American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

[Gay Larson]

Haris, you certainly make an interesting point. Although I would never have thought of the situation you compared. I guess living in Sarajevo gives you a different perspective.

 

[lkorell]

Interesting perspective Haris. Yes, I'm sure the horrors in Sarajevo were extreme and children's lives were lost or in dandger of being lost. It's not the same situation for sure.
But, no matter the degree of abuse, any act of aggression against a child is child abuse.
I'm sure the children in the photographs were in no real physical danger but they were mentally abused to some degree - for the sole purpose of making money not parental discipline. The pretense under which these images were created is certainly not to be called photojournalism as they were completely posed and contrived. If I hit a dog with a baseball bat and photographed it in pain, and then charged $4500 for a gallery print under the guise that I was showing the horror of animal cruelty, I would expect not to be recognized by the photographic community, but to be thrown in jail.

Lou

 

[haris]

No, what I wrote above was not experience from living in Sarajevo. Living in Sarajevo had next experience: There were streets which were known that sniper shot across them. But we had to go there to work to hoslpitals to get water, etc... So, photographers take theire positions in secure place near one of those streest, waiting someone to be shot with sniper, and take photograph of shoted person.

I wrote previous post to underline that there are many morally questionable situations, and I see that some are taken lighter than others. I don't think just because childrenare in matter in Jill Greensberg case that she is more or less moraly (or legaly)gulty than others who use morally questionable ways to make photograph. We can not allowe ourselves to act and react harder on her just because we are more (most) sensitied because she used cildren. I am not defending her, I told before I don't like children to be "pro" models no matter what kind of photography is in matter, but I didn't see threads this long about other morally questionable ways to make photograph.

 

[CraigK]

Look, no matter how bad anything is, I am sure someone can come up with something worse. The old "it's no big deal compared to war, pestilence and Jeffrey Dahlmer" argument is just sidestepping the issue.

With regards to the artistic merit and/or skill shown in the pieces, considering the circumstances under which they were created, I have to ask if it even matters.

Let's just for a moment consider what the reaction would be to, say, audio tracks of children brought to the point of screaming angst by a recording artist. Would anybody give a rat's ass about how well they were recorded? If Bob Ezrin himself recorded childrens' screams provoked by Bono using the same microphone Lennon used to record "All You Need is Love", would it matter?

What if they were movie clips? Anyone figure that Steven Speilsberg could make the clips so lucious to look at, so well lit and produced that he too could get away with making 30 some kids cry by yanking away their lollypop, sending mom and dad out of the room or by having them stand on shakey boxes till they freak?

 

[roteague]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/cries-of-foul-play-for-photographer/2006/07/11/1152383740199.html

 

[haris]

Look, no matter how bad anything is, I am sure someone can come up with something worse. The old "it's no big deal compared to war, pestilence and Jeffrey Dahlmer" argument is just sidestepping the issue.

With regards to the artistic merit and/or skill shown in the pieces, considering the circumstances under which they were created, I have to ask if it even matters.

Let's just for a moment consider what the reaction would be to, say, audio tracks of children brought to the point of screaming angst by a recording artist. Would anybody give a rat's ass about how well they were recorded? If Bob Ezrin himself recorded childrens' screams provoked by Bono using the same microphone Lennon used to record "All You Need is Love", would it matter?

What if they were movie clips? Anyone figure that Steven Speilsberg could make the clips so lucious to look at, so well lit and produced that he too could get away with making 30 some kids cry by yanking away their lollypop, sending mom and dad out of the room or by having them stand on shakey boxes till they freak?

I didn't want to say it is nothing compared to war, but never mind, I can't express myself more precise on foreign language, and English is foreign language for me...

 

[jd callow]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/cries-of-foul-play-for-photographer/2006/07/11/1152383740199.html

"Some of this frenzy and furore has been escalating to the point where people are comparing me to Michael Jackson and, ultimately, Hitler," she says. "It's really gone off the deep end. I didn't anticipate this at all."

