Reading mode: Light Dark

controversial photographer - Jill Greenberg

Go to last post
she showed the difference between the processed and unprocessed looks.. huge difference!

She was also seemed to be using medium format film.
Mrpresident7 said:
This controversial photographer has made headlines here in OZ..just
wanted to get your point of view.

From an art perspective..IMHO I think her work is
sensational...what about you? The colours and skin tones are just
amazing!

what she is doing is giving the kids a lollipop and then taking it
away from them to get this raw emotion!

http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/index0.htm

link to news page:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20387113-38198,00.html

regards
Mrpresident7
Click to expand...
 
Lucky kids ( who know what a lolly pop is) cry like that everyday and it's of little consequence. It is what kids do. She could have gone to the grocery store any day of the week and gotten a better shot. lol. Marketing agents deliberately put these things in the check out line just to cause this scene as far as I can figure out. Had she gone there the photographer could have gotten a picture of the screaming kid and some incompetent mother screaming at the kid too. At least that is my experience.

You know...kids cry like that every day for real (not over lolly pops) and most everyone ignores it. That is the real crime.

All of the grandstanding moral indignation in this thread makes me laugh a little. Most of those doing so have spent enough on thier last lens for their hobby to feed 3 starving families for a year in many parts of the world and the children crying from starvation is not feigned as in this instance. (no lol here.) They are just ignored.

If you are so upset about kids crying think of that when you put your annual photography budget together instead of complaining about tripe like this.

If you have made a significant contribution accept my appologies and thanks.

Cheers,
Craig
 
This is hilarious.

Are you shocked by these photos? then you know little of the real world.

The best part is that these photos clearly are a reflection of the lives of the idiots who condem them....

Shocked? maybe because you see your own stiffled lives in them

--
that's me on the left....
 
his point was most people have a warped sense of what is abusive....(and I agree)

I have a VERY well adjusted 15 year old boy who know what true suffering is....as well as what true joy is....and an understanding of both....as both come with life. It gives any who has such a balance understanding true appreciation of the joys that come in ones life....and the oppertunity of true compassion when others face though things in their life.

I am sure the average child goes through 15-20 times JUST like the taken away lollypop every day. It's part of life.....and the pictures ARE compelling....and emotive.

Perspective is a gift of wisdom.....

Roman

--

Photography in short...is about the love of the beauty of your subject. Without that....all the technology in the world will not help you get a good picture.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Recently saw an program on the Discovery Channel. Researchers were experimenting with smll children. They gave the child a toy, then took it away. The child burst into tears. In another experiment, they had the more lip sync over another womans voice. The child cried. All this was filmed by Discovery Channel (for profit).

Were the researchers and Discovery Channel crew abusing those children?

Yes, I know research and art are different, but the feelings those kids felt were the same.

You asked me where do we draw the line, but you yourself haven't stated where.
Strategist said:
...and please realize that not too many are trying to make a
political comment, at least not one so clumsily constructed as
yours, but those who are against what she has done are those who
don't like her methods (at least that is my point of view.)
Click to expand...
But what you don't seem to understand is that it is political. Child abuse is a very serious accusation. Someone accused of such an act may be subject to prosecution by the state. If that's not political....

As for my "clumsily constructed" comment, I'm not a lawyer, I didn't spend a day organising an arguement, but I'm voicing a different view knowing full well I'll probably be shouted down and insulted. That's a lot tougher than just writing someone off as a sick child abuser.

--

E-1 and E-300, 30mm Sigma, 50mm, 11-22mm, 14-45mm, 14-54mm, 18-180mm, 50-200mm, 8mm fisheye, FL-36. Fujifilm f810, Sony Dsc-v3
 
Should have given them a helium balloon, then they would cry when they let it go and it floats away. All on their own. Problem solved. :)

Of course I guess you could say that would be like setting down a hot poker next to them and letting them try to pick it up...
 
Backdoctor said:
You are clueless on this. You dont have kids or grandkids, do you?
Click to expand...
Not yet. Though I do have a step sister and brother, who are young enough to be considered "kid" and "baby". I also remember my childhood quite precisely, something a lot of people here seem to have forgotten...
Backdoctor said:
So if you smack them in the rear to get them to cry, there is no
permanent damage, is that ok too? Even if it bruises, that will go
away, no permanent damage so its fine?
Click to expand...
No, because you have crossed a frontier. When you start having to "touch" a kid, you have already lost.

However, note that not all countries agree on this one. In the UK, it was not only perfectly acceptable for a teacher to can a pupil, but it was actually expected as part of the educative process. So, this is a very culturally related topic, with the USA, Canada and South America at one end of the spectrum and UK and some asiatic countries at the other.
Backdoctor said:
Giving a child a candy bar then taking it away with the express
purpose of making him/her cry, thats borderline abuse.
Click to expand...
If it's repeated, yes. If it's without purpose, yes. Otherwise, I don't see the problem with it. My parents subjected me to far worse torture, and on monthly basis. I can assure you it took me a long while to understand the purpose behind the orthodentist... And it gave me nightmares the like of which these candy deprived children probably do not experience.

