Jill Greenberg

zenit_b said:

Sorry Roman - I'm still looking at a wedgy here - allbeit a partial
one after your recent post ..!!

Click to expand...

LOL....

zenit_b said:

I'm glad you're not into the walking out to make them cry thing ...
practically that sounded horrendous to me and I'm glad we are on
the same wavelength.

Click to expand...

Well....I thought about it.....was this me leaving them to their own devices....to make the child cry...or just me leaving the room to see the reaction?.....lots comes into play here....

Leave them to their own devices....not only no...but hell no.

Just to see the reaction.......this would be more along the lines of the lollypop and I can see if were already there....lets test the results....but not for too long...just enough to get a shot or two off...then I am back in the room.

zenit_b said:

Now going back to the lollypop thing - I'm going to ask a
supplementary...

Click to expand...

Ill assume my above answer is included in this question.

zenit_b said:

Assuming the same age as the kids on the site (I admit I only had a
fleeting glimse before closing the window in shock), they look
pre-school age to me.

Click to expand...

I would agree...or even a touch younger.

zenit_b said:

Heres the question: What do you think your wife's view would be if
you suggested doing this to "help out a friend" ?

Click to expand...

I would guess between your reaction and mine....

zenit_b said:

Would she be supportive ?

Click to expand...

thats iffy...Ill ask her tonight....I think she would be on the edge on this one.

zenit_b said:

2nd supplementary question

Would she also be happy to then have these pictures, of her nearest
and dearest in distress, posted up on the net ?

Click to expand...

Again...woudl have to ask...will post reulsts later.

zenit_b said:

er... ok 3rd supplementary...

Would YOU actually be happy to have your nearest and dearest, in
distress, posted up on the internet ?

Click to expand...

No problemo....me, my nearest and dearest....you......matters not to me....life happens.....dont mind it recorded or shown.

zenit_b said:

4th supplementary..

Now your wifes friends and work collegues... the grandparents and
the in-laws are all logging on to view them ... are you still
really happy with this.... ???

Click to expand...

No problemo.....all of my life is mostly like this.....I am an open book.

zenit_b said:

I could maybe see you going for the lolly thing if was just your
own photo (though I have to say I wouldnt do it) but surely you
wouldn't want it all over the net as well ?

Click to expand...

Actually I have some fellow workers that have similar shots (albiet without the post processing) with the shots on their desk and in their cubes.

I doubt they intentionally want them to cry while taking their picture...but it makes for interesting work.

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/

To me, as a father of two, the most troubling part of this is the parents let her do it.

Now, if those same parents came home to find the babysitter getting joy out of making their kids upset and cry, they would call the police. Or what if the school decided to do a study by making the kids upset and then calming them down. The parents would get a lawyer. Remember, the parent was not always in the room with the kid when Jill was taking the photos.

My kids get upset enough with the "trials and tribulations" of daily events (parents, you know what I mean) that I would never take them to someone to intentionally make them upset. And if I found someone doing it for "art" or any other reason, we would have a serious problem.

O, and I love her comment, "Kid models aren't very expensive—not as expensive as monkeys, for example." Or, "Maybe getting kids to cry isn't the nicest thing to do, but I'm not causing anyone permanent psychological damage." I guess "permanent psychological damage" is the new benchmark on what is acceptable.

Atlanta-Mike

The way we do it with baby sitting Roman is we have a baby sitter the children know and trust. This way they are actually quite pleased when the baby sitter shows up. We think this makes them feel secure and confident while we are away. It seems to work well - babysitters like visiting, our kids are happy, and we feel good going out together (for once).

This is partially what its all about I suppost - trust. All these photos involve the parents braking that bond of trust. Ok - you say they soon forget it - you can give them more sweets etc etc. Maybe you wont do it again. However at that age you are all they have really - and this sort of thing really can be the end of the world for them.

I notice you havn't put forward your wife/parters views Roman. I think we both know what her take on it would be. If she's anything like my wife she would be absolutely horrified at the idea. I suspect that suggesting it would also erode her trust in me - maybe by a very small amount - and just sow that seed of doubt ...

Also the net angle - would she like her parents (the childs grandparents) to view her child upset, knowing their daughter was responsible. Do you think they would approve? Well I dont know about you but ours would be utterly shocked.

What about friends ? We baby sit for loads of other people. Are those folks going to be happy about a parent that does this ? I mean really happy - happy enough to entrust the thing they value above all other. Or would they politely choose someone else... Then there's the playgroup/school... the social worker ....

I'm trying not to have a personal go here ... because from what I've seen of your posts, and your regard for your children I am sure, when it came to the crunch, you just wouldn't get involved with something like this. From the other posts I'm pretty convinced no one else on this forum would either.

for the fresh and realistic view on the subject from what I would consider to be a more authoritive perspective.

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/

You take off the child's clothes, then have his/her parents leave him alone with a stranger in a strange place? I think they should give IQ and commonsense tests to all potential parents!
--
Tom

...I am not a psychologist, nor am I a physician of any kind, but I am a caring human being and a parent.

How difficult is it to get opposing views on this subject from two psychologists? I wonder?
--
Tom

Hey Tom:

First of all I’m not a psychologist but have an undergraduate in psychology, it’s my back ground. Also I’m sure you will get many other opinions. I’m looking forward to hearing them. Take care!

Gary

I am a "strategist," with absolutely no background in psychology, so I would be out of my league there, but the humanistic part is what I find so distasteful about Jill's approach, here. Yet her political views seem to point toward her being more liberal and concerned about others. There is a dichotomy, here. Also, if you do some minor browsing, you will find that she (and her husband) don't take lightly toward freedom of speach when it tweaks them.

