American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

[Gay Larson]

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.

I can not believe you would compare this woman to Avedon! The people he photographed were adults and he had their permission. These are children, for God's sake, and I doubt they would even be asked if she could take their photograph. Of course I'm sure the parents got money for it! I will guess you don't have children.

 

[CraigK]

What message? There is no message in these photos.

That's because it is such a profound, insightful, important message revealed only to the literati.

I did manage to get my decoder ring to figure it out though.

So here it is. Ready?

Bush is Bad.

Pass it on.

 

[unregistered]

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.

:rolleyes: I'm sorry and I certainly do not mean to be insulting but that is utter hogwash...and I mean that in the kindest way possible.

 

[c6h6o3]

That's because it is such a profound, insightful, important message revealed only to the literati.

I did manage to get my decoder ring to figure it out though.

So here it is. Ready?

Bush is Bad.

Pass it on.

Exactly my point. You need your decoder ring, or your literati symbols manual or artist's statement or something external to the photograph in order to receive the message. It's not in the picture itself.

For this reason alone I cannot take her seriously as an artist.

 

[CraigK]

Exactly my point. You need your decoder ring, or your literati symbols manual or artist's statement or something external to the photograph in order to receive the message. It's not in the picture itself.

Well fortunately(?) decoder rings are cheap and easy to find. In fact, you can make one right now for yourself. Simply adopt the attitude that no matter what the issue, no matter what the problem, crime or atrocity, with skillful wiggling through 6 degrees of separation, blame must always trace right back to the White House.

Remember the exhibit in London where the curators mistakingly displayed the packing material instead of the actual sculpture? I'm pretty sure it was a protest against the crimes commited by imprerialist forces all over the holy land...or something about Bush being Bad.

 

[Sportera]

My God! What ever happened to "say cheese"? Who wants crying children portraits especially if they are not genuine. I mean its one thing to photograph a crying child who dropped his ice cream cone, its another to take it from him.

 

[ChrisHensel]

I can not believe you would compare this woman to Avedon!

I didn't compare her to Avedon, I compared the reaction to her crying-children photos to the reaction to Avedon's In The American West. Avedon, when making a portrait, was in charge to the extent that he interacted with the subject in order to evoke a response. Avedon's portraits from "...The American West" were not recieved kindly, but are now viewed by most photographers and critics as photographic treasures. Again, one can never tell what future generations will have to say about what is created today.

 

[unregistered]

Since I missed all the critical opinions you state were present when the show and book first came out, I researched it to see if I could find any press or commentart that seemed to go along with what you say. In 2 articles in the New Your Times, while both did not give a glowing review full of metaphores that might otherwise be associated with the works of Ansel Adams, both did see the value and power of the images. To quote 1: "Richard Avedon's ''In the American West'' is a long way from the majesty and nobility of Ansel Adams, but for a horrifying thrill there has not been such a good show since ''Frankenstein.''"

I have yet to find anything that suggests the reaction of Avedon's work came anywhere nere the reaction people are having to Greenbergs techniques. Most people haven't commented on the images themselves, most likely because they aren't anything special. They are actually rather bland. No, the reaction has been about the techniques she used on defenseless 3 year old children to get them into a state of emotional distress.

That is the point of it all.

 

[ChrisHensel]

Most people haven't commented on the images themselves, most likely because they aren't anything special.

This of course (like all things artistic and visual) is a matter of opinion. Jill Greenberg has a very specific and (heretofore) acclaimed style of shooting. Critics, perhaps, are unwilling to see past her methods, or are taking a moral stance that prohibits any real commentary on the photos aside from the percieved mistreatment of the children, as if to see something of value in these photos is to condone or approve of child abuse.

Artkrush is a bimonthly email magazine covering the key figures, exhibitions, and trends in international art and design and reviewed Greenberg's exhibit:


Jill Greenberg culls visual cues from commercial photography and hieratic propaganda for her photographic portraits of toddlers in various states of distress. Using titles such as Grand Old Party, Four More Years, and Misinformation, Greenberg bluntly expresses her anger with the current geopolitical situation. The Truth depicts a child's face as an exaggerated mask of misery. Its large scale, theatrical lighting, and classically stylized composition lend the image a monumental gravitas befitting the portrait of a boy-king. Faith? depicts another child with her hand on her heart and yearning, tear-swollen eyes, though it remains unclear whether the titular faith eludes or comforts her. Overall, End Times succeeds at turning propagandistic strategies against themselves, creating incisive political commentary.
-SND


The photos in conjunction with their respective captions actually do make stark political commentary. Obviously supporters of BushCo are not going to view this work favorably, nor will those who cannot see past the surface. Social and political commentary can be challenging. Interesting that there is more of an uproar over these photos then there is over the wholesale killing of children by repressive regimes world wide.