Call me a hopeless cynic, but I suspect Ms Greenberg hoped it would go this way otherwise why would she tell anyone and everyone her method?

 

[catem]

The fact that Greenberg is using the children to 'mirror' her OWN feelings and that it is therefore supposedly very personal work makes it somewhat...well....lacking in imagination at very best. I didn't realise her motivation was so much based on herself, I thought it was more to do with the plight of chidren in a wider sense. That doesn't work either, but the fact that she couldn't even delve into her own heart and give something of herself in her pictures - some sense of her own suffering perhaps? - seriously limits her in my eyes as an artist - all other considerations apart (not that they can be set apart, but I've already stated what I feel about that much earlier in the thread).

What I also don't understand is why anyone would actually buy any of these ...

 

[Roger Hicks]

I didn't want to say it is nothing compared to war, but never mind, I can't express myself more precise on foreign language, and English is foreign language for me...

Dear Haris,

I understood you to mean that some photographers sometimes do a number of things that are morally dubious. I did not not understand you to say that making children cry was the equivalent of shooting people. Unless I read you wrong, I think you expressed yourself more clearly than many who think they speak good English.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Lee Shively]

I suppose she succeeded, you know. She's got some fairly knowledgeable people on an internet website discussing her "art".

Somewhere in this discussion, I copied the following quote, "Again, one can never tell what future generations will have to say about what is created today." Sorry, I don't remember who posted it (mind's too muddled this late in the workday.)

To that comment I have to say I can only hope and pray future generations haven't been so f***ed up by their parents they can't recognize shallow self indulgent horse manure when they see it.

 

[StephenS]

Some reactions are getting over the top. Watching Fox news would have you thinking everyone passed on the street is either a terrorist, a child molester, or both. Rational people realize the world is not that simple. Or that horrible. Some are making this woman a monster because of a few photos on a website; yet none of us here know the entire story behind them. (This is not an an endorsement of the work, either.)

Argue the art, or lack thereof. But to suggest this woman should be arrested or go to jail is too much. It also is exactly what's wanted by creating these images - a big knee-jerk reaction to draw attention to her business.

 

[c6h6o3]

Argue the art, or lack thereof. But to suggest this woman should be arrested or go to jail is too much. It also is exactly what's wanted by creating these images - a big knee-jerk reaction to draw attention to her business.

Spot on. And if there were any art there she wouldn't need the gimmick to draw attention to herself.

BTW, some of the work on your website is just splendid. Some of the best photojournalism I've ever seen.

 

[jd callow]

Spot on. And if there were any art there she wouldn't need the gimmick to draw attention to herself.

BTW, some of the work on your website is just splendid. Some of the best photojournalism I've ever seen.

I agree with c6h6o3, we could spend our time in far better manner by viewing and discussing StephenS's work.

 

[catem]

Thanks to above comments for pointing me in the direction of StepehenS's work.

Stephen - I agree, your work has great simplicity - in the best possible sense - and power. And yes, maybe it's time to discuss more interesting work and lay this particular artist (Greenberg) to rest.....

 

[gr82bart]

Some reactions are getting over the top. Watching Fox news would have you thinking everyone passed on the street is either a terrorist, a child molester, or both. Rational people realize the world is not that simple. Or that horrible. Some are making this woman a monster because of a few photos on a website; yet none of us here know the entire story behind them. (This is not an an endorsement of the work, either.)

Argue the art, or lack thereof. But to suggest this woman should be arrested or go to jail is too much. It also is exactly what's wanted by creating these images - a big knee-jerk reaction to draw attention to her business.

Aw, there you go injecting common sense into this thread! Why rain on the parade like that? I bet you like popping kids balloons to make them cry too....oh wait...nevermind.

Regards, Art.

 

[ChrisHensel]

Somewhere in this discussion, I copied the following quote, "Again, one can never tell what future generations will have to say about what is created today." Sorry, I don't remember who posted it (mind's too muddled this late in the workday.)

To that comment I have to say I can only hope and pray future generations haven't been so f***ed up by their parents they can't recognize shallow self indulgent horse manure when they see it.


Many photographers have been vilified (or at least strongly criticized) for their technique or subject matter when their work was first shown, only to be considered among photography's best upon the passage of time. I have shown Larry Clark's Tulsa to people (especially photographers) and gotten a very strong negative reaction. Tulsa is considered a classic work and an original edition of the book sells for lots and lots of money. I am having a tough time coming up with any shooters who have been lambasted to the extent that Ms Greenberg has, so who knows? Perhaps this exhibit will torpedo her career.

 

[catem]

Somewhere in this discussion, I copied the following quote, "Again, one can never tell what future generations will have to say about what is created today." Sorry, I don't remember who posted it (mind's too muddled this late in the workday.)

To that comment I have to say I can only hope and pray future generations haven't been so f***ed up by their parents they can't recognize shallow self indulgent horse manure when they see it.


Many photographers have been vilified (or at least strongly criticized) for their technique or subject matter when their work was first shown, only to be considered among photography's best upon the passage of time. I have shown Larry Clark's Tulsa to people (especially photographers) and gotten a very stong negative reaction. Tulsa is considered a classic work and an original edition of the book sells for lots and lots of money. I am having a tough time coming up with any shooters who have been lambasted to the extent that Ms Greenberg has, so who knows? Perhaps this exhibit will torpedo her career.

I think what I object to in both Greenberg's and Larry Clark's work is that they both appear to use others - either extremely young children or very young people - to work out and express their own conflicts and emotions, rather than acting 'in service' of those children or young people, to explore something telling about the subjects themselves.

I respect a photographer more when she or he can look into her own 'dark heart', and can give something of themselves, rather than taking from others, especially others as vulnerable as the subjects of both Greenberg and Clark (although on one level it could be argued that Clark involved himself and so exposed his vulnerabilities more than Greenberg did)

As for what gets attention/ money/ fame in the future, well, I'm personally too cynical to pay over-much attention to that....

Cate

 

[ChrisHensel]

rather than taking from others, especially others as vulnerable as the subjects of both Greenberg and Clark (although on one level it could be argued that Clark involved himself and so exposed his vulnerabilities more than Greenberg did)

Setting Ms Greenberg and her squalling kiddies aside for the moment: Photographers that seek to explore humanity in all of its' scope must see things that others do not, and photograph what others will not. The charge of exploitation can be leveled at anyone that photographs people.

I came across this quote on the net re: Jill Greenberg, but it is true of any photographer that seeks to explore people:

Exploitation lies at the root of every interaction between a photographer and a human subject, and every photographer worth a damn knows this. It is unavoidable, it is intrinsic to the very act taking pictures, and the most sophisticated photographers work their understanding of it into their practice, in various subtle ways. I've watched dozens of them at work, and each has a different method: Some bond with their subjects, some boss them around, some flirt and seduce, some ignore, some distract, and some just watch. But with the best of them you can see something in their eyes, and in their work, that proves their trustworthiness and creates a kind of complicity. Jill Greenberg is decidedly not one of the best, but her clumsiness inadvertently reveals a fundamental truth: Taking a picture is a deep and ethically complex thing to do, and everyone who engages in it is compromised, right from the start

I agree with this to a large extent. Avedon, examining the photographs he made of his dying father (and Avedon was soundly ripped by many for these photos) was not certain as to why he made the images, that perhaps he was honoring his father, or that perhaps he was killing him (shooting him). In the end (says Avedon) no harm as done and great photography was the result.

Some photographers strive to make pretty pictures, and some photographers use the medium to explore evry aspect of the world around us. There are lots of pretty pictures.

 

[catem]

Some photographers strive to make pretty pictures, and some photographers use the medium to explore evry aspect of the world around us. There are lots of pretty pictures.

