Is this child abuse or what?

Question

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...

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

It's not abuse. It might mess with the kids' attachment bonds a little, since the mothers are giving mixed signals, but otherwise, that's it. It's a one off, designed to deliver an artistic message. No child will look back and say - 'mum, i remember the time you kept that lollipop from me. That why I am how I am today. Why did you do it? Don'tcha love me? '

What if a mother is in a genuine situation where she is about to give her kid something (like a sticky ice-pop in a car), and then realises that, no, it's not practical to give give it here, and after presenting it to them has to take it back. Sure the kid will cry, but would you call that involutary abuse? It just teaches them that although you may expect it, you don't get everything that you want in life straight away.

Abuse is a little more extreme than that, it's not even a case of the kids having their emotions messed with, they are simply to young to handle their emotions. Most of them probably cried, because so many of the other ones were doing it. But they probably wouldn't have remembered it the next day, or maybe even after the shoot, when they got their lollipops.

Answer 3

Well it doesn't qualify as child abuse, but it was definitely a dickish move. There's no reason you need to make little kids cry just so you can make a statement with your "art." I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, but at least I'm not gonna go out and literally take candy from babies to make a point.

Answer 4

Maybe not abusive, but how is what she is doing any better than what she says Bush is doing? I don't believe in the notion "lesser of two evils" Evil is evil anyway you look at it, so doing one thing to make a baby cry to make a point is just as "evil" as creating a war.

PS, i don't consider myself a strong Bush supporter, however, I am really sick and tired of hearing all this Bush-bashing. I don't think he is doing that bad of a job that you should make babies cry.

Answer 5

Um, they do that to babies and children all the time so they can 'act' in movies and on television.

And yes I think that's equally bad (in my opinion child labor, kids shouldn't work, period) - but why are you so upset over photographs and not the crying babies on tv shows and commercials?

I don't see Bush and Babies as meshing well together. Strained point. Pointless creation.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

The things a mother would do to get her kids in the paper. Shame on the mums!

Answer 8

It is not abuse, but it sure is mean. Talk about show biz moms. Was it worth the bit of money they made to upset their babies?

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

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!!!