Reading mode: Light Dark

controversial photographer - Jill Greenberg

Go to last post
--
Marabou Muddler
 
I would by no means let my child near this woman. That said, as far as I know, it is not illegal to give a child a piece of candy and then take it away. In that respect, I am not in the camp that wants to send this woman to jail for child abuse.

I have no need to look at these pictures. If I owned an art gallery, I would not display these pictures. I would not go to an art gallery if I knew that they once accepted and displayed these pictures. Heck, I wouldn't even want to associate with any of the parents of these child subjects.

But like I said, what she is doing is not illegal.
 
It's not illegal

It is sick ...

Except, here in Canada, mental abuse and heavy manipulation of emotions is illegal and can lead to you losing your child to the youth protection services.

I am sure you would never do that to a kid anyways.

Call me old fashion, I like to see children playing and have fun instead.
Joe Porto said:
I would by no means let my child near this woman. That said, as far
as I know, it is not illegal to give a child a piece of candy and
then take it away. In that respect, I am not in the camp that wants
to send this woman to jail for child abuse.

I have no need to look at these pictures. If I owned an art
gallery, I would not display these pictures. I would not go to an
art gallery if I knew that they once accepted and displayed these
pictures. Heck, I wouldn't even want to associate with any of the
parents of these child subjects.

But like I said, what she is doing is not illegal.
Click to expand...
--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root
 
... photograph her reaction as we smash it to bits.

There's nothing spontaneous in these photos -- everyone knows what happens if you give a kid something sweet or a toy, then take it away.

I think the post processing also is silly and gimmicky.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Yves P. said:
It's not illegal

It is sick ...

Except, here in Canada, mental abuse and heavy manipulation of
emotions is illegal and can lead to you losing your child to the
youth protection services.
Click to expand...
You have no argument from me. The problem for me is the legal aspect. If you want to make what she is doing ilegal, then where do you draw the line? Next thing you know, you're at the local grocer with your child when he picks up an item from the shelf. You take it away. He starts balling, and the old lady next to you decides to call the cops.

How many times have you seen an infant crying in a movie? You know how they get them to cry? They give them a lolipop and then take it away. It's a standard trick.

This stuff is as distastefull as I've seen (and believe me, the internet has shown me some distastefull stuff), but the fact that this woman can command $6000 a print for this work, and get hung in a major art gallery worries me more than the fact that she is conductiong these sessions.
 
How about I yank her camera from around her neck and choke the life out of her? Only trying to get her reaction. You know, her raw emotions and all that. Of course I wouldn't give it back to her as she wouldn't need it any longer.

She is to the photography world what the pawn shop owner is to retail business except she's actually creating the misery of others and not just profiting from it.

How about a shot of this woman with her eyeballs about to pop out of her head? I mean only if the color is well balanced.

Tony B.

http://www.ConcertShooter.com
 
Or the fact that people are giving her $6000 a shot?

She is nothing without an audience, and disturbingly, she has one!
 
I agree with you totally
Joe Porto said:
Yves P. said:
It's not illegal

It is sick ...

Except, here in Canada, mental abuse and heavy manipulation of
emotions is illegal and can lead to you losing your child to the
youth protection services.
Click to expand...
You have no argument from me. The problem for me is the legal
aspect. If you want to make what she is doing ilegal, then where do
you draw the line? Next thing you know, you're at the local grocer
with your child when he picks up an item from the shelf. You take
it away. He starts balling, and the old lady next to you decides to
call the cops.

How many times have you seen an infant crying in a movie? You know
how they get them to cry? They give them a lolipop and then take it
away. It's a standard trick.

This stuff is as distastefull as I've seen (and believe me, the
internet has shown me some distastefull stuff), but the fact that
this woman can command $6000 a print for this work, and get hung in
a major art gallery worries me more than the fact that she is
conductiong these sessions.
Click to expand...
--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root
 
Great pics, wonderful subjects, and pure emotion.

What's wrong with kids crying? They cry all the time.
 
The photographs are distubing for the emotion they portray but should be essentially disturbing for the misuse of children/persons that have no ability to escape/deny the purposefully inflicted distress done for undeniably gratuiitous reasons. It may be argued that the injury inflicted is trivial but the results speak for themselves - the children are all without question distressed and thus, have been in some manner harmed. The question is not if cruelty is involved but just the degree to which it was exercised. The more distress displayed by the child the greater the effect that the photographer has acheived as intended. One should not assume there was not other coaxing or multilple attempts to induce the intended emotional response.

In interviews I have read, the photographer easily trivializes the activity to produce the outcomes and accepts no sense of responsibility for her part in this activity. Her misguided personality flaws should not be confused with or dismissed by her photograhic skills or "professionalism". They are simply two separate issues.

As an Emergency Medicine physician and past Paramedic I have watched a steady erosion in the capabilities of parenting skill over the past 30 years and I believe this is relected in the parents of these objectified children used/misused with the full cooperation of those parents. I have had a number of murdered/abused children through my department(s) in the course of my career and many of those children were subjected to purposefully inflicted distress inducing experiences (but not physically harmed) on the pathways to their terminal results. I am in no way stating the the photographer is part of this murderous group of persons but her activities are undeniable wrong, misguided and perverse.

Jill deserves more scorn than she has been given. (this topic is also given an extensive discussion in other forums on DPR). The persons and galleries promoting these images should simply be ashamed of themselves.
--
Greg
 
...American Photographer Magazine, and one of the resulting letters got it on the head when s/he asked if the photographer felt it might also be okay to tell an adult that a family member was diagnosed with cancer just to get their reaction?

She used her photographs to further her political agenda, and I suppose that is okay, but if I supported her agenda, I would not be pleased with her methods.

And as a parent of a 6 year old, I can tell you what reaction I would try to capture photographically from her if she (or any adult) made my child cry in this way: one of physicial pain!
--
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top