Jill Greenberg, abusive photography?

[srdjan]

Originally Posted by mr.aj

well sir...that is why you are you and wel,l we all know who jill greenberg is . Keep doing what you are doing, and let her keep doing what she is doing.

Can I take a picture of you crying? It would be so awesome

Well sir...that answer is just plain stupid. As I see it, this is not thread about being succesful, but about what methods are acceptable for geting desired results. I simply stated that this is not something i would do, that is all.
And yes, you could take my picture crying, but first tell me what do you plan to do to make me cry.

and finaly, thank you for your kind support in continuing my work

[hallsey]

I dunno... I agree that a child crying once is no big deal, but to make a child cry on purpose? At some level, that bothers me. Setting the whole cruelty issue aside, while a photographer might snap a wonderful face by doing that, isn't much of photography the art of capturing a moment instead of merely documenting a created moment?

[yelhsaneerg]

people seem to really overreact to petty things these days....parents take candy away from kids all the time....it's not like it's a memory that's gonna haunt them or something...lol i don't see them in therapy for it ya know....they won't even remember it the next day, probably not even in the next hour. (and i haven't even looked at her pictures so i'm not saying this cause i like them or anything....i just think people try to make something big outta things that are really insignificant) ...i'm bout to go look at her pics now though

[Kathy Tryon]

As a Mom I say it was abusive and disrespectful to the child. I was greatly disturbed by her photos. Why would I purposely upset my child for some photographers whim. We may as adults not feel that any huge atrocity was done and it wouldn't be if it was done to us because we are grown ups and know we have a choice in the matter, we can protect our selves and voice our objections. Obviously that is not true to a a young child who is dependent on grown ups for their care taking and survival. What is being taught to the child in this instance is that grown ups can't be trusted and they will do things to hurt and upset you. Adults are the protectors of the weak and the vulnerable and how much more can you be so then a young child. Shame on Jill Greenburg and shame on those children's parents. Ans shame on any of you that think this was ok.
Good parents don't whip candy away from a child for no reason and certainly not to make them cry. And as for remembering it later, all our life experiences add up to make us who we are even the ones we don't consciously recall. They still have had an effect in shaping us.
And to the person who mentioned that she is famous and we are not I say so what. So are a lot of other immoral people. Doesn't mean that is what we should strive to be like.

[shift studio]

Originally Posted by Kathy Tryon

As a Mom I say it was abusive and disrespectful to the child. I was greatly disturbed by her photos. Why would I purposely upset my child for some photographers whim. We may as adults not feel that any huge atrocity was done and it wouldn't be if it was done to us because we are grown ups and know we have a choice in the matter, we can protect our selves and voice our objections. Obviously that is not true to a a young child who is dependent on grown ups for their care taking and survival. What is being taught to the child in this instance is that grown ups can't be trusted and they will do things to hurt and upset you. Adults are the protectors of the weak and the vulnerable and how much more can you be so then a young child. Shame on Jill Greenburg and shame on those children's parents. Ans shame on any of you that think this was ok.
Good parents don't whip candy away from a child for no reason and certainly not to make them cry. And as for remembering it later, all our life experiences add up to make us who we are even the ones we don't consciously recall. They still have had an effect in shaping us.
And to the person who mentioned that she is famous and we are not I say so what. So are a lot of other immoral people. Doesn't mean that is what we should strive to be like.

You joined in 2005 and waited 7 years to make your first post on a 5 year-old thread???

I'm not sure what side of the fence I'd land on on this, but I think you have made a good argument

--shift studio.

[mbphotos]

I wouldn't do it, personally, but nothing wrong with it. I'll put a TON of money on that the kids, when grown up, will not only LOVE being part of the project but also having a piece of the pie (assuming the parents gave the money to them)


Disturbing - how many kids are allowed to watch horror/violent flicks and be part of those productions. I would never, ever let my child be part of some horror flick, but clearly many do.

That's where the discussion should be, if there is a need to have one, not on some clearly tasteful and accomplished photographer's expressive project.

[RobertAsh]

I absolutely disagree. Just because certain people let their kids take part in gross horror movies does not mean it's ok to let some self-focused photographer snatch something from little children just to make them cry. Doing such an unnecessary thing to kids to deliberately cause them to react like that doesn't make any sense at all.

There are all kinds of improper, unnecessary, indecent, disrespectful and otherwise negative things done in the name of so-called 'art'. Or photography. All those things show is a lack of judgment, respect and character in the so-called 'artist'. It's one thing to photograph a little child crying because something unhappy happened and you happened to be there to capture it. It's quite another thing to intentionally make something bad happen from their perspective just for a silly photograph.

Kathy Tryon is absolutely right in what she's saying. It's hurtful from the child's perspective whether or not adults care at all (or whether or not there's permanent damage done), and it's absolutely unnecessary to do in order to get a good picture. All it serves to do is to satisfy a misguided photographer's ego (or indulge some immature phase they're going through).

[Anthony Wood]

Maybe the issue of how the children were made to cry is relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things but what I don't see as trivial is the issue of consent. The images are going to remain in the public domain for a long time and we can't predict how the children will be affected by this as adults. How would you feel if a picture of you crying as a child was so public?

[creativeretouch]

In my opinion - this is the real art:

http://tinyurl.com/7hy8drt

Can you imagine, how difficult is to catch this moving boy with manual focus camera and get his expression? And how easy is to make small children cry?

Regards, Filip

----------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com