American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

Lee Shively · Jul 12, 2006

"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."

Lots of name-calling there, lots of accusations directed at someone un-named(don't know, don't care). From my perspective, the demagoguery is in Greenberg's photographs. I certainly see no demagoguery in the honest criticism of her work. That's opinion. The critic's opinion is just as valid as the artist's.

I find it difficult to believe everything should be accepted just because the creator says it is art and you must accept their vision. If you go that route, anything goes. "Anything" in this particular instance includes the physical and/or psychological abuse of children. Does this acceptance of exploitation extend further? To the torture of animals, perhaps? To rape or murder in the commission of "art"? Of course not! Good judgement trumps blind acceptance...at least, it should.

Jill Greenberg makes a damn poor poster child for artistic freedom.

ChrisHensel · Jul 12, 2006

Good judgement trumps blind acceptance...at least, it should.

I haven't read every post in this thread but I am willing to bet that no one blindly accepted anything about these photos. I don't think anyone said anything very positive about them at all, except me, sort of. I know that there are many many subjects that most photographers would never photograph, or even think to photograph, but that does not mean that everything isn't worthy of photographing. Nan Goldin made some very stark, graphic images of subject matter that...well...very few people would think of photographing. Arbus sought out those that others would never photograph. It is the daring photographer that pushes the boundaries of the medium. Photograph what you are afraid of, seek out that which makes the viewer uncomfortable... It's life, and life only.

bjorke · Jul 12, 2006

It's easy to find, Lee. Just Google her name, or sift for even a few seconds through BoingBoing. I could cite quotes and name names if you want, sure.

Lee Shively · Jul 12, 2006

Don't care.

CraigK · Jul 12, 2006

I know that there are many many subjects that most photographers would never photograph, or even think to photograph, but that does not mean that everything isn't worthy of photographing.

I am not sure if everything is worth photographing. Certainly my ugly mug would be near the bottom of the list. I understand your point though.

I don't know if anyone here is arguing that photographing a crying child is wrong. The issue, at least for me, is not what is photographed but the circumstances under which the photo was made.

Would the face of a man grimacing in pain after being hoofed in the coin-purse be worth photographing? Maybe. But what if I, as the photographer, deliberately hoofed him in order to get the photo? Would that be justified? Or would I need to somehow wrap the work and the actions required to create it in a one-size-fits-all "Bush is Evil Incarnate" theme to make it more acceptable? Or how about just making the print really colourful and really, really big? Now is it ok?

Ms Greenberg can photograph whatever she wants, from crying babies to, say, horrible car accidents or men gimacing in pain. I do not believe however that as an artist she is automatically granted immunity from the consequences of deliberately making babies cry or wrecking cars or kicking men in the coin-purse.

StephenS · Jul 12, 2006

CraigK said:
...or kicking men in the coin-purse.

You know, there are probably some men out there who'd pay for that.

And that is why it's good the neighbors home is not made of glass...

CraigK · Jul 12, 2006

You know, there are probably some men out there who'd pay for that.

Now there's an idea for a website. kickinthecoinpurse dot com. $9.95/month recurring.

WillyWizard · Jul 13, 2006

http://www.slate.com/id/2145277/

Cheryl Jacobs · Jul 27, 2006

I don't know how I missed this thread before.

Obviously I am shocked to know that there is a commercial photographer out there who is cold enough to use the kinds of methods this woman employed. It's offensive, and it's frightening.

The photographer states that the candy or whatnot that was snatched from the child was given back within 30 seconds. That's hardly the point. It only takes one second to betray a child's trust, and that's what she has done. For photographers like me who spend large amounts of time and energy gaining the trust of our young subjects in order to get genuine expressions, this is repugnant. You can bet that her subjects learn some valuable lessons from this experience, even at the young age: 1) photographers are not to be trusted and 2) adults are not to be trusted.

And if she believes that "doing no permanent psychological damage" equates to acceptable tactics, I truly feel sorry for her, because she has completely missed out on the best part of photographing people. The most rewarding part for me is not the photograph itself, but rather making someone feel important and valued, validating who they are and making myself available as a confidante, should they want one. It's an opportunity to record a person's strengths, quirks, vulnerabilities, attitudes, whatever they choose to show. It's the give and take and the unique connections that make people photography so rich and amazing.

To exploit the inherently trusting nature of a young child...how can that possibly be fulfilling?

