NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if this topic has already been discussed on NS, I personally haven't seen any threads about it yet.

I found a rather interesting art page yesterday, works by photographer Jill Greenberg called "End Times" (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm)
Aparently, the artists gave the portrayed children lollipops and took them away again to capture the children's reactions. The photos have been enhanced a little with Photoshop, I personally would have left them as natural as possible, but the work is still fascinating.
Jill Greenberg states she wanted to express the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." (Source) (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gallery/0,,1830504,00.html)

To me, the fascination of the images is of a less political nature, it's more in the extreme reaction to a - for an adult - minor inconvenience that is displayed by the toddlers. It's such a direct and dramatic outburst of emotions.

Now, aparently Jill Greenberg has been widely criticised for her work, she was called a child abuser and has been threatened with legal action (here, for example) (http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html)

What do you think about it? Greenberg herself states that the children weren't harmed in any way, and that the candy was returned to the kids within 30 seconds. The parents were present throughout the photo shoots.

They're going to try and file suit against an artist for literally taking candy from babies...(if even for only a moment)?

What the fuck?

I don't think it is art.

I don't think it's good art, but no harm no foul as far as the kids are concerned. They're toddlers - it'll be forgotten by the next day.

It seems like with every passing year, smaller and smaller groups of people get more and more press coverage. Fred Phelps' collection of nitwits is a perfect example. The secret to dealing with wackos like that is to stop paying attention to them. The only place that whiners like the dweebs that attack this artist have in society is for people to throw milkshakes at while driving by.

Speaking as my own special breed of wacko, stop taking wackos seriously. That's what most of them want.

But not me. :)

muahaha. taking candy from a baby.

I especially like how the people demanding legal action say its "evil" to do this to kids.

whether its child abuse or not i have not clue. The photos should not have been photoshoped though

I saw it in the Sunday Times Magazine. I don't know much about Art, some things which some consider art to me is just a heap of rubbish. It wouldn't be my taste. I don't think she should have legal proceedings against her.

Easy answer. Both.
It is art because it is cultral expression. It is child abuse because she's deliberately upsetting the children.

That being said, whether taking lollies from a child is child abuse is dubious. If not, then it is just art. I though the topic was about child porn (which is both).

Did she give the lollipop back at the end? That would make it alright..

I want a lollipop.. :(

Easy answer. Both.
It is art because it is cultral expression. It is child abuse because she's deliberately upsetting the children.

That being said, whether taking lollies from a child is child abuse is dubious. If not, then it is just art. I though the topic was about child porn (which is both).

Controversy-seeker! (well, it's nicer than saying flamebait, just doesn't have the same ring to it :p ). As long as your 'is this art?' definition is sufficently loose, I suppose child porn is art. Interesting way to look at it.

We had a rule of thumb. If you can't figure out what it is, it must be art.
I can't figure out how this is child abuse, so that's the part that I think is art.

Did she give the lollipop back at the end? That would make it alright..

I want a lollipop.. :(

She did... have a lollipop :D

The objective of the majority of artists is to create a reaction to their work. They actively seek controversy and conversation from their work. Whether you like it or not, it is art.

I don't think that you can class the means of achieving the images/reation from the children as abuse. At that age kids burst into the emotions as dipicted at slightest thing. and they would have stopped bawling just as quickly.

The more we talk about it the more attention the 'artist' gains and so, i would suggest that we all ignore the fancy bum artists that produce rubbish all the time just to heighten their profile.

She did... have a lollipop :D

Yay!

http://www.aquarterof.co.uk/gfx/jumbocherry.jpg

The objective of the majority of artists is to create a reaction to their work. They actively seek controversy and conversation from their work. Whether you like it or not, it is art.

I don't think that you can class the means of achieving the images/reation from the children as abuse. At that age kids burst into the emotions as dipicted at slightest thing. and they would have stopped bawling just as quickly.

The more we talk about it the more attention the 'artist' gains and so, i would suggest that we all ignore the fancy bum artists that produce rubbish all the time just to heighten their profile.

Actually, I don't think it's a bad thing. If thecontroversy hadn't ensued, I would never have heard of the artist nor her work, and I find it quite interesting. Not from the political perspective as she obviously intended, but rather considering the emotional development of human beings. The open, bare emotions displayed by these babies are fascinating, I think, especially considering how much they will receed in years to come. Having the candy taken away is literally the end of the world for them... but only for a moment. I find this state of mind intriguing, no relativism, no restraint, no cultural or social behavioural patterns, just raw expression of emotion.

