Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse
Although the children are not sexualized, I consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.What is he all worked up about? Jill Greenberg's exhibit, End Times, posted in the Paul Kopeikin Gallery, shows small children at the height of emotion - crying, sad, and angry. The pictures are emotionally wrenching, but that's the point.
Hawk believes Greenberg is doing "something horrible." So how is Greenberg getting these reactions from the children? According to Hawk, "[s]he is taking babies, toddlers under three years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to various states of emotional distress..."
Wait, is this woman beating the children, or telling them their parents are dead, or showing them movies of puppies being killed? Nope. She's giving them lollipops, and then taking them away. With the parents present in the room. These children, as children do, cry like little babies.
Thomas Hawk, you should be ashamed of yourself. To equate this kind of activity with pornography is morally bankrupt. Your arguments make no more sense than those of conservatives who equate gay marriage with legalizing pedophilia.
I see children cry every day, for less than no reason. I've made children cry by looking at them. Parents make children cry every day by denying them their sugar cereal at the grocery store, by making them turn off television, and by dropping them off at school. Maybe we should make all of these activities illegal as well. Well?
UPDATE: In response to the comment below by how can folks toop so low, I'd like to make a couple of points.
1. I don't think I said anything about this piece being art, nor do I deny that it can be gut wrenching (disgusting is too strong a word for me, as I'm pretty desensitized). I don't pretend to know the difference between good and bad art, but I'm pretty sure this falls in the "art" category (as opposed to, say, the "photo documentary" category). I'll leave it to future generations to define whether this constitutes good art.
2. You appear to be making a logical fallacy in equating the experience an adult would have with the experience a child would have in the same situation. While the treatment might be construed as torture if done to an adult (Abu Graib, anyone?), I hardly doubt the experience is as tramatic to a child. Children regularly stip themselves of all clothing, and the naked kids I saw on the beach seemed happy and oblivious. Remember also that kids have not developed the communication skills that adults have, and can often only express themselves with loud crying and angry screaming. These kids that are crying are expressing, in my opinion, the same thing you would by saying, "Hey, that's not nice. Give that back." It's hardly torture.
4 comments:
You basically just disregarded all art. To say that art requires some type of talent or skill is ignoring the meaning behind all art. Yeah, it may look pretty but does it affect you? Thomas Kinkade makes some pretty pictures, but they are shit!
ANYONE can do that, but has ANYBODY done it!?
Just like gifts, it's the thought that counts.
If anyone is making logical fallacies, it is you. How do you equate a parent saying no to a toddler about sugar cereal at breakfast with the intentional for fame and profit disrobing and emotionally distressing of another persons child.
This is a barbaric act, and to say that the children are not traumatized by being stripped (even if only to the waist) and then teased by a stranger is not your call. You are obviously not that intelligent, or trained in a profession that would qualify you to even make such a statement. Having a blog does not mean that your opinion is based on fact. Typing crap on a computer screen (especially worthless drivel like you have said about this matter) just proves that the world is full of people with worthless opinions who will spread them around like they really mean something. When in fact, they don‘t.
However… This is an opinion that you can bet on. I see a lawsuit in the future Miss Artist. And she will be the defendant dejour. Some day, when these kids get older, they will be contacted by a lawyer who needs a new Porsche. He’ll explain that she (Little Miss Artist) made beaucoup bucks as the result of these torture sessions (hell, she even named one of the photos “Torture“). He’ll show them video of her on ScarboroughCountry saying “I’ve gotten some, actually some great jobs as a result” of stripping these kids to the waist and then making them cry, and then selling the photos that I took of them in that emotionally distressed and vulnerable state.
He’ll tell them that she is worth (fill in the blank $$$) and that by including her art dealers in the lawsuit that number multiplies significantly.
“Gee… I think that I suddenly remember how that felt. And now I know why I am afraid of lolly-pops and cameras.”
Match, point, slam dunk. Remember where you heard this… say, in about 10 or 15 years.
Oh, did I mention that our Little Miss Artist will then be the one who cries. BIG TIME.
In response to ralphyboy:
I cannot comment on the motivations of the artist. I would hope that her motivations are more than fame and profit - but it's hard for me to know, without knowing her personally. Do you know? You mentioned something about qualifications below - do you know this artist, or have you been "trained in a profession" that would give you insight into the motivations of modern artists? For that matter, are you a child psychologist, or someone who would know how these children react emotionally long term?
I disagree that the cereal comment was a logical fallacy. The children aren't crying because they are half-naked - they are crying because she took their lollipop away. The children don't even know they are naked. Don't think that by attacking my credibility you can attack the truth of my statements.
