Jill Greenbergs End Times

[daniel49]

Ran across some info about a photographer named Jill Greenberg whose latest expression End times is very controversial.
She in Essence seems to attempt to illicit emotional responses from very young children by doing such things as,
giving them candy and then taking it away to make them cry for the purposes of getting sad, angry, crying children to photograph.
The photographs then are used in other ways and for other purposes.
here is one blog which talks about it, a google will produce several other hits for you if you wish to compare notes before voting.
http://thinkingpictures.blogspot.com/20...against-jill-greenbergs-end-times.html
Thanks for your opinions.

 

[DealMonkey]

It's art. Anyone who thinks it's child abuse is a retard.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's art. Anyone who thinks it's child abuse is a retard.

Sounds to me like a war crime, clearly humiliating and creating an emotional response in the child by giving and taking away things.

Somebody call the geneva convention and the NYTimes stat!

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

It's art........just bad art.

 

[Fern]

Seems to me it's abuse done in effort to make "art".

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's art. Anyone who thinks it's child abuse is a retard.

Sounds to me like a war crime, clearly humiliating and creating an emotional response in the child by giving and taking away things.

Somebody call the geneva convention and the NYTimes stat!

Exaggerate much?

 

[daniel49]

not much in the way of voting. must be a non issue for most of you?
Also will mention for those that missed it there was a link to the pictures of the children in the story.

 

[xenolith]

made me feel nauseous... Jill Greenberg is disgusting

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's art. Anyone who thinks it's child abuse is a retard.

Sounds to me like a war crime, clearly humiliating and creating an emotional response in the child by giving and taking away things.

Somebody call the geneva convention and the NYTimes stat!

haha truly

 

[Theb]

what a b:tch

I guess if you can get money by making kids cry somebody's going to do it.

 

[MadRat]

The kids should class action her butt when they turn into legal adults. Exploiting children may not be abuse, but its pathetic and certainly fits abuse on at least one level.

 

[spunkz]

what kind of parents would subject their kid to that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps the artist's intent is vicariously get close to her own childhood trauma by creating it for others. This is how we all are and why our world is a mess. But it could be that the intent is to take you to that same place. The rage we feel toward the destruction of children is the rage we feel toward those who destroyed us. But that is a pain we will never consciously touch without hears of hard psychological work.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Perhaps the artist's intent is vicariously get close to her own childhood trauma by creating it for others. This is how we all are and why our world is a mess. But it could be that the intent is to take you to that same place. The rage we feel toward the destruction of children is the rage we feel toward those who destroyed us. But that is a pain we will never consciously touch without hears of hard psychological work.

Damn,

What, am I only the only person with a fairly happy childhhod?

 

[Aisengard]

It's not just art if it involves the direct harming of other individuals. It's also abuse. This is inexcusable, and this lady needs some serious help.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Perhaps the artist's intent is vicariously get close to her own childhood trauma by creating it for others. This is how we all are and why our world is a mess. But it could be that the intent is to take you to that same place. The rage we feel toward the destruction of children is the rage we feel toward those who destroyed us. But that is a pain we will never consciously touch without hears of hard psychological work.

Damn,

What, am I only the only person with a fairly happy childhhod?

Heavens no. That's the only part we all remember. We all had wonderful childhoods, wink wink.

 

[Cerb]

I agree with her purpose and message, but the methods are disgusting.

Oh, yeah, and as often happens: bad poll. A binary choice requires four answers (TF, FT, FF, TT); yet you left out "both", which would be my vote.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's art. Anyone who thinks it's child abuse is a retard.

Meh.

Kinsey paid people to molest children. It wasnt abuse, it was science.

 

[DealMonkey]

Uh, taking candy from a child isn't child abuse. Not in any sense of the word. Is it mean-spirited? If done out of context, of course. But abuse? Nah. Kids cry for all kinds of petty reasons, why can't it be so an artist can make a point?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Uh, taking candy from a child isn't child abuse. Not in any sense of the word. Is it mean-spirited? If done out of context, of course. But abuse? Nah. Kids cry for all kinds of petty reasons, why can't it be so an artist can make a point?

So if she wanted a picture of pain would it be ok for her to kick you in the groin?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Uh, taking candy from a child isn't child abuse. Not in any sense of the word. Is it mean-spirited? If done out of context, of course. But abuse? Nah. Kids cry for all kinds of petty reasons, why can't it be so an artist can make a point?

So if she wanted a picture of pain would it be ok for her to kick you in the groin?

Yes, part of the problem here is how you equate 'taking candy' to 'inflicting great pain.' You should probably recalibrate yourself.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Uh, taking candy from a child isn't child abuse. Not in any sense of the word. Is it mean-spirited? If done out of context, of course. But abuse? Nah. Kids cry for all kinds of petty reasons, why can't it be so an artist can make a point?

So if she wanted a picture of pain would it be ok for her to kick you in the groin?

Yes, part of the problem here is how you equate 'taking candy' to 'inflicting great pain.' You should probably recalibrate yourself.

that is what she has admitted to so far. If you look at the childrens photos, I see potential for emotional scarring for the sake of some dingaling making money.
My calibration is fine thank you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Merely your opinion. You have any real proof?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Merely your opinion. You have any real proof?

No, only common sense from raising children.
Do you have any of that?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Merely your opinion. You have any real proof?

No, only common sense from raising children.
Do you have any of that?

Who cares? You're clearly exaggerating the impact. "Emotional scarring"? Taking candy = great physical pain? WTF?

If you don't wish your children taking part in this "art" project, then don't let them. It's not like anyone's being forced to participate.