|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Child Photographer |
Is this child abuse or what? |
A cry for art If Orwell really said 'Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them', he might have added that there's no notion so inane that some artistic person won't come up with it. On the front of the Sunday Times magazine today there are photographs - 20 of them - of young children crying. They were made to cry by the photographer, Jill Greenberg, arranging for their mothers to give them lollipops and then take the lollipops away. And for why? [She] intended her images of sobbing babies to be a metaphorical commentary on what she sees as the evils of the Bush administration and the dangerous influence of the evangelical religious right. What a bold concept. And the best way of achieving this aim: I was trying to make images that made you feel something, because we are so inundated with images in our culture that oftentimes people don't feel anything. We've all got deadened feelings, so... I know, I'll distress a whole lot of kids. And what else should their distress stand for but - all together now, assembled progressives and sound-thinking well-meaning folk - 'the Bush administration'. This, from James Lileks (via InstaPundit) and although in a different connection, seems apt: Of course, one could make the case that the greatest threats to the freedoms of the West are posed by the head-choppers, plane-exploders, their many merry supporters, and the nuke-seeking state that supports them. But don't expect the artists to make the case. They saw what happened to that Theo Van Gogh fellow... They used emotional manipulation to achieve their desired result and that is what I would consider a form of abuse. If I sat here and sweetly handed my child a piece of candy and then snatched it back just to see him cry then that is emotional abuse. It is cruel and unnecessary and done for my own satisfaction or gain with no thought to how it affects my child. I don't see how that is not considered abuse. Teasing is one thing. This was not teasing. This was done with the intent to upset the child to the point of tears. You have to consider the fact that many of these kids were probably just stunned at first. My guess is that for some it was necessary for the moms to give the candy and take it away more than once to get the kid to cry. This Jill Greenberg woman sounds like a real piece of work. I think its cruel if nothing else I would call that just being ignorant. Who would want their child to cry just to get a picture....? Child abuse in the making and people accept it!!! No its not child abuse !! Maybe child teasing -but not abuse abuse is one who beats or emotionally tears down the child, but to give and take away something to make tears, no. It's sad that one has the brain capacity of a pea, not to understand that Bush is defending our country from the brainiacs that attached our country. wow that sounds lie a bunch of b/s to me...she needs to have something she REALLY wants given to her & then taken away so someone can take a pic of her expression of sorrow & publish it for thousands of people to oo & ahh over...her & the parents who agreed to do tht to their poor kids need their heads examined!!! idiots I don't think it can be defined as child abuse per se. Kids cry, its natural. What I find assinine though is that they felt the need to "make" the kids cry rather than just wait til the were crying all on their own. |
| Tags |
| Professional Photographer Portrait Photographer Fashion Photographer Famous Photographers Family Photographer Child Photographer Bridal Photographer Advertising Photographer |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |