| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2006 09:19:14 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Originally posted by JayWalk:
OK so lets just examine the situtation for a second. She takes a lollipop away from a kid... that kid cries. After a few minutes that kid is given 2 lollipops and has a huge smile on their face and probably forgetting about the past few minutes!
The crying last a few minutes, but the smile afterwards lasts much longer. Now why just focus on the negative? Why not say that she is a nice person for making the kid smile afterwards???
In the grand scheme of things that child is going to enjoy that picture for the rest of their lives (and the candy for a while after the shoot). It is something that they are going to have with them for their lives and probably will put a smile on their face FAR more times than the few minutes they had to cry for it.
ps. According to Jill, a lot of the time it only takes have one of the kids parents walk out of the room to get them to cry. Definitely not traumatizing by any means. |
Okay, I just ran this by my 13 year old and 10 year old, asking them if they would be proud to a part of this "great display" and if I had let the photographer do this to them when they were younger and then years later pulled this out, would they be okay with it?
The answer from both of them? "NO! I WOULD BE PISSED!" And if walking out of the room upset my 3 year old that much, trust me when I say they will remember this incident years later. Sorry, still a no go. These kids are going to be hating their parents later.
Deannda |
So because it's true for your kids, it's true for everyone's? Yah they'd be pissed, they never had it done and it wasn't a part of their life from that point forward.
Now ask a child that has that photo hanging up in their house from the time they are 3, with everyone gushing over it and giving them attention from it, and see what kind of answer you get.
It's not so black and white. Sorry. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:20:55 PM · #27 |
13 and 10.. hardly the age to appreciate a great photgraph. I'm sure those same kids of yours HATE the pictures you took of them when they were younger and in the bathtub. Give them a few years (like 10-12 more) and they will laugh over them and love them. Same goes with Jills pictures.
Message edited by author 2006-04-18 21:21:23.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:21:07 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
These kids are going to be hating their parents later.
Deannda |
If this is the ONLY interaction they ever get from their parents - being photographed or not - they will resent their parents.
If the rest of their existence with mom and dad is a safe, loving, nurturing experience - they will never remember - the only way we've gotten through bullies, slights, tough teachers, schoolyard fights, is by pouring love into them every second they are in the safety of our home.
Now ask the KIDS how they feel - being the selfish beings they are - they point out the slights they have suffered - until they have their own kids - then they'll thank you.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:22:50 PM · #29 |
I can see the need to make a child cry to get the shot. It would be very difficult to wait around for a child to cry at the exact moment and get a picture perfect picture. On the other hand I know how it feels when I am playing with my nephew and I do something that makes him cry, I feel very bad. To do that to him intentionally would be ludicrous in my mind; to let someone else do it to him would be criminal. Parents permission or not, it is not right. It is illegal to discipline your kids by spanking but O.K. to let some one traumatize them?
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:24:16 PM · #30 |
| If your kids are still bitter at 13+ that a lollipop was briefly taken away from them when they were three, I will be interested to see how they are able to cope with the world at large. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:24:59 PM · #31 |
| Making children cry is not necessarily a bad thing. Artists and writers often make kids cry - when they make their favorite characters suffer or die in movies or books (remember "Lion King"?). Kids should not be completely shielded from unhappiness, they grow emotionally and intellectually with it. The disturbing part here is that she does it not for the benefit of children but for her own sake, to make a point to her adult audience and by the way to make some money. However, one might argue that authors who make kids cry do that for their own benefit, as well. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:26:00 PM · #32 |
All I can think about is all the screaming kids in malls during the Holidays are they are placed on Santa's lap for the yearly Christmas picture. What makes that so different? Should all these mall photographers also be held responsible? Should their parents?
Message edited by author 2006-04-18 21:27:52.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:28:15 PM · #33 |
It still shocks me that so many people still think of children as these delicate little china dolls to be sheltered behind glass for ever.