I'm not sure what your point is in the last half. Are you saying that if some money-greedy lawyer comes along with a lawsuit, it proves that the children were abused? If this were the case, isn't the real problem will be society's overreaction to percieved "problems"? I think it's a sad world where these kind of frivolous lawsuits can exists, and even sadder when the lawsuits convince reactionaries like you that some injustice has occurred.
“I cannot comment on the motivations of the artist. I would hope that her motivations are more than fame and profit - but it's hard for me to know, without knowing her personally. Do you know?”
We don’t need to interview her, or get cozy (yuck) with Miss Artist. There is video of her on ScarboroughCountry saying “I’ve gotten some, actually some great jobs as a result” This was one of her first lines in defense of these premeditated sessions with the semi-nude victims. Also… 25 photos… times how many prints each?… at $4500 a piece. Plus smaller prints and a book and the list is endless…$$$$$
“You mentioned something about qualifications below - do you know this artist, or have you been "trained in a profession" that would give you insight into the motivations of modern artists?”
Uh… I fail to see why I need qualifications, beyond the fact that I have raised a wonderful person and mother (my Daughter), and now have three totally awesome Granddaughters (that I would spirit away from Miss Jill Greenberg at the speed of light if possible should she ever come near them). This is just so obviously wrong to do to toddlers, and I can’t for the life on me understand your need to defend it… at all.
By the way Jill and Bobby boy have used this exact line of reasoning in an attempt deflect Hawk’s expressions of concern. They have mistakenly stated that they didn’t think that he even has any children… So that means that to the perp in this matter that having kids elevates one’s opinion. Thomas Hawk has four. Do you have any? At 26 you must know soooo much from personal experience.
“For that matter, are you a child psychologist, or someone who would know how these children react emotionally long term?”
My point was, and still is sir… that since you are not, and the photographer is not, and it has NEVER EVER been implied that she even checked with one in advance to gather the needed knowledge to make a decision that was best for her victims, these kids should not have been put through this for her purpose, if at all. And… even if she had checked, professional opinions on this would most likely vary so as to allow “doctor shopping” for a green light to proceed.
“I disagree that the cereal comment was a logical fallacy. The children aren't crying because they are half-naked - they are crying because she took their lollipop away. The children don't even know they are naked.”
Now there you go again. Who told you that these kids don’t even know that they are naked? At three? I reiterate… You are obviously not that intelligent, or trained in a profession that would qualify you to even make such a statement! Now stop doing that.
They know that they are naked for god sake. I can tell you that from having my own, and from being around my granddaughters. And Jill has even admitted that some of them were obviously uncomfortable because of that. Admittedly, that may not be why they are crying… But it added fuel to their feelings of vulnerability. Unless you wish to dispute that on the basis that they are too young to care at all about being naked which could possibly be true for some, but I doubt for all these kids.
Tell you what. New game… Put yourself in a situation where a bully is bound to come at you… Say a football game. You sit in the home team section wearing a visiting team jersey. Now do the same thing without pants on (you can keep your tighties). Which time would you feel more vulnerable? Be honest and forget defending this ?artist? (yuck).
“Don't think that by attacking my credibility you can attack the truth of my statements.”
Credentials man… Do you have any that say you are qualified to defend strangers stripping kids to the waist and then teasing them while snapping photos?
Thought not.
“I'm not sure what your point is in the last half. Are you saying that if some money-greedy lawyer comes along with a lawsuit, it proves that the children were abused? If this were the case, isn't the real problem will be society's overreaction to percieved "problems"? I think it's a sad world where these kind of frivolous lawsuits can exists, and even sadder when the lawsuits convince reactionaries like you that some injustice has occurred”
Hey… I’m interested more than anything else in this line of ?artistry? ending here. By the defenders’ logic this is great art… So what if a few toddlers shed tears for Miss Artist? A far greater purpose is being server. Uh… Where is the line? Who sets the standard that cannot be exceeded? I mean… I will not even type the next logical step in this “progression” of photography, but defending “Making Kids (babies actually) Cry” as an act of art is not worthy of a human being.
Your blog and logic are both crap so I won‘t be wasting any more of my time on you (“pearls before swine” don‘t you know).
In closing… Yes I hope that some greedy lawyer goes after this ?artist? and all of her crass helpers. I believe that it WILL happen. We keep cats in our houses partly because they kill rats. Same thing with lawyers.
“frivolous lawsuits” When an adult does something stupid and gets mildly hurt or embarrassed, then finds some one to sue who really didn’t contribute to the injury nearly as much as the idiot in question.
“Classy action suit” When an adult takes advantage of the weakness of children and their developing psyches as a way of reaching (or furthering her) fame and fortune, and then some legal Shark comes along and eats her for a Porsche.
PS… If you don’t already have kids… Wait until you think that this was a bad thing for Miss Artist to do to have any.
Post a Comment