Jill Greenberg - End Times - Ethically OK or Wrong?

[ShaolinTiger]

I guess quite a few of you are familiar with Jill Greenberg (http://www.manipulator.com/) and her work, especially her End Times (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm) series of crying children.

1984


Following her enormously successful series 'Monkey Portraits', which debuted in October 2004, Jill Greenberg’s new work takes a more serious turn and has already hit a national nerve . "End Times" combines beautiful, poignant imagery, impeccably executed, with both political and personal relevance. Greenberg’s subject is taboo: children in pain. She utilizes this uncomfortable image as a way to break through to the pop mainstream and begin a national dialogue.When her work was originally published a HUGE debate broke out about the ethical consequences of taking such photographs.

No doubt the work is stunning, the lighting is excellent and the post-processing makes it outstanding.

But where do we stand when it comes to ethics? How far should we go when it comes to getting the results we want?

Do we have the right to make these children cry? And let's face it, these kids are way beyond normal tears and sulking, these kids look hysterical.

Especially under the guise of politics?

And when the methods use come to be public knowledge..it's a little disturbing, some even say akin to child abuse.

When questions were asked, she freely admits that it wasn't actually the news of the current dangerous ne'er-do-wells in the White House that upset them, but rather the lack of sweet treats. Most often she would give them a lollipop and then take it away again immediately, leading to tears, tantrums and the like a la your average kid (and some adults). Some people don't quite believe (http://thinkingpictures.blogspot.com/2006/07/case-against-jill-greenbergs-end-times.html) that this was all there was to it, citing an interview with American Photo (http://www.popphoto.com/americanphotopodcasts/2176/podcast-interview-with-jill-greenberg.html), in which Jill claimed she had parents "step out of the studio for a couple minutes" as evidence that she used slightly more bully-oriented tactics. From: Bush or Lollipops Made the Children Cry (http://www.thepoorhouse.org.uk/bush_or_lollipops_made_children_cry)

Some people reacted extremely harshly, such as Thomas Hawk (A guy who is known for stirring things up and reacting strongly).

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."From: Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse (http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html)

One of the biggest bloggers in the US wrote about it too, Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/).

This is unbelievably sick. A left-wing photographer, Jill Greenberg (http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/2552/cry-babies.html), deliberately makes toddlers cry and turns the pictures into a Los Angeles art exhibit called "End Times (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/index.htm)" to indulge her Bush Derangement Syndrome. She slaps titles like "Grand Old Party (http://artkrush.com/mailer/issue32/popups/r2.html)," "Four More Years (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/works.htm?index=10)," and "Apocalypse Now (http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/works.htm?index=12)" onto photos of the poor children she manipulated and goaded.From: Abusing kids for "art" (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005622.htm)

There's a very extensive article here which covers all sides of the story.

Jill Greenberg, for anyone who has not yet noticed, is exhibiting a series of close-up portraits of children under three years of age who are miserably, frightfully upset. Ms. Greenberg has claimed that she made the toddlers cry by giving them a lollipop and then taking it away, a standard method for drawing tears among the young in Hollywood. We can all agree that children get upset by things that we would deem trivial, that artists are masters of illusion, and that there is no reason to suspect physical abuse occurred when shooting these photographs.From: The Case Against Jill Greenberg's "End Times" (http://thinkingpictures.blogspot.com/2006/07/case-against-jill-greenbergs-end-times.html)

You can view a collection of the pictures on Youtube here:

Cryin' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWArOIdWJGA)

So SAers, what do YOU think?

[jayhan]

First thing first.

I highly doubt it that these kids were abducted from their parents (especially mothers), then being stripped down, forced to cry in whatever ways, then got their picture taken, and finally being dressed up and given a lollipop and then shipped back to their parents without them even realizing their kids have gone missing for at least 15 minutes (assuming teleportation was used in transporting the process of abduction).

I've read before on her work on "End Times", and these kids' photos are among the few chosen ones, cuz there are many which does not make it due to "not enough crying". Basically, I think the parents of each of these kids gave their consent to their kids' shots being taken. They would have known very well ahead of what to expect. Jill is a professional, and should have known very well how parents (especially those in western countries like UK and US) make a big fuss about this "kiddy" issue. So, I doubt she'd have taken such risk by running awol with her camera.

So if the parents gave their permission - who the heck are those critiques to say NO? And we aint talking about whipping the a55 out of these kids... they were just being put in a situation which they arent comfy about for merely (my guess) less than 5 minutes! Heck their moms' might be even standing beside Jill smilling to the kid.

I think the critiques should get a life... this is definitely not child abusing for pete's sake!

[derickuan]

I find it....so long the parents are okay with it....and no physical or mental abuse to the children.....

It's a great picture.....

[noordin]

Look at the results. They are fantastic. The critics are just envious. No I do not for one moment think the parents do not know what's going on. Remember this is the West not some third world countries where certain liberties can be assumed. Try them in the West and she'll get a whacking big litigation/malpractice/child abuse on her hands!

Nope, I think the parents are aware of how famous Jill is and they are quite happy to co-operate so that their kids can be famous too. Imagine if any one of them is chosen to be 'the' face in a kids product campaign by a multi-national company! I leave that to your imagination. :P

[koochey.koo]

Admittedly, the photos are stunning. It would take a real expert at her craft to come up with such amazing photos. However, the method used in achieving the photos leaves me apprehensive in appreciating the photos. Knowing that children were taunted and forced to cry somehow doesn't sit well with me.

The question is; does the end justify the means?

She's one talented woman, I'd say but I'd rather she not do that to little kids. I'm all for art and photography but somewhere, one has got to draw a line.

[andretong]

Kids cry easily, and some when they cry is like the end of the world.
Just like jayhan said, those are only a few from don't know how many kids she shoot that are really believable.
So i don't see any problem at all.

[qqmeng]

i m not sure is the western thinggy or someone just want some attention. this is nothing, you should see how my dotter cried last night. but why no one yell at me for being not ethical etc?

simple.. cos i m lousy, cos i m no one ... people dun give a damn.

i pee under the tree of a golf course... but no one complains. but if i m tiger wood, then i ll see my face next day in the morning in the newspaper. ;)

[iamyuanwu]

Most tried to impose their moral/ethical stance onto the photographer, when in fact they don't know the real situation. :mad:

Children have more exaggerated [less inhibited] emotions, compared to adults who often keep out emotions in control.
Also, some toddlers are real wailers, who can cry-'til-the-roof-tumbles over the most trivial matter, even for a toddler. You really don't need a lot to provoke these children. :rolleyes:

So, it might look like the children were crying as if the world was ending...
but that's just who toodlers are. :)

p.s. if what she did was child abuse, then my parents caning me for being naughty would have amounted to child torture/torment. :drunk:

[alancheong7]

There are a few leading phrases that should be taken with a pinch of salt:
Greenberg’s subject is taboo: children in pain
a HUGE debate broke out about the ethical consequences
And let's face it, these kids are way beyond normal tears and sulking, these kids look hysterical.
Jill claimed she had parents "step out of the studio for a couple minutes" as evidence that she used slightly more bully-oriented tactics
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."

1. The truth? I don't believe these children were in any pain at all, other than not having the lolly they wanted - and children are to be taught they can't always have everything they want all the time. If we don't start teaching our children by the time they are 18 months old, the job is gonna get much tougher when they hit 3 years of age.
2. Huge debate (by whom? region? culture?) about ethical consequences - whose ethics? And shouldn't it be about the method and not the consequence?
3. Very insidious claim - having parents leave the room IS evidence Jill used bullying tactics? In fact, many children cry upon seeing their parents leave them, much less with a stranger. And when parents are around, children are generally more comfy and assured, thus making the parents more of a distraction.
4. Stripping them of their clothes? All the pix show them shirtless/topless - please present evidence of the claim they were stripped. And parents would definitely NOT allow them to be totally naked.
5. Parents provoke (passively/actively) their children all the time in one way or another - usually resulting in more or less the same.

Q has presented a very valid point.
As a father of a 2-year old, it is true children this age cry more easily, and it isn't true that the portrayed children were hysterical. WE know.

Ethics: Don't many parents bribe their children? Everyday? And what do their children learn from that? Load of nonsense if you ask me. Jumping on to the holier-than-thou bandwagon, if ye ask me.