Still, it's good to see that people are brave enough to disagree :) |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:31:47 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by ltsimring:
Making children cry is not necessarily a bad thing. Artists and writers often make kids cry - when they make their favorite characters suffer or die in movies or books (remember "Lion King"?). Kids should not be completely shielded from unhappiness, they grow emotionally and intellectually with it. The disturbing part here is that she does it not for the benefit of children but for her own sake, to make a point to her adult audience and by the way to make some money. However, one might argue that authors who make kids cry do that for their own benefit, as well. |
Totally agree with the first part... very good point. As for the children, I'm sure their parents got paid some good modeling fees and ended up with a print (worth a lot of money btw). So yes, they do benefit.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:33:14 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Originally posted by JayWalk:
OK so lets just examine the situtation for a second. She takes a lollipop away from a kid... that kid cries. After a few minutes that kid is given 2 lollipops and has a huge smile on their face and probably forgetting about the past few minutes!
The crying last a few minutes, but the smile afterwards lasts much longer. Now why just focus on the negative? Why not say that she is a nice person for making the kid smile afterwards???
In the grand scheme of things that child is going to enjoy that picture for the rest of their lives (and the candy for a while after the shoot). It is something that they are going to have with them for their lives and probably will put a smile on their face FAR more times than the few minutes they had to cry for it.
ps. According to Jill, a lot of the time it only takes have one of the kids parents walk out of the room to get them to cry. Definitely not traumatizing by any means. |
Okay, I just ran this by my 13 year old and 10 year old, asking them if they would be proud to a part of this "great display" and if I had let the photographer do this to them when they were younger and then years later pulled this out, would they be okay with it?
The answer from both of them? "NO! I WOULD BE PISSED!" And if walking out of the room upset my 3 year old that much, trust me when I say they will remember this incident years later. Sorry, still a no go. These kids are going to be hating their parents later.
Deannda |
Ummm......My 3 year old throws a flailing, screaming, crying fit when he's dropped off at daycare. Within minutes, he's smiling and playing with his friends. I highly doubt he'll hate us for that when he's older. He also throws a fit if we don't give him chocolate milk or let him watch Transformers on TV. I don't think he'll be scarred by it.
A lot of kids go to daycare and throw similar fits and don't grow up hating their parents. If you can afford the luxury of staying home and sheltering your kids, then good for you, but not everyone can. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:34:17 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by mk:
If your kids are still bitter at 13+ that a lollipop was briefly taken away from them when they were three, I will be interested to see how they are able to cope with the world at large. |
It's not the lollipop being taken away, it's the fact I let someone take their picture while they were screaming, bawling, crying and then showing it to the world later.
You know what, I retract everything I said, the woman is brilliant, she's a wonderful photographer, she has more talent in her little finger than I have in my entire being for my entire life, I could never hope to understand her vision so please forgive me!
Deannda
I'm finished |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:37:05 PM · #37 |
| Dang I could make a fortune. Just drive to a burned down warehouse and tell them Disneyland burned down, And Mickey almost made it out alive;) |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:40:58 PM · #38 |
If you want disturbing, just go to the supermarket and see the mother in aisle three whaling on her kid using her purse because he won't shut up and let her shop in peace. Or take a look at the mother who suffocated her baby in a plastic bag so she can go get another hit of meth. Or how about the dad who belts his three-year old in the mouth for peeing in his pants.
I could go on, but the point is if you want to be outraged, fine, but find something worth being outraged over.
P.S. Someone taking pictures of kids crying because someone took their lollipop away isn't one of those things. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 09:57:21 PM · #39 |
On one hand, I agree with Deannda. I think it largely depends on the child. I have a super sensitive 4 yo that this type of thing would hang with him for a long while. How will he deal with the world at large. Quite frankly, we will work on it. He's got 10 or 15 years perfect it. My daughter would be fine with it. Their personalities are just that different. As a parent, I don't know that I would "sign my kids up." I see enough tears without purposefully provoking them.
On the other hand, if you don't want the lollipop taken away, just try to take a picture when they are sleepy or hungry. or don't want their picture made. Just a genuine a reaction, and traumatization.