 

[Gerald Koch]

The problem with Greeberg's work is what I see in too many photos being made today -- they are fake from the very beginning.

There is a famous photograph of a small boy getting his first haircut. He's crying because he's scared. The barber in his white coat looks too much like a doctor. Also the boy feels that part of him, his hair, is being taken from him. The photo is of a real and common situation. That is why this photo has meaning to us. Looking at Greenberg's photos we have no clue as to why the child is crying. Her titles are vapid and presumptious as is her work.

 

[ChrisHensel]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with Greeberg's work is what I see in too many photos being made today -- they are fake from the very beginning.

But that is the point of her style of shooting. She is not a documentary photogapher. Like LaChappelle, or Leibowitz she has a specific image in her head and does what needs to be done to get it. The "shining over-produced" look she employs with the crying children is exactly the style she employs in all of her recent photos.

 

[c6h6o3]

Using titles such as Grand Old Party, Four More Years, and Misinformation, Greenberg bluntly expresses her anger with the current geopolitical situation.

Oh, now I get it. The message is in the titles. Silly me. I was looking for profundity in the photographs.

Now that I know I'm not deep enough to comprehend such morally relevant art I'll retire to my hovel to contemplate socially irrelevant photographs of peeling paint and sand dunes.

 

[jovo]

This of course (like all things artistic and visual) is a matter of opinion. Jill Greenberg has a very specific and (heretofore) acclaimed style of shooting. Critics, perhaps, are unwilling to see past her methods, or are taking a moral stance that prohibits any real commentary on the photos aside from the percieved mistreatment of the children, as if to see something of value in these photos is to condone or approve of child abuse.

.

I disagree. Looking at the photos is quite enough to forge a well founded dislike for them as art on their visual merits alone. The kid on a bottle of Gerber's baby food is similarly idealized (hence the reference to commercial influences cited in Artkrush), and no more worthy of interest than that necessary to be certain the jar I'm going to open actually contains gherkins and not strained beets.


And then there's: " Overall, End Times succeeds at turning propagandistic strategies against themselves, creating incisive political commentary." for which I can only suggest a word that describes ovine fecal discharge.

 

[unregistered]

"This of course (like all things artistic and visual) is a matter of opinion. Jill Greenberg has a very specific and (heretofore) acclaimed style of shooting. Critics, perhaps, are unwilling to see past her methods, or are taking a moral stance that prohibits any real commentary on the photos aside from the percieved mistreatment of the children, as if to see something of value in these photos is to condone or approve of child abuse."


Have you looked at her site? If you did and you think this then we are seeing 2 different things. While she does have a style in her commercial work that is interesting (but far from unique), her personal work looks nothing like it. Even the monkey series and this end times are completely opposite. What you consider to be "the percieved mistreatment of the children" others see it as indeed mistreatment of children, and therefore not worth of any critical comments on the actual technique of the image. For critics, to look beyond that state of emotional distress (even your Artkrush article uses that word) in a child that we know was forced and purposfully done in such a way as to bring about the most distress possible, is impossible. It is like looking at an image of a child in Africa who's arms have just been cut off and being able to comment on the quality of the print, or make critique remarks about how the photographer should have cropped it differently. For people with the ability to see the abuse in Greenbergs "work", it is almost impossible to be objective about anything else. And of course, she causes this herself by the very subject and technique of gaining that image to begin with.

The Artkrush part you quoted is basically her "artist" statement, and doesn't appear to be of any independent thinking on their part. The American Photo article and interviews on the podcast would have served you better for a point of reference. However, since they showed bad journalism when they asked Greenberg for a comment about the blog of Thomas Hawk and she told lies to questions she knew the real truth about, then cut&pasted one part of the blog, and didn't even bother to get a responce from Mr. Hawk, so even their opinion would be suspect. Personally I don't much believe in what critics or some writer might have to say, especially when they have a financial incentive to be positive, as most of these magazines do.


"The photos in conjunction with their respective captions actually do make stark political commentary. Obviously supporters of BushCo are not going to view this work favorably, nor will those who cannot see past the surface. Social and political commentary can be challenging. Interesting that there is more of an uproar over these photos then there is over the wholesale killing of children by repressive regimes world wide."