Regardless of her art (or lack thereof), I don't like her whole approach to this subject in the least. She comes across as someone with a major ego problem, and social ones to boot. But that is just my opinion.
--
Tom

Her "art," photoshop skills, technique, approach, politics? Just curious...I guess it could be all of the above.
--
Tom

I agree. Whether the kids get hurt or not, the whole approach seems to be built on 'getting attention' rather than 'making art'. Let's face it, apart from the (to parents) shocking nature, the images are pretty poor.

Strategist said:

Regardless of her art (or lack thereof), I don't like her whole
approach to this subject in the least. She comes across as someone
with a major ego problem, and social ones to boot. But that is
just my opinion.
--
Tom

Click to expand...

--
Philip

by the way Flashlight - thanks for your kind words ages ago in response to my original post ...

I am new to dpreview (posting anyway) and I hadnt realised your comment was addressed at me ... I was in "flat" rather than "threaded" view... Had I realised I would have responded straight away...

Nice to know I am not a lone voice in the wilderness though ....

I can remember every instance as a child of when an adult was abusive to me at some level, even though they were minor and infrequent. Noone did something to me as sick as deliberately trying to distress an innocent child for "art". I remember the distress quite clearly. If this was done to animals, animal rights people would be all over it. Bizarre.

--len

Do you peddle this much drama in EVERY THING in your life?

You make it sound as if the kids were being stripped of their cloths..fondled and god knows what.

Does your mind always lead you around like you have a hook in yur nose?

Such pre-programmed responses.

God speed to you....no need to respond....cause this is my last response to you.....

We disagree....no biggy.

You live life your way.....I'll live my life mine.

Later....

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/

Ms Greenberg explains what she is trying to express with her pictures saying, "It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation."

This is interesting. She needs to make a child, no, many children cry so that she can express her angst. And it's rather incredibly profitable.

Of course many photographers have for over a hundred years shown children in distress to document the major crisis that caused that distress. Things like war, famine, disease, abuse... When we see a picture of a child crying, we are instantly alert to a problem and we ask what can be done to address the suffering of that child. If you want to photograph a child in distress you can certainly find one - and you can help fix heal the world by bringing attention to their need.

Then we hear that the child actually wasn't in distress until the photographer made them so. Now we hate the photographer. Small surpirise - that's the power of the picture. The fact that she does this not really for some higher social motive, but rather makes a great income off of it seems to impune her claim about wanting to express helplesness and anger. Yes - all photographers should be paid well, but this seems a little over the top.

But it's all ok we are told. It's all "art" and it's art because art is purely subjective, so we can't say that it isn't. If it sells for $6000 it's really got to be genuine "art" .... the "emporor has no clothes syndrome"

I apologize to those who would find me to be "intolerant". Art has a real component of subjectivity in play when we form an impression of it but it is not 100% subjective. i don't see this as art, Nor do I see the photographer as an artist here. She is a shrewd buisinessperson. She has made a lot of money substituting hype, controversy and sensationalism for anything artistic. this project may be creative from a buisiness point of view, but not from an artistic one.

When the truely great photographer Eugene Smith documented the plight of suffering children with Mercury poisoning it caused a country to attend to and fix a serious problem - and THAT was art.

If Jill was a friend of ours....and asked to bring the child unit over for this project....within reason.....lollipop and leaving the room to see if they cry...no biggy.....

No pinching.....no leave the room so we can do our best to make the child cry...just simple non damaging stuff...if it dosnt work.....better luck with your next kid.

Another balanced response. : )

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/

No, "dude," only to things that I have passion about, and children fit that bill. Sorry you don't agree. As for the direction my "nose" is taken, it certainly isn't toward this stench. As for you, Dude, perhaps you should take a stand. YOu have been waffling around on your position most of the afternoon. Any adult with a child would immediately take their position and stay true to it. Of course, any adult would have done his/her homework before making an a$$ of him or herself when it comes to predicting what may or may not happen to a child subjected to such treatment.

I also agree that with you. I am tiring of responding to such drivel.
--
Tom

I am truly sad for your "unit."
--
Tom

Strategist said:

Her "art," photoshop skills, technique, approach, politics? Just
curious...I guess it could be all of the above.
--
Tom

Click to expand...

Jill Greenberg had an artistic vision which she brought to fruition with her photography and processing technique. I support her effort. Based on what I know of her methods, and I believe I know as much as others posting here, I do not consider them to be abusive to children. And yes, I am a parent.

If someone assaulted my kids I would probably do my best to stop them. Causing others anguish for my pleasure is something I gave up a long time ago. This is a case of bullying, plain and simple.
Darrell

We're never going to really agree on this one Roman ... so lets call a truce ?

I dont think we are a million miles apart though - as I say I'm glad you disagree with some of the more extreme methods used in the name of "art". It looks like we can at least agree that some of the stuff done was wrong - even if we cant agree on all of it ?

Its been an interesting exchange of views though and it was interesting to see the thread develop as peoples opinions got posted and different lines of argument got followed.

I have the feeling this will run and run but I've probably said my pice for now - we'll see how other posters chew it over.

I suppose my bottom line on this is that this lady wanted to really make an inpact on peoples view of the war (as apposed to peoples view of herself) she would be better off actually out there photographing/videoing/drawing/taping - rather than just stirring up controvesy between generally well meaning people about how we raise our kids.

Somehow I cant see Bush surfing her site, saying "doh ! your right !", and pulling the troops out. Quite the reverse in fact.

All the best

George

PS genuine respect for your website - you've got some real landscapes over there - hope to get my stuff up on the net at some point...