"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.