Photography=Exploitation?

[ShutteredEye]

http://www.slate.com/id/2145277/?GT1=8391

Hmmmmm.

[johnastovall]

Much ado over nothing. Next they'll be upset about Eddie Adams Pulitzer work and say he was making snuff shots.

[Rahb]

hmmmmis right.

I love how she pretty much attacks photography as an art, talks of it taking a part of ones soul.....then in the last paragraph states that she isn't against phorography, she actually thinks its a great form of art.....

odd

[sulla]

Kinda along the same lines I was reading a story about Kevin Carter the other day and his photo of the girl in Sudan and the vulture. It made me think about when it more important to put downt he camera and help.

Here is a little info about it http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/od..._in_unfair.htm. Plus more on the web if you look.

[Allen]

I was a pretty big fan of hers before these pics came out. In fact, I even posted a thread awhile back asking how she got the look she does. Her pics on monkeys are terrific and she does awesome work.

I just think she stepped over the line on this one. Sure, the kids have probably already forgotten why they cried or even taking the pics, but I think her photography skills could have been used elsewhere. Then, to top it all off, she uses the kids as a way to show her displeasure with the Bush administration. I'm guessing the parents were ok with that, right?

Here's someone who REALLY doesn't like the images:

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-g...woman-who.html

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Allen

I was a pretty big fan of hers before these pics came out. In fact, I even posted a thread awhile back asking how she got the look she does. Her pics on monkeys are terrific and she does awesome work.

I just think she stepped over the line on this one. Sure, the kids have probably already forgotten why they cried or even taking the pics, but I think her photography skills could have been used elsewhere. Then, to top it all off, she uses the kids as a way to show her displeasure with the Bush administration. I'm guessing the parents were ok with that, right?

Here's someone who REALLY doesn't like the images:

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-g...woman-who.html

Different people have differ esthetic lines and I see this is sliding down the slop to the cesspool of political.

[markfh]

Since political and religious discussions between us here are forbidden I suggest that the link or the entire thread be deleted.

[CaptainTom]

So let's climb back up the slope and talk about photography, art, photographers, artists.
I think that tormenting children to get them to cry so you can photograph it is on the opposite side of tickling a child to make him laugh, or giving them the ice cream cone to make him smile. All of these acts can be considered harmful by someone. Who is to judge? Do we all condemn the children and parents who participate in child beauty pageants? Some do, some don't. Who is to judge? Are women who have their picture taken nude being exploited ? Who is to judge. Is it ART or pornography? Who is to judge?
YOU MUST JUDGE FOR YOURSELF, and if you feel stronly about something make your opinions known. Are you an artist or a moron??? I'll be the judge.

[Steelsun]

Remember the old comedy skit by George Carlin where he talks about National Geographic and their pictures of starving kids in Africa.

He says something like: "You know they have an assistant off to the side holding up a snickers bar saying 'Look what I got kid! Yum! Too bad you can't have it! Off such good chocolate!' "

[Steelsun]

Now these photos are interesting, with some interesting photoshop effects added to it.
Exploitation? Yes, definatly
Wrong to do? Quite possibly.

Would I consent to have my child deliberatly taunted and mentally attacked for art? Hell no.
Do I think some Child advocacy or protective service needs to look into this? Yes, why not?

What's the line here. Next she'll be going up to boxers and breaking their noses and taking pics of that, after all they get their noses broken all the time, right?

[Rick Waldroup]

The photos are interesting but as far as her using these to make a political statement, well that is a little far fetched. I mean, when I first looked at these, the Bush administration never crossed my mind. When I found out that was what she was trying to accomplish, well it does kind of make you roll your eyes. Hey, I'm all for any kind of art that pushes political buttons and shows the utter incompetence of this administration- but I'm afraid this does not do that. These photos are just silly.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

..... Next they'll be upset about Eddie Adams Pulitzer work and say he was making snuff shots.

I think if Eddie Adams was killing people Just so he could get a picture you would almost have a point.

[Steelsun]

Originally Posted by Rick Waldroup

The photos are interesting but as far as her using these to make a political statement, well that is a little far fetched.

Yeah, if she was making a political statement, she would not be charging $4500 each for them. And any money made would go to a charity.

Let's call it what it is: Profiteering from misery. And all the free advertising she's getting will help her in the end.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Much ado over nothing. Next they'll be upset about Eddie Adams Pulitzer work and say he was making snuff shots.

Big difference between photojounalism and what Greenberg did. It would be one thing if she waited for spontaneous situations to arise and took pictures, quite another to actually manipulate little kids like that. I think her actions were unethical, her motivations for doing it make it even more so. The parents who allowed it to happen also deserve scorn. That said, bloggers calling for her to be arrested on child abuse charges are getting a wee bit carried away.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Big difference between photojounalism and what Greenberg did. It would be one thing if she waited for spontaneous situations to arise and took pictures, quite another to actually manipulate little kids like that. I think her actions were unethical, her motivations for doing it make it even more so. The parents who allowed it to happen also deserve scorn. That said, bloggers calling for her to be arrested on child abuse charges are getting a wee bit carried away.

But how much do photojournalist "manipulate?" Just look at the work of Jonathan Moller in the current issue of "Lenswork" I get the feeling we are seeing manipulation in both the photos and the native peoples's suffering to build his portfolio.

Just what "ethic" did she break?