DSLRUsers.com

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/cries-o ... 40199.html

Great art, images with impact, but I don't think I'd do it. What do you reckon?

Yes I read the article too Trent. I'd have liked to have seen a few more of the images to make a more infomed comment, but it's not something I'd contemplate, let alone do. Children are just too vulnerable.

I would have thought as a specialist child photographer there would be no problem picking up crying images in the normal course of ones work, without having to provoke such a response. I wouldn't do it either.

I wonder if the exhibition would have provoked such a response if it was described as the unpublished shots from the last year which were a byproduct of happy shots.

While I haven't purposely made a child cry, while I've been shooting them playing there have certainly been tears (falling of swings, crashing toy bikes etc). I don't see how capturing tears, crys or other distressed emotions is any different to portraying happy, joyful, laughing children.

That said, I'll repeat that so far I've never made a child cry on purpose for the sheer purpose of photography, but my new beard sure scares a few of them.

Kids cry all the time, when they are hungry, hurt, scared or sick, I personally feel this is a overreaction.

Craig

I think the point is that in many of the cases they were made to cry (a bit like me telling you that your wife/mother/father/brother/sister/best friend etc had just been killed in a horrible accident then taking a pic of your reaction)

any parent that allows their child to be abused in any way out to be shot themselves, with a gun, not a camera.

stubbsy wrote:Craig

I think the point is that in many of the cases they were made to cry (a bit like me telling you that your wife/mother/father/brother/sister/best friend etc had just been killed in a horrible accident then taking a pic of your reaction)

Or the mock breaking of a D200,

Again I'm only stating my own opinion but I can see no lasting damage in a child so young crying over seperation from their mother, or a lollipop.

Had they been slapping the child, or physically harming it that would be a COMPLETELY different manner. I've grown up around children my entire life, they cry over many varied and different things, including external stimuli, I feel its a natural emotional response and have no quarms over a child reacting in this way, or the method the response was illicited.

A preemptive warning. Please don't get too emotional about this. I know it's a touchy subject when talk turns to photographers and kids and I'd hate to have to remove this quite valid post because things got out of hand.

I've seen these shots - they are beautiful, as is all Greenburgs work. I'm a huge fan. her lighting is wonderful and the expressions are just fantastic.

She didn't do much to the children to make them cry - certainly didnt deserve the Hitler tag.

In my eyes, the result justifies the means here. The photographs are just beautiful. She didn't harm the kids, and I'm sure they got a nice big lollipop after they lef tthe studio.

I've been watching this unfold for a while on Thomas Hawks blog. I usually just read his blog for the comedy relief I get out of his Web2.0 excitement and other assorted flapping.

I don't entirely agree with the End Days series (the subject of the criticism), especially given driving cause behind it all. There's ways of protesting, then there is...

I do like her other portraiture work though - Jill Greenberg's portfolio

There was a British photographer out here not long ago who had a series of shots of famous celebrities crying and the reaction was similar in the element of falseness to it. Not to say thats anything unique to photgraphy but i think the subject matter makes you instinctly think that they were cajouled into crying rather than it being an emotional moment captured . The falseness of the setup to me negates the emotional impact of the shots . Shooting these type of shots is her prerogative but they don't work for me .

Am I the only one that finds Jill greenberg's web URL an interesting choice. She sure is getting great publicity. That said I think some of the reactions to her (the Hitler stuff) is way OTT

One thing is to take a photo of a child crying. Another is to publish it on the web or in a book. I have no objections to the former but I have great reservations of the latter. Too much is out there for our consumption.

Peter Mc

"HEY KIDS! LOOK INTO THE CAMERA! YOUR MOTHER IS DEAD AND SANTA CLAUSE IS NOT REAL!" :D :

Their reply..."SANTA CLAUSE IS NOT REAL?"

Well I've just done something a lot of her critics will no doubt fail to do. I've looked at all 26 of the images in question. While they are technically interesting images, I have to say the subject matter evokes little in me. The images lack appeal, nor do they provoke much thought. For me there is no art there.

As a father of two children I can't imagine making them cry on purpose for any reason. I think that it's just plain mean!

As alpha_7 said you just need to go to the local playground and you will see kids falling over and crying all day long.

I guess what bothers me the most is that the parents of these kids probably got paid for the shots and the photographer would have made money from them also. It just shows that the in the world of greed and capitalism people don't really give much thought to the emotions of others when trying to earn a buck for themselves.


As adults we can say oh well I'll get over it but sometimes the things that have little effect on an adult leave lasting impressions on kids. I think the term is "emotional scaring". I'm often suprised when my kids look at me with concern in their eyes and ask about an event that occured months earlier that I would have thought that they would of simply forgotten, such as a dead animal on the side of the road.

Children are sponges and they absorb things differently to adults, we are far more desencitised to life than them.

The way I see it is that Greenburg is akin to a school-yard bully, I would'nt go as far to say that she should be compared to hitler. Sure the images are beautiful and show emotion at it's rawest, But remember they are staged!