Controversy-seeker! (well, it's nicer than saying flamebait, just doesn't have the same ring to it :p ). As long as your 'is this art?' definition is sufficently loose, I suppose child porn is art. Interesting way to look at it.
Yes indeedy, just like the pottery of ancient civilisations is considered art. To them it was just a way to hold shit. Doesn't matter. As long as I express creativity in some way, I am always being influenced by my cultral context. As such, all creative materialisations are art. Just like if I make a table, a painting, a porno, a snuff film, or a haircut. The thing with Child porn, snuff films, and sculptures made from the dismembered limbs of your murder victims is that they are awesome examples of cultral expression, better than most. You see they perfectly detail what isn't acceptable about our culture. It's almost a direct commentary. These things are an archaeologist's dream.

I wouldn't say it's abuse.. but I would say it's mean. Anything can be called "art". *shrugs*

I wouldn't call it child abuse. It's more like a gimmick.

Art is what you make of it - I don't think it's worthwhile trying to define it except for yourself. It emerges from the individual and makes its impression on individuals. As such, it's always interesting to learn what someone else thinks is art, it could tell you a lot about them.

Its art.

Its just done in poor taste.

No kids were hurt, and they all got thier lollies back within 30 seconds.

It doesnt make any kind of political statement.
It doesnt warn me against the evils of government, nor does it speak of the war against of science versus religion.
In fact, I dont see it as anything but touched up photos of children cying, meant to evoke a particular response.

Its no different than showing pictures of dead people, in order to invoke a different kind of response.

Its not child abuse, its just poorly done art.

I don't know if this topic has already been discussed on NS, I personally haven't seen any threads about it yet.

I found a rather interesting art page yesterday, works by photographer Jill Greenberg called "End Times" (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm)
Aparently, the artists gave the portrayed children lollipops and took them away again to capture the children's reactions. The photos have been enhanced a little with Photoshop, I personally would have left them as natural as possible, but the work is still fascinating.
Jill Greenberg states she wanted to express the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." (Source) (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gallery/0,,1830504,00.html)

To me, the fascination of the images is of a less political nature, it's more in the extreme reaction to a - for an adult - minor inconvenience that is displayed by the toddlers. It's such a direct and dramatic outburst of emotions.

Now, aparently Jill Greenberg has been widely criticised for her work, she was called a child abuser and has been threatened with legal action (here, for example) (http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html)

What do you think about it? Greenberg herself states that the children weren't harmed in any way, and that the candy was returned to the kids within 30 seconds. The parents were present throughout the photo shoots.

I think it qualifies as "art," since my definition of "art" is very very broad. I also think it fits under the broadest possible definition of "abuse," but I don't think it represents any serious form of abuse. Taking candy away for a few moments will not do any lasting harm to a little child.

Well it certanly isn't child abuse, because the children didn't had the candy in the first place. But in the end they did get some candy.
About whether its art: art is what you find art, everyone can say "I think that's art" but you cannot have specific rules for art, so I don't think it's art, but I can follow some people who think it's art.

It's certainly not child abuse. Unless by abuse you mean not giving a little bastard absolutely everything they want right when they want it.

I don't know if this topic has already been discussed on NS, I personally haven't seen any threads about it yet.

I found a rather interesting art page yesterday, works by photographer Jill Greenberg called "End Times" (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm)
Aparently, the artists gave the portrayed children lollipops and took them away again to capture the children's reactions. The photos have been enhanced a little with Photoshop, I personally would have left them as natural as possible, but the work is still fascinating.
Jill Greenberg states she wanted to express the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." (Source) (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gallery/0,,1830504,00.html)

To me, the fascination of the images is of a less political nature, it's more in the extreme reaction to a - for an adult - minor inconvenience that is displayed by the toddlers. It's such a direct and dramatic outburst of emotions.

Now, aparently Jill Greenberg has been widely criticised for her work, she was called a child abuser and has been threatened with legal action (here, for example) (http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html)

What do you think about it? Greenberg herself states that the children weren't harmed in any way, and that the candy was returned to the kids within 30 seconds. The parents were present throughout the photo shoots.

Well, the first link says something about her portraying the "taboo subject of children in pain", which, when coupled with the dramatic look of the photos (can you believe that kind of heartbreak just over some lollypop?!), sounds of course horrible.

But, um, maybe people yelling child abuse should've gotten educated about the lollypop thing before opening their mouths.

So yeah, awesome idea. Art.