Man, you go pretty far in your extremes. First of all, had you NOT read her artist statement, or heard anything about the images, photographer, etc and seen the images, with their titles, it would be impossible to relate them to a political expression against Bush. The titles are too vague and borad for anyone to get the connection. And that is why she has had to go to such great lengths to explain it to everyone who will listen.

The ourtage over these images has NOTHING to do with how those of us criticizing it react to or question the "wholesale killing of children by repressive regimes world wide", and to say so is preposterous. However, are we to just ignore this objectionable treatment of 3 year olds at the hands of a trusted adult just because there is killing of children "by repressive regimes world wide" too? That is what you are saying. By your logic, if a relative of yours got killed in a drive by shooting (which I hope never happens to anyone) you or anyone else cannot be outraged at the death because there are people in other parts of the world who are being killed in worse ways by repressive regimes than your relative? Come on...think about what you say before saying it.

 

[unregistered]

"Like LaChappelle, or Leibowitz she has a specific image in her head and does what needs to be done to get it."

Have you seen any images of LaChappelle or Leibowitz where they have purposfully forced a child of 3 years into a state of emotional distress? No. Those 2 real artists do not need cheap tricks or obscene tactics to have their work seen and appreciated. Not only is Greenbergs images obscene, they are also blatently cheap shots...a way to get attention, because "any press is good press" as her hollywood producer husband is all to aware of.

"The "shining over-produced" look she employs with the crying children is exactly the style she employs in all of her recent photos."

Not even close. you need to revisit her site and study the images, and lighting techniques, more.

 

[jd callow]

I have no problem getting to the work in spite of the methods.
The overly slick images help to make the images poignant, but this is little different than shock for the sake of shock. There is nothing here beyond knowledge that crying children, clearly or super clearly presented is disturbing. In no way can the viewer draw a line from the representation to the photographer's stated intention. I don't see a crying child and think "War is bad." If she were to use her considerable skill and technique as an integrated component of her message, I'd have no issues.


The photographer has built an unsupportable connection and has gained unbelievable exposure. Good for her, good for marketing, bad for art, and bad for those who wish to speak intelligently about the war.

Disclaimer
I am, by any measure, as anti Bush as a human can be and stay out of jail.

 

[ChrisHensel]

Even the monkey series and this end times are completely opposite

I disagree.


What you consider to be "the percieved mistreatment of the children" others see it as indeed mistreatment of children, and therefore not worth of any critical comments on the actual technique of the image

I cannot defend Greenbergs methods in evoking a response from the children in these photos. I can, however, look past the methods to see her point.

For people with the ability to see the abuse in Greenbergs "work", it is almost impossible to be objective about anything else

Agreed, and this is why I think she failed.

The Artkrush part you quoted is basically her "artist" statement, and doesn't appear to be of any independent thinking on their part

This is an unfortunate use of a review, my apologies.

The titles are too vague and borad for anyone to get the connection. And that is why she has had to go to such great lengths to explain it to everyone who will listen.


Maybe not. Here in America, for the politically aware citizen (at least on the left) a photo of a crying baby with the caption Grand Old Party is not hard to decipher.

My understanding is that Greenberg intends to published these photos in a book titled End Times, complete with captions. Hard to miss the message of the photos with a title like that, including the captions. Many photographers use text to add meaning to photos, and the use of text does not take away from the power of Greenberg's work.

The ourtage over these images has NOTHING to do with how those of us criticizing it react to or question the "wholesale killing of children by repressive regimes world wide", and to say so is preposterous.

Yup, I should have left that out of my post.


Thanks for your response. Again, I am not in favor of what Greenberg did to get these photos, but certainly it is not impossible to see her point.


Just a quick note, the price listed by her gallery for these prints is pretty low, so for those of you with an honest interest in photos that will only increase in value, this is an opportunity. I'm sure you are all leaping at the chance to own one of these photos.

 

[ChrisHensel]

Not even close. you need to revisit her site and study the images, and lighting techniques, more

Again, I disagree. Greenberg has an easily identifiable style...look again.

Settle down just a tad, this is just a diversion on the internet...no one is being repressed, or killed...the kids in those photos are two years removed from the sittings and doubtless are just fine.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I'll retire to my hovel to contemplate socially irrelevant photographs of peeling paint and sand dunes.

You can afford a hovel, the best I've been able to do is to starve in a garret.

 

[mark]

I cannot begin to describe the feelings I have for this woman's photographs or for her. Lets just say violence popped into my head.