And yes Stubbsy, I couldn't agree more about her URL. But I believe that people always expose who they really are in the most subtle of ways all the time, just read between the lines!

People just seem to want to get upset about something these days.
Controversy for an artist is a good thing.

These are the most aesthetically pleasing images of children I've yet seen. I think people are reading far too much into it... the image of a child in emotional distress could be interpreted a number of ways, as a still image does not adequately capture the context in which that image was made.

I don't see it has having harmed the kids in anyway. IMHO kids are harmed more when their over-protective parents try too hard to shield them from the realities of the world, and end up creating a fictionalised childhood by surrounding the kid with what the parents perceive as positive and happy situations.

Onyx wrote:I don't see it has having harmed the kids in anyway. IMHO kids are harmed more when their over-protective parents try too hard to shield them from the realities of the world, and end up creating a fictionalised childhood by surrounding the kid with what the parents perceive as positive and happy situations.

Chi, don't take this wrong. I'm not having a go at you, but I totally disagree. Unfortunately, the realities of the world hit our children far too early these days and it's a sad thing to see. I don't see it as being "over protective" when we do try to shield our kids from these realities. My daughter is only 4 and already she is far more aware of Life and it's ugly reality than I would like her to be. Am I an overprotective Mum? Yes, probably, but I know that, as a parent, protecting both of my kids is probably the most important thing I can do in Life - they have already grown up so much it's frightening and I would like them to have and enjoy a happy-if-somewhat-naiive childhood as long as possible.

As for the images here, they're shockingly real but, as a parent, they are the last thing I want to see - a child in distress and the fact that it's staged is, I think, both distressing and shocking. Kids, as Mark said, absorb everything and you can never be sure if, where and when something is going to come back at you. And something that we interpret as "art" is unfortunately frighteningly real for them, as they are not yet able to distinguish between Life and Art. While I really admire Ms Greenberg's work normally, not in this case. Surely childhood and it's trusting innocence is one of the last vestiges to be protected, not exploited?

I am amazed that Funniest home videos still rate so high I cannot watch it. There are too many people getting hurt.

I don't think this can be called art.

stubbsy wrote:Well I've just done something a lot of her critics will no doubt fail to do. I've looked at all 26 of the images in question. While they are technically interesting images, I have to say the subject matter evokes little in me. The images lack appeal, nor do they provoke much thought. For me there is no art there.

I agree Stubbsy - just looked through them and they are technically very nice, lighting is great, but they don't evoke any emotion in me.

An interesting thought is whether I would have had the same reaction seeing the images before reading the story?

I see parents doing worse things than taking a lollipop off a kid when i am shopping in the supermarket (or casino carparks,) so what Greenberg did is not much by comparison in my opinion and not worth fussing over.

I am not sure of the link between images of crying children and the policies of George Bush though. Maybe a fragile, miniscule link at best.

Onyx wrote:

I don't see it has having harmed the kids in anyway. IMHO kids are harmed more when their over-protective parents try too hard to shield them from the realities of the world, and end up creating a fictionalised childhood by surrounding the kid with what the parents perceive as positive and happy situations.

Hi Onyx

I’m sure that you didn’t mean to have a go at me or any other parents for that matter with this comment, but could I venture to say that it’s a little misguided and what’s more I’m not sure that you understand the point that I was trying to make.

Let me create a hypothetical situation for you.

You answer an ad calling for people of Non-Caucasian appearance to model for a professional photographer. You front up at the appointed time, sign the model release and enter the studio. After a short series of introductions to the assistant and photographer they start to insult you with racist and derogatory comments, they let you stew on them for five to ten minutes all the while taking photos of you and then say “we’re only kidding mate, were doing a photo essay on anger as a political statement against the Howard government, so we only insulted you to invoke a response, really we don’t mean anything by it. Thanks for your help, we’ll will mail you a cheque for $50 and here is a movie voucher for your troubles, sorry.”

Do you honestly expect me to believe that you would simply take it in you stride? Nup you and anyone for that matter, would be pissed off and quite rightly so! In fact I would like to bet that even as an adult the memory of this would stay with you for life.

My point is that the children wouldn’t understand why this was done, just as you wouldn’t understand it either if the above situation was to happen to you. I’m not about “creating a fictionalised childhood by surrounding the kid with what the parents perceive as positive and happy situations” I just don’t believe in handing kids knifes to play with just so they can find out what it is like to be cut! Children will find out about the big bad world soon enough, no need for adults to throw them in at the deep end. Let them have their time of innocence I say.

What’s more the in the article Greenberg says she didn't touch or speak to the children. "Except to say hello, goodbye and thank you. And sorry."
If she hasn’t done anything wrong by them, then what is she apoligising to the children for?

Anyways here is an image of my two boys at the beach, it was taken from the point of an observer only and whilst it is not technically perfect with respect to lighting, composure and background I believe that it also shows several raw emotions, “Love and happiness” and that it is a beautiful photograph of kids.



I’m sorry if this post is considered offensive, over emotive and perhaps too political, but we need to stop fucking with children’s emotions for profit. They are the future of the world and we have a responsibility as a society to see to it that they are loved, well cared for and nurtured during their upbringing to ensure they won’t be angry at the world when they grow up. God knows we don’t need any more angry young adults in society do we?

For the record I have read all of Thomas Hawk’s blogs on the subject along with having seen all of the images and as such I don’t feel that this is a trivial matter.

To all Mods: Please feel free to remove this post if you find it an unsuitable and offensive response, but I was asked “what do you think.” And that’s what I think.

I have to agree with Mark, Nikkofan and others who have expressed their disgust at this practice. Nikko put it well when she spoke of the rapid growth and foisting of a depraved world on our kids at much younger ages these days and, as a parent, it's a constant battle to remain vigilant to what's going on around them.

I too feel the innocence of our children is the most precious commodity on the planet, which is also why I feel so strongly about child murderers and pedophiles.

I realise what we are talking about is just a few photographs. If that's all they are, why take them in the first place and then make money from them? Greenberg's talented enough to make plenty of money from her work without provoking the emotional responses she then snaps. Is it that her time is in such short supply that she simply can't afford to sit around with a group of kids and wait for natural displays of emotion to occur? I think it's more along the line that she has found a niche and is now exploiting it for all it's worth, soaking up any publicity, good or bad. Unfortunately, it's a niche she'll probably occupy alone for some time as I don't think there are too many skilled photographers who need to mimic her 'ambulance-chasing' style, profiting from other's misery.

Over-reaction? Possibly. Heartfelt personal opinion? Definitely.

Excuse me while I go give my girls a hug and tell them I love them.

Alpha_7 wrote:but my new beard sure scares a few of them. Kids cry all the time, when they are hungry, hurt, scared....

Scary without the beard I reckon...

ozimax wrote:

Alpha_7 wrote:but my new beard sure scares a few of them. Kids cry all the time, when they are hungry, hurt, scared....

Scary without the beard I reckon...

Apparently also without my shirt... but that's the grown ups!

At least the kids who have been photographed crying would, I assume, have parents that would give them a hug and love them.

To see children crying on the streets of war torn countries is far more emotive and in many cases they are alone and frightened as their parents are often dead.

I am a father who knows that my son lives in a well enclaved society, as we have here in Australia - but just remember the kids in Ethopia, the Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon etc., etc.

Mark wrote:I’m sorry if this post is considered offensive, over emotive and perhaps too political, but we need to stop fucking with children’s emotions for profit...

To all Mods: Please feel free to remove this post if you find it an unsuitable and offensive response, but I was asked “what do you think.” And that’s what I think.

Mark - I see nothing wrong with what you have said here or what others have said. There is a big difference between robust debate and flaming people. All I see here is the former.

Thanks Peter....
I'm not usually so emotive, but when it comes to children..... Well.....

Chris - I couldn't agree more... Perhaps if Greenburg was serious about making a political statement about Iraq she should have got on a plane and taken the photo's of those kids.... At least they would be real... But then she would have had to leave the comfort of her studio....

Geez, I thought this thread was going to be another word play leading to the egg shots for the current comp. But it isn't.

So, to comment on the actual issue which started the thread, I am constantly amazed at the extreme and vitriolic reactions that are provoked by relatively innocuous things.

(And a big note - I am not talking about the comments in this thread which strike me as perfectly reasonable discussion)

And it isn't new, remember when John Lennon casually (and in fact, sadly) noted by way of observation that the Beatles were more popular at that moment than Jesus Christ - and people started burning records!!!!

I think these photos walk the line, which is OK for art I guess, it's capturing (in a contrived way) a moment that all parents know, but the last thing we're thinking is that we should take a photo.

OK, sometimes I do, like the other night and my 3 year old got so upset because I got ice cream out of the container with the wrong spoon! I've often thought I should take a photo to show her when she's grown.

It's like the article said, we can look at these photos a lot longer than the actual event, kids can be upset for 5 seconds and then it's over. The photo's also don't provide any context for the emotion, which seems to be difficult for people, imagine a photo of a kid in a park crying and their ice cream fallen on the ground. Not so bad?
My only little problem with the photos is justifing why the kids aren't wearing any tops? Just to make it "Art"? (I sound like my mum) It just taints the images for me and doesn't help with what I think the images are trying to achieve. It might be some of the recent events that has me thinking the worst, but if they were all wearing a white t-shirt or something?

Anyway, that all said, I think the images are interesting, but not what I would do or use my kid for.

optogamut wrote:<snip>
OK, sometimes I do, like the other night and my 3 year old got so upset because I got ice cream out of the container with the wrong spoon! I've often thought I should take a photo to show her when she's grown.
<snip>

I have taken photos of my daughter when she has thrown monumental tantrums, most of the time just happened to have the camera around my neck. But in now way did I provoke that tantrum or try to stage the shot. And I have no problems in doing so again.

But after reading various blogs and discussions I am horrified to read to what lengths Jill went to get her shot and she used these kids to make a political statement, something the kids in the shots have no idea about. Technically the shots are brilliant but the subject matter leaves me cold.