Artist makes children cry

[Dondrei]

Artist makes children cry

Okay, I've been completely unsuccessful in finding a non-biased article on this (ie, one that wasn't just screaming SHE'S A MONSTER!!!111) but here's the story: Jill Greenberg is an artist who made a lot of portraits of children crying. She managed this by giving her subjects a lollipop and then taking it away. Here's a bunch of them:

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4

People have reacted strongly to this, with accusations flying that it's child abuse. What do you think?

Personally, I think it's all ridiculous. The lollipop is only taken away for five minutes and then returned. These children are child models like any others - their parents get paid for this. Of course, people may object to the whole idea of child models, but that's a separate issue. I think it's absurd to call that child abuse - a temporarily removed lollipop? Yeesh.

I also read that her message with the work is that this is what the kids' reaction would be if they knew what the world they live in was really like. Which is a load of wank, but whatever. That's 99.9999% of art for you anyway.

 

[Xenon[XoA]]

Why are they naked?

 

[Amra]

First reaction: This Jill Greenberg is whacked in the head.

I wouldn't call it abuse per se but it seems rather strange. Why not just photograph them naturally when they are crying for whatever reason?

 

[Dondrei]

First reaction: This Jill Greenberg is whacked in the head.

I wouldn't call it abuse per se but it seems rather strange.

Well all modern art is strange. And all artists are whacked in the head.

Why not just photograph them naturally when they are crying for whatever reason?

Wouldn't the artist have to follow them around with a camera all day long? These models get paid by the hour...

Why are they naked?

With art you should really ask: "why aren't they naked?".

 

[Talga Vasternich]

She managed this by giving her subjects a lollipop and then taking it away.

She stole this idea from the US Army "Interrogators" in Gitmo....it was a surprisingly effective method.

Anyway. Other than being a little mean to get the pix, I can't see why there are any people complaining.

 

[kobold]

Abuse? No, probably not. Pretty sure these kids won't be emotionally scarred because someone took away their lolli pop.

Art? No, probably not. I don't see the need to (a) photograph them without a top on, and (b) make them cry intentionally, just to take a frigging picture.

 

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

I only call it art if I want to see it. That's not art. This is art

 

[Amra]

Well all modern art is strange. And all artists are whacked in the head.

While I cannot claim to be a follower of it, I find both statements to be false.

Wouldn't the artist have to follow them around with a camera all day long? These models get paid by the hour....

*gasp* You mean actually take pictures of real life instead of something staged or false? Shocking.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

It's funny. After I read:

Personally, I think it's all ridiculous. The lollipop is only taken away for five minutes and then returned. These children are child models like any others - their parents get paid for this. Of course, people may object to the whole idea of child models, but that's a separate issue. I think it's absurd to call that child abuse - a temporarily removed lollipop? Yeesh.

I immediately thought, "If losing something you want is abuse, that kid is going to be 'abused' all his life and he or she may as well get used to it now.", and then I continued on and ended up seeing:

I also read that her message with the work is that this is what the kids' reaction would be if they knew what the world they live in was really like.

So yeah, pretty much.

 

[Quietus]

Haha, I think Saro's got that one nailed on the head.

As for whether or not it's child abuse... uhh... what? How is this hurting the kids in any way? So they cry for a while, oh well. As was mentioned, their parents are getting money for this, and I'm sure it's explained what this lady's gonna do beforehand. I can imagine the conversation now..

Jill : "So, I'm going to give your child a lollipop, let them have it for a while, then I'm going to take it away for five minutes so that they cry and want it back. Then after I've got a few pictures for reference, I'll give them the lollipop back, and they'll stop crying."

Parent : "ZOMGWTFBBQ U ABUZER"

... I think the parent's response is more likely to be along the lines of ...

Parent : "Cha-Ching!"

 

[MadMachine]

I only call it art if I want to see it. That's not art. This is art

*hovers his pointer over the link and then decides otherwise*

It is ECI, after all.

 

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

For once it's not an eye bleeder

 

[PatMaGroin]

The third one is the only one that isn't horrible looking.

 

[Merick]

It's as child abuse-ish as denying a young child any of the hundreds of things they demand in a day. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[FlimFlan]

I actually chuckled, thinking about my kids at that age. Now, I don't have to deal with that (just a myriad of other things).

 

[MadMachine]

So when does she stitch them all together and write "United Colors of Benetton" on it?

 

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

So when does she stitch them all together and write "United Colors of Benetton" on it?

Superglue sticks kids together better.


Napalm sticks to kids.

 

[Dawnmaster]

Napalm sticks to kids.

It's been done before :tongue:

 

[MadMachine]

Superglue sticks kids together better.


Napalm sticks to kids.

I meant the photos... I... why do I bother?

 

[BasTyra]

I like the second one.