to expand...

LMAO!!!!

I don't have any kids, but I like kids, and certainly have spent some time with other people's kids.

It seems to me that if you want to put together a show featuring a set of photographs of crying three year olds, you probably just need:

1) to bring a fair number of three year olds into your studio (one at a time);
2) interract in a gentle and friendly manner with the three year olds, and photograph them.

Some of the three year olds will smile, some will laugh, some will get sleepy, and a few will be upset and cry, no matter how gentle and friendly you might be.

Then just put aside the photographs of the upset and crying children, for the purpose of your show. The other photographs - if they are good, the parents will love them. If they are mediocre, the parents will love them, if they are terrible...

It seems to me, Ms. Greenberg is just too lazy to do this the slow but gentle way.

Matt

Stargazer said:

Just for the purposes of discussion - and lets be clear I'm being devil's advocate here - Sally Mann has in the past been accused of being manipulative and abusive towards her children.[...]

Click to expand...

Actually, as soon as I saw this, one of my first thoughts was to compare her work with Sally Mann's.

Seems to me, Jill Greenberg is a good photographer to compare to Mann, being as she appears to be an Anti-Sally Mann or a Bizarro world Sally Mann.

Mann photographed her children in the entire range of their organic states. As far as I know, although she photographed them happy, sad, placid, hurt and sick, she never *caused* them to be crying, hurt or sick for the purpose of her photography.

Greenberg seems (to me) to be all about the subtext of her images, saying what they mean about the Bush administration, etc. Mann says over and over again that her images are solely about their face value, not any over-reaching symbology, though I suspect that what she really means is that it's up to each of us to assign personal meaning to her images. Mann's images are so completely archetypal, that I fail to see how you can view any of them and not connect them to numerous other experiences.

Should all images of children be only of them happy and smiling? The second image I ever took of my daughter was when she was 5-10 minutes old and crying her heart out. Instead of trying to get to to stop crying, I was photographing her. When my son was two or three, and we were dropping him off for his first day of daycare and he was bawling his eyes out. Yes, we comforted him, but I also photographed the occasion to save it for years in the future. Do these incidents make me abusive?

One of the issues at the core of this discussion is an issue central to reportage: is it irresponsible to photograph something negative instead of acting to prevent/change/stop it?

Granted, we're talking really about portraiture, but isn't some portraiture a form of reportage?

I really would like to see this thread come to a consensus about where the line is, or at least offer some well-reasoned opinions on same.

My opinions on Mann's and Greenberg's work couldn't be further apart.

If, in ten thousand years, all that was left of how our civilization values its children and how we regard their various forms of beauty was the photography of Sally Mann, future generations would have a much better view of us than if the representative work was popular television, Abercrombie and Fitch, or Saturday morning cartoons, for that matter.

I find Greenbergs work utterly repugnant, and her methods doubly so. Kid's lives have enough sense of confusion, abandonment and anguish without intentionally inflicting it on them. Her images look like she's gone crazy with just about every photoshop widget she could find. Artisticly, they're little better than that shot of the baby with the bowl of spaghetti dumped on her head that most of us probably saw in the seventies.

clearly, there's a line.

where is it?

-KwM-

On the link I presented where her husband, some sort of movie producer defends her actions, by saying something like this happens all the time in the advertising and movie biz. Directors manipulate emotions to get what they want.

I have read that the famous Sharon crotch shot in Basic Instinct was manipulated by the director who said the shot would not be used or that it was out of frame or whatever. Stone was outraged when she found it was in the final version. Until it earned her immense praise for being so bold and in character with the scene. She later embraced the whole thing and it made her more famous than before.

I've heard that in scenes with children they often do things to make them cry or get emotional when the scene needs it. So he is correct they do it all the time.

But is it right.

I suggest that it is not. And these powerful but highly manipulated pictures are victimizing their subject matter for personal gain.

I have been on a number of movie sets and the actors/talent are expendable and fodder for whatever "art" is being produced by the flavor of the month director. Remember this is all about one thing. MONEY.


Michael

"Remember this is all about one thing. MONEY."

Actually, two things: Money and Celebrity.

There's probably as many power whores running around loose as there are money whores.