American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

[DBP]

"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.

More, in some places, like here.

 

[catem]

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.

clearly, there's a line.

where is it?

-KwM-

I think this is a very good idea, if quite hard. I think this thread is very positive - I like to see ideas thrown up and explored - and then go for the jugular! I think there is a lot of consensus, in fact, in that there are a lot of uncomfortable and negative feelings about this artist and her work.

I'm not sure I can completely define 'the line' but I know that one thing that is very important to me in portraiture is the issue of consent, both to being photographed and equally importantly, to being published. Of course this is complicated where children are concerned; but one thing that worries me intensely is the way parents can be seen to take full responsibility for "the consent" to whatever may happen to their children (as models ).

In my view Greenberg has gone too far by failing to consider that ESPECIALLY because of the nature of what she wants them to do, her child models have a right NOT to be involved. As they are unable to refuse consent themselves, then the whole project should have been seen to be flawed and dangerous. It is different from reportage in that the photographer in that case is not CAUSING the state the child may be suffering, but reporting it. (There may still be issues around publication of the image).

(p.s. for the record, I also think Greenberg's approach is totally different from Sally Mann's, but raised it for the sake of argument, as Mann has had to face similar accusations to those levelled at Greenberg. Not only is what Sally Mann was doing completely different, but the relationship between photographer and child/children is completely different).

That's my offering of 'a line' - but I think there may be other lines also

 

[copake_ham]

I think this is a very good idea, if quite hard. I think this thread is very positive - I like to see ideas thrown up and explored - and then go for the jugular! I think there is a lot of consensus, in fact, in that there are a lot of uncomfortable and negative feelings about this artist and her work.

I'm not sure I can completely define 'the line' but I know that one thing that is very important to me in portraiture is the issue of consent, both to being photographed and equally importantly, to being published. Of course this is complicated where children are concerned; but one thing that worries me intensely is the way parents can be seen to take full responsibility for "the consent" to whatever may happen to their children (as models ).

In my view Greenberg has gone too far by failing to consider that ESPECIALLY because of the nature of what she wants them to do, her child models have a right NOT to be involved. As they are unable to refuse consent themselves, then the whole project should have been seen to be flawed and dangerous. It is different from reportage in that the photographer in that case is not CAUSING the state the child may be suffering, but reporting it. (There may still be issues around publication of the image).

(p.s. for the record, I also think Greenberg's approach is totally different from Sally Mann's, but raised it for the sake of argument, as Mann has had to face similar accusations to those levelled at Greenberg. Not only is what Sally Mann was doing completely different, but the relationship between photographer and child/children is completely different).

That's my offering of 'a line' - but I think there may be other lines also

Perhaps one could start with a Photographer's form of the Hippocratic Oath? "First do no harm in eliciting a desired response in a model or subject."

I have no problem with very young children posing as models (think of those cherubic looking infants on baby food jars) - but I don't think they should be manipulated and abused to "get the pic".

 

[DBP]

Perhaps one could start with a Photographer's form of the Hippocratic Oath? "First do no harm in eliciting a desired response in a model or subject."QUOTE]

Perfect! Now for the rest of the oath - volunteers?

 

[xtrout1]

Didn't Hitler do a series of images like this in 1942?

 

[unregistered]

There is a further thread to the one Blansky posted above. It is by the same blogger and is an open letter to American Photo. It seems they pulled some shoody journalism and Thomas Hawk wrote them about it. Here is the link http://thomashawk.com/ Its just below the photo of the barbed wire. And below that there is more on this.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

Another interesting take on this has just shown up today on Slate magazine. Here is the link: http://www.slate.com/id/2145277/

 

[kjsphoto]

That body of work is completely pathetic and she should be sued and CPS should go after the parents for even allowing this to happen. What these people do not realize is the long-term effect on these children. Shame on her and the galleries that support this tripe.

I am completely disgusted. This is not art but raw abuse.

 

[CraigK]

Got the gears moving so much I blogged my scattered thoughts on the affair

Read it here, if you'd like

 

[c6h6o3]

Another interesting take on this has just shown up today on Slate magazine. Here is the link: http://www.slate.com/id/2145277/

I'm sure H.L. Mencken or Dorothy Parker would have couched this sentiment in more elegant wit, but I am compelled to agree with the spirit of this and it certainly applies to the artist in question:

"An asshole who makes great art is an asshole who makes great art; but an asshole who makes lousy art is just an asshole."

 

[c6h6o3]

Another interesting take on this has just shown up today on Slate magazine. Here is the link: http://www.slate.com/id/2145277/

I was also impressed with the last paragraph of the article:

"I don't mean this as a condemnation of photography. On the contrary, I love the medium, and it fascinates me endlessly, precisely because it's so freighted with the problem of power and responsibility. It is born in a bed of plunder and abuse; but in the right hands it can end in beauty, and how we get from one to the other is as profound a grace as any art can manifest."

Hear, hear!

 

[Gay Larson]

Not a very flattering article is it? Thank goodness it isn't. I sincerely hope this woman will pack up her cameras and slink away. I hope the negative press has not helped her in any way as we all have heard "any publiciity is good publicity". She does not deserve publicity.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Where will it all end? Next thing you know some mother with a camera is going to take the clothes off her children, photograph them and call it art. Or some guy with an 8x10 is going to hang out out nudist colonies and take pictures of children.

Oh, wait that's been done...

 

[unregistered]

Got the gears moving so much I blogged my scattered thoughts on the affair

Read it here, if you'd like

Nicely done.

 

[unregistered]

Where will it all end? Next thing you know some mother with a camera is going to take the clothes off her children, photograph them and call it art. Or some guy with an 8x10 is going to hang out out nudist colonies and take pictures of children.