Of course all photographers on one level 'use' their subjects. But the choice is not a stark and simplistic one between "exploitation" and "pretty pictures".

I do agree that taking pictures of people, probably on any level, is not ethically straightforward.

That does not mean we lay aside our capacity for judgement and say 'therefore, everything is permissable'...

 

[Q17]

In defense of Larry (he's a close friend of my only other film-shooting buddy), he was photographing the only world he really knew; it would have been utterly false for him to photograph anything less gritty than he did, considering who he was at the time. It is also very true that Larry did not cause the suffering of those kids, as is the case in Ms. Greenberg's work.

There are a number of photographers whose work depicts worlds that we (hopefully) will never have to enter, but who promote social change with their efforts. Mary Ellen Mark and Dorthea Lange readily come to mind.

 

[ChrisHensel]

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

In defense of Larry (he's a close friend of my only other film-shooting buddy), he was photographing the only world he really knew;

Just to be clear, I think Tulsa is brilliant. No need to defend him here.

 

[Roger Hicks]

To that comment I have to say I can only hope and pray future generations haven't been so f***ed up by their parents they can't recognize shallow self indulgent horse manure when they see it.

At the risk of appearing facetious I'd suggest that this is deep self-indulgent horse manure...

Cheers,

R

 

[haris]

Originally Posted by StephenS
Some reactions are getting over the top. Watching Fox news would have you thinking everyone passed on the street is either a terrorist, a child molester, or both. Rational people realize the world is not that simple. Or that horrible. Some are making this woman a monster because of a few photos on a website; yet none of us here know the entire story behind them. (This is not an an endorsement of the work, either.)

Argue the art, or lack thereof. But to suggest this woman should be arrested or go to jail is too much. It also is exactly what's wanted by creating these images - a big knee-jerk reaction to draw attention to her business.

Aw, there you go injecting common sense into this thread! Why rain on the parade like that? I bet you like popping kids balloons to make them cry too....oh wait...nevermind.

Regards, Art.

Just to get this thread back to right track, that is get it out of common sense

In one forum few years ago, photographer posted photograph of some children playing in town park. Half joke and half seriously I posted question like "How could you do thet aren't you afraid to be arrested as paedophile for photographing children, especially not yours children"

Now answer was: "Well, I live in Norwey and we are still normal people" he wanted to say that there people will not fall in hysteria and immediately take someone as paedophile just for photographing children playing in city park...

 

[haris]

I think what I object to in both Greenberg's and Larry Clark's work is that they both appear to use others - either extremely young children or very young people - to work out and express their own conflicts and emotions, rather than acting 'in service' of those children or young people, to explore something telling about the subjects themselves.
Cate

Well, Hollywood is full of teenage films in which main subject is sex, even if it is never shown beeing under tough eye if censors. What I find extremely stupid in those films (beside content of those films) is that teenage characters (that is characters which should be from 12 to 18 years of age)are played by actors/actresses which are in theire 20eth or early 30ies years of life. In Europe if movie character has for example 13 years in movie, it would likely be played by 13 years old (or close to) actor/actress. Even if role including nudity. Maybe because we in Europe are used to see in movies or other art forms nudity or other human behaving of all age characters, we don't have such harsh (or I would say hypocritical) reactions on "controversial" movies or other artistic expressions like people in USA...

 

[bjorke]

Exploitation lies at the root of every interaction between a photographer and a human subject, and every photographer worth a damn knows this. ... a fundamental truth: Taking a picture is a deep and ethically complex thing to do, and everyone who engages in it is compromised, right from the start

...Some photographers strive to make pretty pictures, and some photographers use the medium to explore evry aspect of the world around us. There are lots of pretty pictures.

Rock ON

And to be clear: people who have been complaining most vociferously about Greenberg on the web have been zealously exploiting this hoo-hah to draw web hits to their own sites, using the cheapest sorts of demagoguery, particularly in demonizing anyone with differing opinions, and lots of hand-wrung declarations about the "importance" of their own assertions.