- CJ

StephenS · Jul 27, 2006

I'm thinking there's another way to look at it. Always trying to understand someone else, I'll bet in her mind she probably knows it's wrong to make a kid cry and take a photo but justifies it because what she's doing is so important that a small wrong far overshadows the big picture.

Her work is so vital to society that a few small bad deeds are making a big difference for us all.

blansky · Jul 27, 2006

I completely agree.

The sacrifice of a few tears has certainly been worth what she has accomplished by spearheading our withdrawal from Iraq, impeaching the president and running his corrupt gang from office.

She is a true visionary and we all owe her a good deal of gratitude. Beside there are plenty of children in the world, what's the big deal about traumatizing a few of them.

Michael

jd callow · Jul 27, 2006

StephenS said:
Her work is so vital to society that a few small bad deeds are making a big difference for us all.

Just in case anyone missed it.

Sounds like the kind of justification used for a preemptive strike against a worthless, emasculated country (except that it sits amongst large pools of oil).

StephenS · Jul 27, 2006

What was that movie? Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? Where that really bad music they played was going to bring about world peace. I think Greenberg's photos will have the same effect.

DBP · Jul 28, 2006

There was a short clip about Jill Greenberg on the tube this morning. They said some of her pictures were going for $5k. Amazing what people will pay to capture some buzz.

haris · Jul 28, 2006

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I don't know how I missed this thread before.

Obviously I am shocked to know that there is a commercial photographer out there who is cold enough to use the kinds of methods this woman employed. It's offensive, and it's frightening.

The photographer states that the candy or whatnot that was snatched from the child was given back within 30 seconds. That's hardly the point. It only takes one second to betray a child's trust, and that's what she has done. For photographers like me who spend large amounts of time and energy gaining the trust of our young subjects in order to get genuine expressions, this is repugnant. You can bet that her subjects learn some valuable lessons from this experience, even at the young age: 1) photographers are not to be trusted and 2) adults are not to be trusted.

And if she believes that "doing no permanent psychological damage" equates to acceptable tactics, I truly feel sorry for her, because she has completely missed out on the best part of photographing people. The most rewarding part for me is not the photograph itself, but rather making someone feel important and valued, validating who they are and making myself available as a confidante, should they want one. It's an opportunity to record a person's strengths, quirks, vulnerabilities, attitudes, whatever they choose to show. It's the give and take and the unique connections that make people photography so rich and amazing.

To exploit the inherently trusting nature of a young child...how can that possibly be fulfilling?

- CJ

This post made me think. There is alternative approach to photograph crying child. Go to, let say these days, Lebanon, there are numbers of crying children, and photograph them. I think compared to this, take off candy for few seconds is way less harmfull. And children cry, and if photographer portrait state of soul, and if photographer photograph children laughing, there are times when children cry, and photographer if want to portrey all states of sould shoul sometinme photograph children in crying situation. You know, if we don't show/see something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exists...
But, maybe her problem is, she forced OURS (in our neigbourhood, town, country, society, close to us) chidren to cry, not THEIRE (someone elses, not from our neigbourhood, town, country, society, not close to us)...

CraigK · Jul 28, 2006

maybe her problem is, she forced OURS (in our neigbourhood, town, country, society, close to us) chidren to cry, not THEIRE (someone elses, not from our neigbourhood, town, country, society, not close to us)...

I'm sorry but that is just plain bullshit. A child is a child, here, there anywhere.

No need to go to Lebanon to see crying children, misery knows no borders. There is probably a child with an empty belly or abusive parent or serious illness within a block or two of all our homes.

What Ms. Greenberg did was more than just record misery, she diliberately added to what already exists. That is the issue.

Cheryl Jacobs · Jul 28, 2006

This post made me think. There is alternative approach to photograph crying child. Go to, let say these days, Lebanon, there are numbers of crying children, and photograph them. I think compared to this, take off candy for few seconds is way less harmfull. And children cry, and if photographer portrait state of soul, and if photographer photograph children laughing, there are times when children cry, and photographer if want to portrey all states of sould shoul sometinme photograph children in crying situation. You know, if we don't show/see something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exists...
But, maybe her problem is, she forced OURS (in our neigbourhood, town, country, society, close to us) chidren to cry, not THEIRE (someone elses, not from our neigbourhood, town, country, society, not close to us)...

You've missed my point completely. I have photographed a lot of crying children, but I didn't CAUSE them to cry.