Aparently, the artists gave the portrayed children lollipops and took them away again to capture the children's reactions. The photos have been enhanced a little with Photoshop, I personally would have left them as natural as possible, but the work is still fascinating.
enhanced 'a little'? They've been retouched to an inch of their lifes, the poor things. They don't even look like photos anymore, just paint-by-numbers sets or that picture at the start of 'Family Ties'.
Call me old-fashioned, but a photo should be able to stand on it's own merits, not be so digitally-enhanced that it loses all trace of photographic integrity.
Jill Greenberg states she wanted to express the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation."
If she feels helpless and angry, then she should have photos taken of her crying with people doing mean things to her, not take photos of children she's been mean to.

Considering all the crazy stuff people throw together and call "art" I would say this is much more art then anything else. Taking candy from a baby isn't child abuse you know. May be mean but hardly abuse, then the fact that the parents were present? People need to take a deep breath, relax, and find something serious to bitch about.

I commented on the blog as following and might as well post it here:
What a funny discussion. In the average time it takes to leave a comment here, the horrible trauma rained down on the poor, defenseless child by an oh so cruel artist, will have been forgotten by the aforementioned subject. Its a moment like thousands of others in early childhood that will not negatively influence the later personality. A lot of responsible parents do exactly this quite often, taking sweets from a toddler when its not the time for them, like right before a meal or when they are not under constant direct supervision and could swallow it whole.
Comparing this to the suffering of adolescents or adults who might be traumatised for years by real abuse is bad taste [it was compared to Abu Graibh and letting you child stay overnight with Michael Jackson]. You walked right into a baby scheme trap and blow the possible repercussions to the child out of proportion to actually construct a case.
That being said, i find the pictures meaningless and downright annoying. They do not enlighten me any more than reading the user manual for a toaster. But it is not my place to decide if its art or not.

But it is not my place to decide if its art or not.

Whose place is it then, and why will we let them decide how we should think? :confused:

Do the kids get the lollipops back?
They damn well better.

That doesn't constitute child abuse in my book.

It is art. But I have to agree that the pictures should not be photoshopped (although one could argue that it's part of the artistic process).

Anyway, it's not like the artist is really mistreating the children, she's only encouraging a deeply emotional reaction by taking the candy away.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/loli.gif

I mean, come on! Everyone who's seen toddlers lose their pacifiers knows it's exactly the same kind of reaction a child displays. No harm done whatsoever!

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/mama.gif

It's ridicolous to even consider a law-suit, especially since the children are supposedly accompanied by their parents?

Quite the contrary, it is good art since it might help understand human nature better.

It's not abuse. Abuse would have been giving the kids fentanyl lollipops daily until they developed a habit then taking them away and snapping photos as the kids go through withdrawal. That also would have been really edgy art.

You've got to love a lollipop that says "Keep out of reach of children" on the wrapper.
http://i2.tinypic.com/261nhg0.jpg

It cheapens the term to call this child abuse. In fact she's probably helping to teach them that they can't always get what they want.

Whose place is it then, and why will we let them decide how we should think? :confused:

Look, i dont care about art. I have not studied any art, art history or anything related, i am no well-informed amateur in that field. If you would put me in a jury that has to decide art or no, i'd vote art, but i'd rather not sit on that jury. I like hard facts and this a great field of vagueness. That doesn mean i dont have a pov, and let other people decide for me in every case, but that i respect a professional oppinion. I would let a MD decide what treatment will cure me, a plumber how to fix a leakage etc. Same with art.

That doesn't constitute child abuse in my book.

It is art. But I have to agree that the pictures should not be photoshopped (although one could argue that it's part of the artistic process).
Photoshopping isn't as easy as everyone assumes. It doesn't take away one iota from artistry. Remember, cameras and even paintbrushes are technology that help people to make art.

I don't know if this topic has already been discussed on NS, I personally haven't seen any threads about it yet.

I found a rather interesting art page yesterday, works by photographer Jill Greenberg called "End Times" (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm)
Aparently, the artists gave the portrayed children lollipops and took them away again to capture the children's reactions. The photos have been enhanced a little with Photoshop, I personally would have left them as natural as possible, but the work is still fascinating.
Jill Greenberg states she wanted to express the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." (Source) (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gallery/0,,1830504,00.html)

To me, the fascination of the images is of a less political nature, it's more in the extreme reaction to a - for an adult - minor inconvenience that is displayed by the toddlers. It's such a direct and dramatic outburst of emotions.

Now, aparently Jill Greenberg has been widely criticised for her work, she was called a child abuser and has been threatened with legal action (here, for example) (http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html)

What do you think about it? Greenberg herself states that the children weren't harmed in any way, and that the candy was returned to the kids within 30 seconds. The parents were present throughout the photo shoots.

