Re: Child Abuse Or Art?

[Roger]

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be 127.0.0.1 wrote
in message >:

>I generally fall into the camp of just about anything ought to be ethical
>for capture assuming it's natural and the photographer is working as a
>witness, bystander, artist, photojournalist, citizen journalist, etc.
>
>But what Jill Greenberg is doing makes me want to throw up. And it shouldn't
>be allowed. I'm torn about even posting this post because she is obviously
>using her art as an excuse to do something horrible and is looking for
>publicity and response and that's exactly what I'm giving her here. But I'm
>hoping that through others being made aware of what she is doing that
>somehow pressure might be borne to stop it from happening.
>
>So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three
>years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to
>various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. -- so that she can
>then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If
>you'd like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click
>through here.
>http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm
>Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I
>consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.

Of course, "provoking" them involves the giving of a lollipop which is
then taken away, nor are the pictures provocative in any sexual way,
so one wonders by what delusional definitions these photographs
qualify as either "abuse" or "pornography?"

[Catherine Woodgold]

Roger (roger@.) writes:
> Of course, "provoking" them involves the giving of a lollipop which is
> then taken away, nor are the pictures provocative in any sexual way,
> so one wonders by what delusional definitions these photographs
> qualify as either "abuse" or "pornography?"

In my opinion: it can be OK to take a lollipop away from a child because
it was given to the child by mistake and because it actually
belongs to someone else or because one believes it's hazardous
to the child's health. But if one deliberately
gives a child a lollipop and takes it away again for the purpose
of making the child upset, that's unethical -- unless maybe
the child needs to be made upset for some medical purpose
for the child's benefit, and
I can't think of any situation where that would occur.

Any method of deliberately making someone, who
has not given informed consent to the procedure,
upset in order to photograph
them in that state is unethical IMO, especially so when the
person is a child and therefore vulnerable and under the
control of others who have a responsibility to use that
control fairly and in consideration of the child's interests.
A child that young can't be expected to give meaningful
informed consent, and anyone giving such consent on
behalf of the child is not acting ethically in the
child's interests IMO.

Those who view such pictures for enjoyment or
in order to attempt to comprehend the artist's view of life
are also participating in an unethical act IMO.

Waiting around for the kids to get upset may be
OK, but from the other posts it sounds
as if that isn't what was done.