I would go in a heartbeat to record children crying in Lebanon, not because I'm heartless, but to reveal the heartbreak the kids are facing, to document what is happening there. There is value in that, although it's difficult to see. I would not be CAUSING the tears of the Lebanese children. You cannot compare genuine tears in Lebanon with the tears of Ms. Greenberg's subjects.

haris · Jul 28, 2006

I didn't missed your point Cheryl, and I don't think you deliberate cause chilrden to cry to photograph them. I was not commenting your post, your post was trigger for my cynical nature to write what I wrote.

CraigK, our pain and pain of our beloved is bigger and hurts more than others pain and pain of other people beloved. In about 3 minutes needed for me to write this post over the world 10.000 children died for different causes (hunger, illnesses, killing, neglecting, etc...) I am sure you think to every single of them and raising your voice, and I am sure you have spent on internet forums disscussing that issues same time as you spent here discussing this issue.

Lebanon wasn't point, it was example, do not catch on it.

Cynically yours.

haris · Jul 28, 2006

What Ms Greenberg did, I would never do. But, I am sick and tired of "moralists".
Nobody have signed release from God to be right. And moral is such elastic thing that it isn't worth of discussion. Have she did something illegal? That is only valid question. It seems she didn't, atleast we don't know that she ended up with law suit against her. Leave moral to yourselves (including me to leave my moral code to myself).

noblebeast · Jul 28, 2006

haris said:
What Ms Greenberg did, I would never do. But, I am sick and tired of "moralists".
Nobody have signed release from God to be right. And moral is such elastic thing that it isn't worth of discussion. Have she did something illegal? That is only valid question. It seems she didn't, atleast we don't know that she ended up with law suit against her. Leave moral to yourselves (including me to leave my moral code to myself).

So a Law - whether it be God's or Man's - is the only way to tell Right from Wrong? Poor Socrates: the unexamined life may not be worth living but it sure is abundant!

Joe

tim atherton · Jul 28, 2006

thebanana said:
The latest edition of American Photo has a story about Jill Greenberg, a photographer in L.A. who specilaizes in taking portraits of crying children under the age of 3. The upshot is that she actually creates the conditions that force them to cry, in order to take the shots. She does this by removing their clothes, giving them a candy and then taking it away. placing them in uncomfortable positions etc. Her critics contend that what she is doing amounts to chiuld abuse. Her own comments tend to support that view in my mind. I think this is the most disgusting story I've ever read about a photographer.

Nah - my two year old will just cry if you even look at him the wrong way - crying at least 60% of the time is their natural state of being for many of them. Photos of them NOT crying would be unnatural. Hey - I can even make him cry on demand. It's supper time - he says "cookie" daddy says "no": Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. No, if I too had found a way to make money from that I'd be retired in the Caymans by now....

BTW - how do you think they get those kids to cry for all those TV diaper ads etc you probably don't even notice you watch all the time?

and did someone else say it here (or elsewhere?)

"Alternatively: we happily apply sanctions that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children over a period of a decade ("that is a price we are prepared to pay", remember that?), but taking the lollipops of a few first world kids who'll get them back as soon as the shoot is over and never even remember the event ten minutes later is a bad thing?"

get a sense of perspective.... man some folks are uptight!

tim atherton · Jul 28, 2006

blansky said:
We condone the torture of animals for medical knowledge but we don't condone the torture of animals for fun.
Michael

we condone plenty of it for profit, sport and vanity of one sort or another

tim atherton · Jul 28, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
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.

substantial - hmmm - time to turn in the president then!

haris · Jul 28, 2006

noblebeast said:
So a Law - whether it be God's or Man's - is the only way to tell Right from Wrong? Poor Socrates: the unexamined life may not be worth living but it sure is abundant!

Joe

Law is only common thing for all people on certain area, in this case country. What I think is moral, you may not and vice versa. So, I do something, you don't like that and you start to do something against me. Who gives you right, how you know your moral stand is correct? Or vice versa. That is why people invented something which they agreed upon, agreed it will apply to all people on certain area, and called it law.

Moral is too individual to be "measure unit" to all people. Law, with all its errors, is something theoretically all people on certain area agree to fulfill.

That is why moral is not valid in these kind of discussions, by my opinion.

StephenS · Jul 28, 2006

This thread makes me cry.

American Photo story (Jill Greenberg)

Moderator

haris

haris

haris

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency