« Binge and Purge | Main | And in Other Art World News »
September 06, 2006
Where Children and Art Meet, There's Bound to Be Controversy
Thanks to Adam for pointing me in the direction of this article about photographer Jill Greenberg's work showing crying toddlers.
I'm not sure yet what I think about the whole thing, but one assertion in the article that I agree with is that the whole controversy says more about the internet/blogging than it does about photography. People anonymously venting their outrage without knowing all the facts. I guess I lean towards thinking that it is quite doubtful that any lasting damage was done by withholding a lollipop for half a minute (despite A's very fatherly declarations that such an action is a "cuntish" thing to do). If so, then every time I take a dirt-covered cracker from my daughter or tell her not to stick her finger in an electrical outlet I'm scarring her for life. I guess the issue is causing upset without a practical purpose (assuming here that ars arte is not, in fact, practical). But we know that there are throngs of people out there just waiting to screech "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children," a la Mrs. Lovejoy on the Simpsons.
Is emotionally manipulating young children a good thing? Probably not. Is the artwork good? Time will tell.
Posted by mwashburn at September 6, 2006 08:25 PMPosted to Culture & Politics
Comments
Judging from the pics, those must have been some damn good lollipops.
Posted by: Heidi at September 6, 2006 10:04 PM
I think people have better things to worry about than a photographer who takes away a pop to make little kids cry. Bullyish? Sure. But the people who accused her of being abusive? Please. If they're concerned about children being abused, they should be targeting the foster care system, not an artist who is trying to express her point of view (doesn't matter if you agree with it or not). What's the difference between what she did and making your child sit on Santa's lap when he is obviously afraid and then having his photo taken (because there's no practical purpose there, either)? Same kind of thing.
Posted by: Carol at September 7, 2006 11:29 AM
Making a kid cry with the sole intent of making the kid cry is a cunt move. Calling it child abuse is hyperbole, but if you saw a mom in a public setting taking candy away from her kid, studying and maybe commenting urbanely on the kid's reaction, then giving the candy back, would you think, 'That's interesting.' or 'What a cunt.'? That's what this artist is doing, except she's also profiting from it.
'But the parents are standing just off camera.' or 'But that's what they do in Hollwood movies all the time.' or 'There's no lasting damage.' don't really make it any seemlier to me.
The kids are unaware. I could go around in public, punch strangers in the face, take a photo of their reaction, then apologize and pay for any medical expenses. No lasting damage. Interesting photos. Is that a good idea?
Posted by: adam at September 7, 2006 11:40 AM
^ Carol - Labeling it child abuse does cheapen actual child abuse. No doubt.
But her point of view is rather bullshit in my opinion. To paraphrase her, 'This is what these kids would be doing if they knew the state of the world in which they live.'
Bullshit. This is what kids do when you take candy away from them.
I don't bemoan the attacks on her work or her person. As with most other realms, in the art wolrd, there's no such thing as bad press.
Posted by: adam at September 7, 2006 11:47 AM
Adam - as for your idea of punching strangers in the face and taking their photo... maybe if you gave them a lollipop afterward? ;-)
Posted by: Carol at September 7, 2006 05:21 PM
I punch babies in the face and then set them on fire. Is that child abuse?
Posted by: Wash at September 12, 2006 10:01 PM