Like this -- a sleepy baby, over stimulated from all the Easter egg hunting, sitting in a basket that she absolutely did NOT want to be sitting in . ..
 |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:06:20 PM · #40 |
I am appalled a photographer would do this deliberatley to get this reaction (and the parents !)I find the whole thing offensive. This is not photojournalism or recording an actual happening. This is a deliberate manipulation of a childs sense of security. I disagree that it is the same as a book or movie. With these the child is engaged as a equal. If this was a playground or workplace - you would give this "photographer" a title - "[b]Bully["/b]. Why would this be unacceptable everywhere else except in this case.
I don't know about the laws in the States but in Australia there is a law called "The Child Protection Act" which has been treated fairly seriously of late. Any person inteacting with children is open to it. By law, anyone who is aware of the mistreatment of children must report it. I assume that Canada and the States would have similiar laws. So both the photographer and the parents would need to wary. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:08:36 PM · #41 |
I got my lollypop taken away dozens of times when I was a kid and I think I turned out fine.
I'm going to go update my dead animal photography collection. See ya
;-) |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:19:15 PM · #42 |
IMO, it is not a matter of if the child will be traumatized long term. I don't think it would have lasting effects.
What I disagree with is deliberately upsetting a child in order to get the perfect shot. It is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:25:04 PM · #43 |
ROFL!!
I saw a great Smooshed Skunk on the 401!!
Originally posted by Joey Lawrence:
I got my lollypop taken away dozens of times when I was a kid and I think I turned out fine.
I'm going to go update my dead animal photography collection. See ya
;-) |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:34:49 PM · #44 |
To an adult, it may seem like taking a lollipop away from a child is, as others have said, "no big deal."
But from the child's point of view, it can be a huge deal. I don't think it's fair to trivialize their feelings.
Having said that, I have to admit I'm not a parent, so you can discount my views if you like.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:35:27 PM · #45 |
I think this is some of the greatest photography I have seen in a while. It's inovative and refreshing. How many time have we gone out at with the wife or husband only to hear the little ones carry on about staying with Aunt Whoever for a few hours. This is the kind of work that is needed and pushes the limits of the medium. Yes I have 3 children their 12 and a set of 3 year old twin girls and yes they cry. It's a part of life. I frequently see her on DPC cutting edge photography get slammed for one reason or another. How many time can you photograph the same thing. Like I said earlier I view this as a breath of very fresh air. Thank you for posting it. These are the people that move the world in stead of just moving in.
Kevin Russo -Photographer |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:55:30 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
But from the child's point of view, it can be a huge deal. I don't think it's fair to trivialize their feelings.
|
To a 3 year-old, everything is a big deal. Mommy or Daddy leaving to go to work, not getting to eat ice cream for dinner, not having the right color bowl for cereal, having to use the dreaded purple Buzz Lightyear sippy cup as opposed to the coveted blue Buzz Lightyear sippy. All are disasters that may cause a full blown, on the floor, kicking and screaming fit. Five minutes later, it's totally irrelevant.
As for those who object to showing pictures of their children in their less perfect moments, I'm assuming that you have deleted or destroyed any such pictures of your kid that you have taken to avoid any possibility that they might be embarassed should these photos surface in the future.
Message edited by author 2006-04-18 22:56:13. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 10:59:58 PM · #47 |
My Dad took this photo after I fell in the river while we were hiking. We were in a secluded area so I was drying out. They even put it in a photo album. If I ever had friends over and I left the room, my sister would whip out the album and show them this photo.
I can probably sue my parents, don't you think?
 |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 11:01:35 PM · #48 |
The work of that photographer just doesn't appeal to me in general, regardless of the methods involved. There are people here who do better work, in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 11:01:47 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by mk:
My Dad took this photo after I fell in the river while we were hiking. We were in a secluded area so I was drying out. They even put it in a photo album. If I ever had friends over and I left the room, my sister would whip out the album and show them this photo.
I can probably sue my parents, don't you think?
|
That photo makes me laugh my ass off. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 11:03:04 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by mk:
I can probably sue my parents, don't you think?
|
Oh my goodness yes - I'd definitely sue. Can you sue the park in addition to your parents? Can you see a shrink and then sue the shrink for trivializing (or overgeneralizing) this horrible trauma??
;-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:14:30 PM EDT.