A normal kid will be subjected to far worse torture from his peers. If you still believe that kids are nice among themselves, you are grossly mistaken. Having your candy bar stolen is on the most benign side... Some kids develop severe trauma, neurosis or depression from the treatment they receive from their fellow classmates...
Backdoctor said:
It not about whether there is permanent damage, you are
taking adavantage of and abusing a child for profit.
Click to expand...
That's something many parents do on a routine basis!

What do you think of the parents that push and force their children into a sport, a music instrument or education they have no interrest in? Nowadays, some children are kept so busy they don't even have time left to play. These parents use their children as substitutes for everything they did not manage to do in their sad lives. These parents do far worse than depriving a kid of his candy bar once in his life! Yet, they often get all the admiration of the other parents for turning their children into a trained monkey.

What about all these third world parents for whom a kid is mostly a retirement insurance?

What about these parents that use their children in the cinema or advertisement industry?

What about these parents that impose their faith, lifestyle or opinions on their unwilling children?

I think we have much more important and real abuses to deal with before we bother about a single candy bar deprivation event...
 
Strategist said:
..."leave it to Sally Struthers," but tell everyone else how short
sighted they are for turning away from pain and suffering in other
countries. Oh, and I believe that Sally is from the US, isn't she?
Are you supporting her efforts or merely saving up your money for
your own personal gratification whatever the form of gluttony?
--
Tom
Click to expand...
The Sally Struthers comment was me being funny...in a dark, possibly unfunny way. That's just me. My friends like it, but they know me.

As for saving the world, I'll leave that to Bono from U2. And Angelina Jolie.

--

E-1 and E-300, 30mm Sigma, 50mm, 11-22mm, 14-45mm, 14-54mm, 18-180mm, 50-200mm, 8mm fisheye, FL-36. Fujifilm f810, Sony Dsc-v3
 
RomanJohnston said:
May their lollypop being take from them for a split second be the
absolute worst that happens to them in their life....

As their life will be a portrait of perfection...(if you'll pardon
the pun.)
Click to expand...
That's part of what I was trying to get across with the example I posted, but it put people on the defensive and drew accusations of me being on some kind of high horse.

I've never even ridden a horse ;-)

--

E-1 and E-300, 30mm Sigma, 50mm, 11-22mm, 14-45mm, 14-54mm, 18-180mm, 50-200mm, 8mm fisheye, FL-36. Fujifilm f810, Sony Dsc-v3
 
Its all in the delivery.....and even I havent masterd a delivery that pleases everyone.

The web is full of crazyness....you snagged a few with your comments.

Such is life.

Hey.....when they responded like they did and hurt you....I shulda been there to take a picture of you crying!!!!!!! ; )

Roman
--

Photography in short...is about the love of the beauty of your subject. Without that....all the technology in the world will not help you get a good picture.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Famous photographer Yosef Karsh did the same during WWII with Winston Churchill.

One of Churchill's trademarks was his cigar. When Karsh posed Churchill, he allowed Churchill to hold his cigar. Karsh, in his informal style, walked up to Churchill supposedly to get a light level. He held in his hand the remote for his camera.

Standing in front of Churchill, Karsh casually pulled the cigar from the lips of Churchill and walked back toward his camera. As he walked he clicked his remote and captured the "cross and indignant" look on Churchill's face.

http://www.inuitfinearts.com/paintings/karsh/karsh-churchill.html

--
http://www.anatevka.smugmug.com

 
srogouski said:
I don't like the photos and I find it a bit disturbing that someone
would go through all that trouble to take these images.

But the negative reaction their getting is part of the
photographer's intention. She's aware she's doing something a bit
nasty (whether it's to make a point or make money or a combination
of the two).
Click to expand...
I agree with the 'bit disturbing' aspect of how she went about it, but the photos themselves made me laugh in reaction to how melodramatic children can be about losing a lollipop. I'll save my empathy for real problems, though I understand that parents might relate differently to the pictures.
 
you keep proving you dont get it when you make the rationalizations you make. Comparing taking a child to an orthodontist to letting someone make him cry for the express purpose of taking a photo that yeilds both parties some money isnt even remotely close, and proves you dont have kids and really shouldnt.

Your rationalizations on how others abuse their kids doesnt excuse what is going on with this photographer.

I guess you would have excuses for apartheid, since in other cultures far worse is done to it's inhabitants. Pathetic rationalizations...

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
He's not a defenceless child, he would not have been unduly stressed, he will have quickly worked out why his cigar was taken, he will have appreciated the result (probably). Not quite the same thing?

Unless you are just trying to make the point that the photographer the OP refers to is not actually being original at all?
 
Why is Jill Greenburg’s work considered, “cruel, sick, pathetic, etc.” yet when parents bring their screaming, brat kids into a restaurant and allow them to run and behave like a nest of ticked off yellow jackets it is business as usual? Now that is sick, cruel, rude, pathetic and unfortunately becoming the norm. Jill has accomplished something that most dpreview forum readers can only dream about and that is making a decent photograph, evoking people’s emotions AND selling her works for a healthy sum of money. Oh…and what Craig Ryder said; I forgot about the screaming brat fits in the grocery store. Get a life self righteous parental units.

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