I have two kids that are about the same age as her victims, that is what they are. They are not models, nor are the subjects, they are victims. Anyone who claims there is no, or just temporary, harm being done is a fool and moron. She is inflicting pain on these children. Just what is an uncomfortable position anyway? Does she need to be charged with abuse, yep, you bet. If no one else will I will file the complaint. Just point me in the right F*cking direction.

Now, If she were in Tucson I know a few guys who, since her victims are children, would not charge a dime to cause temporary "discomfort" to her. Which is what I feel needs to happen. Maybe give her a taste of her own methods, but on an adult level. Let's see what would be the traumatic equivilent, for an adult woman, to being stripped naked, put in an "uncomfortable" position and then "manipulated" until the right reaction is elicited, then get a few good snaps of it?


Now, someone said no one is looking at the images. Well I did, there is nothing redeemable about them at all. Fuck the titles they are absolutely meaningless. Some one can take a crap on a piece of paper and give it a political title. In the end it is still shit on a piece of paper. The woman is a bitch who has resorted to torture, and contrived political propoganda to fulfill an obvious sick need to harm children and get attention. There are no messages in those images. There is no underlying metaphor in an image of a traumatized child with no context. There is more meaning in the image of the palestinian girl on the beach that was on the wires last week (sorry can't find a link right now) than in all of this worthless and sick person's portfolio. This is not art, by any measure. It holds no value. Unfortunately worthless rags like the one quoted have basically given her what she wanted and she will do more. She has not made the point she set out too. In fact she basically made the point that she is just as bad, if not worse, than those she is protesting against.

Art is no excuse to purposely inflict harm on anyone. You notice that none of those children are listed as hers. I wonder if any of them are, and if they are, how social services would feel about it. And for the record, a parent cannot give permission for their child to be abused, nor are they allowed to knowlingly put their child in a harmful situation. This is nothing but exploitation.

 

[mark]

Not even close. you need to revisit her site and study the images, and lighting techniques, more

Again, I disagree. Greenberg has an easily identifiable style...look again.

Settle down just a tad, this is just a diversion on the internet...no one is being repressed, or killed...the kids in those photos are two years removed from the sittings and doubtless are just fine.

Are they? As adults we might be able to move on easily, kids do not. My four year suffered from an incident just the other day that happened when he was two. When he was Two, and on his first halloween excursion, a costume clad teenager got on his level and it scared him pretty bad. Now, two years later he sees the same costume on TV as part of an advertisement for a "scary" show that would be on later, and it scares him so bad he climbs into my lap literally shaking.

What we as adults might consider temporary is not necessarily so for children.

 

[lkorell]

Just what we need...more children crying. As if there aren't enough children crying in this world that someone has to force them to be upset just to make a buck.
I'm so glad I do wedding photography. At least most of the time people are smiling and laughing. And when they cry it's because they are happy.
We've had many discussions on this forum about qualifying art. Somehow, any semblence of art in these photos is lost for me. I don't get it. If it is an attempt to link it to a political message, it just goes to show you how fake most political messages are.
Regarding the photographer's methods of getting the shots - if the stories are true - it's criminal. Consent by parents in this case should be investigated by child protective services.

Lou

 

[unregistered]

"If no one else will I will file the complaint. Just point me in the right F*cking direction."

The LA districts attorney's office. And believe it or not, one of them IS her child. She describes how she got her child to cry...MADE her stand on an apple crate that was rickety and the child did not feel confortable standing on, but was forced to...hence the crying. Yep, she's a sicko alright.

 

[unregistered]

"if the stories are true"

Follow the links posted to her interview with American Photo and the podcast of that. She'll tell you in her own words what she did...to a point. You have to get past the lollipop phrase to hear the other things. Like sending parents out of the room, etc.

 

[haris]

Ok, Jill Greenberg did what she did, and some will hate her, some will ustify her. But, this thread make me think. You know, there is one specific situation in life of photojurnalist. There are situation in which, in this example in war situation, especially civil war situations, one will kill someone because of photographer. Now, don't get me wrong, photographer is not guilty, he or she is not one who ask anyone to be killed. Kiling will be made just because photographer is there. Because murderer want that killing to be photographed. And if photographer is not there, that killing would not have point, and maybe would not be made. So, photographer also can be aware of that situation, and can leave, or stay to photograph that murder. Now, if photographer stay, he or she is guilty for that murder, even if photographer didn't asked or searched for murder situation. Now, what Jill did opposite of that photojurnalist. That photojournalist knows thet only reason for that murder ot be done is because he or she is there with camera to photograph it. Nobody held that photojournalist responsabile, and I think it is worse that what Jill greensberg did.