What do you think of artist Jill Greenberg's contraversial pictures of crying children?

Question

Some people have said this amounts to child abuse, making kids cry in the name of art?

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gallery/0,,1830504,00.html

Answer 1

I saw them on the news last night, and think they were disgusting, but what puzzled me was, where were their parents while they were crying, they had to be there because jill greenberg said they had been paid. So the parents have to take some of the blame about what happened.

Answer 2

If the only conversation that is sparked by this series of work is whether or not the artists actions constitute child abuse is really quite dissapointing. Having a lollipop taken away from you for a few seconds does not equate to cigarette burns, stravation, or neglect. Though the action of taking candy from a baby is deplorable it is not one that will almost certainly leave a child phsychologically scared for life. I recall a lot worse happening to me early in my childhood and I am an outstanding citizen within my community and I am not spending lots of money on therapy or medications. The question however does spark at least our value of art in this world. Art, no matter how much relevance it has to the society as a whole must be created in such a fashion so as to not step on any ones toes, it should look pretty, be completely benign in its social relevance so as to not offend someone as they look at the painting while they are in the bathroom, art is just not relevant so screw it. Fact is that a lot of very relevant art and artists step on peoples toes to get their message across. I guess you have to look at the very nature of what art is to understand the actions they take. Good art takes the ordinary events, actions and objects that we observe each day and transcend their meaning to something beyond itself. Good art makes us question things that we wouldn't ordinarily question. Although Greenbergs photos have sparked a debate which the artists perhaps didnt anticipate it is not bad that the conversation has gone in this direction. However, it is sort of a played out topic in the art community. I think a better discussion regarding these photos would be one that would follow in line with the contovercies sparked by Jock Sturges or Sally Mann and that is whether or not these types of photos are exploitative. My personal feeling is that neither Jock Sturges, Jill Greenberg, or Sally Mann exploit children or humans for that matter. Their actions and intentions are simply not of a predatory nature, and this has been upheld in court in particular with the works of Jock Sturges so I need not go into detail.
Anyhow perhaps why we are having this whole conversation about Jill Greenbergs and child abuse is because perhaps the images really don't evoke the artists intentions of creating this feeling of hopelessness over our political and social condition. Personally what I derive from these photos is something which reflects modern parenting amongst the upper middle and upper classes. Due to the type of lighting which is more in line with product photography, the kids dont look real, they look plastic, artificial, but still retain their humaness. If you dont know what I mean, watch how yuppies raise and treat their children, they may as well be Prada bags.
Anyway if you are appalled by the artist, you really should be more appalled by the parents who allowed it to happen. Personally I think all artists should hang themselves for commiting themselves to such a futile life, art has no meaning outisde the walls of the MOMA or the small groups of intellectuals and idealist who have secret meetings in their basements. This is a Thomas Kinkade world and there is no place for us. We are as antiquated and bumbling as dinosaurs, and this is coming from someone who has a masters degree in art history, and an undergraduate in fine art photography.

Answer 3

She's "angry and helpless" over politics and she has the right to taunt children to tears and call it art? Normal people would call it a form of child abuse, but I suppose, since it's classified "Art" no one will say anything to her.
And anyone other than me realize that these children are at least Half Nude? This is not like the pics are going to be kept in the family photo album. Child Porn? A 'soft' version of it, maybe? Or am I just blowing it out of proportion?

Answer 4

I like the pictures, they really show emotions and you can see the different responses in the faces of each child. She took a lolipop away for 30 second, you call that abuse? In what kind of a bubble were you raised. None of those tears are real and there is no pain. Great peice of artwork if you ask me.

Answer 5

Great question.

I saw it last Sunday in th Guardian, Stealing Candy off a baby or somesuch title...

I liked the idea and what it showed, however I did not like the way the photos had been so heavily doctored in photoshop to the point that they were almost cartoons...I understand that she was attempting to 'soften' the images, but that kind of goes against the original reason for doing it doesn't it..

Child abuse? narrr...creative artistry in an industry where there isn't enough...

Answer 6

not good, artificial.

a lot of work has been done to prepare and compose the pictures :
- quality of the skin preparation (make up to avoid unwanted glowing skins)
- hair dressing
- lighting of the studio (several sources were used - frontal and back lit)
- children with bare tops.

So yes it stop short of child abuse.
The photographer tries to assert that no permanent damage was done, that lollipops are a very small facts of life ...
But the abuse lies in this carefull planing.
lollipops are just tools deliberately used to distract our attention from the perverse context of these pictures.

Answer 7

good lighting...nice composition. interesting idea but crap reason behind it...hardly child abuse. maybe a tad unethical to take photos but otherwise no probs from here. kids cry all the time...

also wacky wall walker...if that is indeed your real name (hehe) i know what you mean but i think hanging artists is a little too extreme. i am a contemporary photography graduate but not taken a photo for at least half a year now.,

Answer 8

i imagine B honestly wins vocally. Jill writes the more desirable proper songs yet i might want to hear to B's voice all day. properly, no longer truly yet i might want to hear to it for a lengthy time period. ^_^ For now (only for the sake of your "?") i am going to assert that Jill wins as proper artist because Beyoncé nevertheless has various starting to be to do.

Answer 9

wow. that really seems unnecessary. it's not as if children don't cry on their own, often enough. is this photography, sloth, or performance art?! while taking candy from a baby doesn't really rate as "abuse", in my book, it's certainly (proverbially) uncool (unless you're concerned for the health of said child). yikes.

Answer 10

i agree with joy RP. they are quite disturbing, why would anyone call pictures of children in distress art.