Oh, wait that's been done...

Yes of course but there is a big difference. Sally Mann wasn't forcing her kids into dramatic situations and manipulating them until they reached the moment of emotionial distress, and only then taking her pictures. She studied the wide range of behavior and didn not intentionally manipulate them to get only the shot she wanted.

Sturges approaches the families and the children, who are above the age of 3 and are able to make informed decisions about what is done, and asks permission. He also follows up periodically to make sure the people photographed still feel ok with their images being shown. If they don't, he takes them out of circulation. There is no forced manipulation, nor no power and control inflicted over the subjects by an adult who they trust. They also have the opportunity to not participate or change their mind and leave the photo session when they want to. The fact that they are in France lets you know that the way people there see nudity is a far cry from puritanical America.

 

[StephenS]

One image, the blonde kid seeming to give the Nazi salute, is interesting on some level.

Sure this is dumb stuff and probably a bit sick as well. But I'd hope everyone would be much more concerned by photos of 'real' suffering by children. Don't get me wrong, it's not nice to make kids cry to take a photo, but people will go nuts about this while photos of kids hacked with a machete in some African hell hole or blown up by a lunatic with a bomb will simply be digested.

To me, it's a bit like getting really broken up over a stray animal while overlooking the guy sleeping beneath the underpass. Yeah, maybe animals are innocent or something, but it's a question of priorities.

I'm not going to be outraged by a dumb stunt (one working beautifully by the way) from an idiot artist when there's so much real tragedy that goes on without so much as a passing thought.

 

[benjiboy]

All bad

Gee, when I photograph kids I only hit them with a stick, when they start to cry.

I'm sure her book of these groundbreaking photographs will be in stores by Christmas.


MIchael

Was it W.C. Fiels who said "Anyone who hates dogs and children can't be all bad "

 

[gr82bart]

Hmmm....I've read all the post, the blogs, the articles and listened to the interview. Fascinating. Not her pictures, not her, but the reactions.

So many levels to talk about.

Here's what I have concluded. "There are more important issues and people to worry about than her."

She is typical of today's society to a point - unfortunately. And I also feel the 'moral' outrage to be as over the top as her assertion her photos are tied to the Bush administration.

Regards, Art.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Yes of course but there is a big difference. Sally Mann wasn't forcing her kids into dramatic situations and manipulating them until they reached the moment of emotionial distress, and only then taking her pictures. She studied the wide range of behavior and didn not intentionally manipulate them to get only the shot she wanted.

Sturges approaches the families and the children, who are above the age of 3 and are able to make informed decisions about what is done, and asks permission. He also follows up periodically to make sure the people photographed still feel ok with their images being shown. If they don't, he takes them out of circulation. There is no forced manipulation, nor no power and control inflicted over the subjects by an adult who they trust. They also have the opportunity to not participate or change their mind and leave the photo session when they want to. The fact that they are in France lets you know that the way people there see nudity is a far cry from puritanical America.

The point is that a child over 3 can't give informed consent and there is power and control inflicted by an adult they trust. That adult is called a parent.

It's a reprehensible violation of the child's trust. The phrase for all of this is "child exploitation".

 

[Roger Hicks]

The fact that they are in France lets you know that the way people there see nudity is a far cry from puritanical America.

Where else would you find a parallel between nudity and gratuitous (if trivial) cruelty?

OK: England. So where ELSE?

Cheers,

Obadiah Sportstrouser

 

[RAP]

I have not picked up a copy of American Photo in years, not even out of curiosity from the news stand. If this is what they have to do to generate sales, I for one am glad I have not paid to support this kind of so called freedom of expression.

I wonder what their advertisers think of this kind work? I hope there is an investigation and prosecution for all involved.

If you want to photograph crying children, try it with kids and Santa Clause. Some kids are absolutely terrified of him, hairy white beard, red scary suit. Some kids kick and scream in horror and some parents want the shot anyway.

 

[unregistered]

The point is that a child over 3 can't give informed consent and there is power and control inflicted by an adult they trust. That adult is called a parent.

It's a reprehensible violation of the child's trust. The phrase for all of this is "child exploitation".

Are you refering to Greenberg or Mann and Sturges? I agree with what you said totally, although I think it applies to Greenberg and not Mann and Sturges.

 

[unregistered]

Where else would you find a parallel between nudity and gratuitous (if trivial) cruelty?

OK: England. So where ELSE?

Cheers,

Obadiah Sportstrouser

Can't think of any off the top of my head.

Although some of the morals, or things accepted, in Amsterdam leave a lot to be desired. It has cleaned up those a lot so I'm not sure if it still applies, but I remember back in the mid-80's where you'd be walking down the street and pass a porno theater showing kiddie porn.

Pretty disqusting.

 

[ChrisHensel]

I can recall when Avedons' In The American West was first published. The reaction to those photographs, now considered by some (most, really) to be true masterpieces, was similiar to the reaction to the photos by Jill Greenberg. How could Avedon have exploited these poor people! He must be a mean and heartless man to take advantage of the homeless, the young, the stupid, etc. I understand that Greenbergs subjects are children, and that is obviously a factor..sorta kinda, really the kids were not actually harmed, and they were in the care of their parents.

In my view Greenberg's work fails in that her message is vague, although the photos, absent her claim of political protest, are quite striking. As in the case of Mann, Avedon, Mapplethorpe, and many others, posterity holds the key to the worth of Greenbergs work.

 

[c6h6o3]

Greenberg's work fails in that her message is vague,

What message? There is no message in these photos.