Its not art- its shit. She is getting attention as she intended. And scumbags are getting their jollies out of observing distressed children.

Maybe I could temporarily deprive her of something thats important to her, or mis-inform her of something she holds dear- record the results and then set her straight.
And get profit and attention from it.

Bingo!! I'm an artist- I need grants and attention.

Nope- she needs a kick in the ass, as do the parents that made their children available for this shit.

It's complete crap whatever it is.

Why did the kids not kick her in the shin and run off with the candy?

next she'll film them urinating and call that art.


She needs to be told her cat is dead or she is pregnant-we snap a shot of her face, then frame it.

haughty douchebags can then admire the "art"

Photoshopping isn't as easy as everyone assumes. It doesn't take away one iota from artistry. Remember, cameras and even paintbrushes are technology that help people to make art.
That is why I added what was written in brackets ;) I just prefer the result unaltered, not diminishing the photoshopped result at all. Simply a personal preference.

As for the children in this art project - nothing has happened to them that a hug by their parents and a few soothing words couldn't set straight. Calling for the photographer's blood is a knee-jerk reaction and has nothing to do with the works or persons involved.

I believe that those photographs give us a very intriguing insight into the human psyche. Upon seeing those "poor" little children, my reaction was to give them a hug, deeply touched by their "suffering" - not wanting to hurt those who have alledgedly "mistreated" them.

It forces the viewer to show character. And evidently, it works.

I don't know if this topic has already been discussed on NS, I personally haven't seen any threads about it yet.

I found a rather interesting art page yesterday, works by photographer Jill Greenberg called "End Times" (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm)
Aparently, the artists gave the portrayed children lollipops and took them away again to capture the children's reactions. The photos have been enhanced a little with Photoshop, I personally would have left them as natural as possible, but the work is still fascinating.
Jill Greenberg states she wanted to express the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation." (Source) (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gallery/0,,1830504,00.html)

To me, the fascination of the images is of a less political nature, it's more in the extreme reaction to a - for an adult - minor inconvenience that is displayed by the toddlers. It's such a direct and dramatic outburst of emotions.

Now, aparently Jill Greenberg has been widely criticised for her work, she was called a child abuser and has been threatened with legal action (here, for example) (http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html)

What do you think about it? Greenberg herself states that the children weren't harmed in any way, and that the candy was returned to the kids within 30 seconds. The parents were present throughout the photo shoots.


It's not child abuse but it is distasteful and not art neither...More then expressing her political views, I think the pictures scream of her desperate attempt at originality...

I would vote "neither," but it's not on the poll.

It seems like with every passing year, smaller and smaller groups of people get more and more press coverage. Fred Phelps' collection of nitwits is a perfect example. The secret to dealing with wackos like that is to stop paying attention to them. The only place that whiners like the dweebs that attack this artist have in society is for people to throw milkshakes at while driving by.

Speaking as my own special breed of wacko, stop taking wackos seriously. That's what most of them want.

But not me. :)


One should pay a large deal of attention to LG...Or else.

your going to get the people that are going to say that this destorys the child from ever achieving hapiness ever again. and that now because of this one act everything that goes wrong in the life of this child is now the fault of the person who took candy away from them.

i hate society

It's mean and it isn't something I would sign my child up for, but I wouldn't label it child abuse either.

ohmygod i LOVE pictures of crying kids, these ones included.

i dont like the way she has "Norman rockwellized" the photos. i prefer something more gritty and realistic but i suppose its due to the way she took the pictures--the kids as models rather than crying naturally in real life.

definatly art, definatly not child abuse.


sorry, but she is taking away a candy. Yes, the kid cries. But they cry when they are punished too. They cry for no reason. They're little kids.

within the next 10 minutes, they'll forget.

I saw the pics and read an article about it.The parents agreed, and were the ones who took the candy away.The kids were given it back afterwards.They wont even remember it in a weeks time.Its not child abuse, its taking a lolly away from a child, and no matter what anyone says-its not going to emotionaly scar them.

Art. It's superior to anything that asshole Andy Warhol ever did. Children crying in outrage. That's beautiful, if you ask me.

Art. It's superior to anything that asshole Andy Warhol ever did. Children crying in outrage. That's beautiful, if you ask me.
I'm glad someone else appreciates that raw emotion portrayed in those pictures - it's so powerful, innocent, and like you said, beautiful.
My inner child instantly connects.

And I sooo want a lollipop now. And don't anyone dare take it away!!! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/crying2.gif

any reason that all the children are at the very least,shirtless?

Is she capturing them in their natural state ?

Art.

And I saw this on the news, I really liked the photos.