| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2006 05:36:56 AM · #76 |
I think people are blowing this out of proportion.
She gives the kids a lollypop, then briefly takes it away for a few seconds then gives it them back. Yeah the kid cries, but 3 year old cry if they're bored almost.
Regardless of how good the images are, and these are some of the best i've ever seen, i don't think it's the end of the world. So long as the children are not upset for long, or over anything serious.
Incredible photo's. God i dream of taking shots like those.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 05:45:28 AM · #77 |
hey, i dont like the way she is representing her photo skills,
but i have crying children every 15 minutes (LOL) at home and i'm not even close to them to photograph it :-)
well, everyone has it's own ...
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 06:16:52 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just as an side, I can't understand why so many people think these are "excessively neat-imaged"; I find them crisp and sharp and full of detail right across the board. |
I can see exactly what they mean. Ignoring their expressions those kids look positively plastic.
It might not be NI (although NI can certainly give you that effect) but something she's doing in post-processing is just horrible, IMHO.
Ok, back to your program of moral outrage... :-) |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:12:29 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by trnqlty:
Her work is simply amazing, I would love to get the chance to intern or assist for her. The crying kids doesn't seem like a big deal to me. If its just taking away a lollipop, the kids won't even remember the next day. Far from traumatizing them. |
I'm sorry, but you don't get faces like that by taking a lollipop away and snapping away a few shots. Some of these children look like they've been crying for quite a while, not just a few seconds.
Although I agree she has much skill, I do not agree with causing children to cry for the sake of art. Maybe she'd like someone to take a nice portrait of her after someone punched her in the nose. That would be art too, wouldn't it? (not).
EDIT
No NeatImage of course ;P
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 08:13:49. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:24:08 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Which is fine for you, but is a very unrealistic view of actual childhood. Some people want to show the other side, which I believe should be fine for them. You have to admit though, she has done her job, the emotion evoked in this thread is telling enough of that. |
I was going to type something like this, but Artyste said is well, so I'll be lazy and just second his thoughts.
Art comes from and evokes joy and pain and everything in between. It is all part of the human experience. And children are very much little humans. Insisting on portraying only innocent, happy go lucky images of small children is just as one-sided a view as what is presented here (and I think may be just as manipulative). Although, it is very much your choice as an artist to do so.
So, let's talk about something less controvesrial. What do you all think of Sally Mann? ;)
Liza |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:47:13 AM · #81 |
LOL, I've got a 4 yr old and a 7 yr old and I just did an 8 hour car trip back from visiting family. I'd say about 1 of those eight hours was made up of sulking & crying. Of course I've taken photos at times like these.
But then what a difference between "unprovoked" crying and the premeditated abuse. And anybody who says "oh, it's just a few moments without a lollipop," is fooling themself. It takes some time for a child to wind up to look like they do in those photos, wet-faced... and always no shirt. I'd also add to that the time the parents spent planning the abuse. But should the length of time the abuse lasts really be the issue? It's not an accident, it's something being done by someone the child is supposed to be able to trust.
I'll have to call names on this one:
The parents = child abusers
The photographer = a whore for money
Is it OK to name-call in the forums if the targets aren't members?
Oh well, just my opinion. Maybe we should have a child abuse challenge.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:47:27 AM · #82 |
I have a portrait somewhere of Spawn and I, when he was a baby, where he's screaming his head off because he was afraid of the camera. I was not going to be in the picture originally, but the only way the photographer could get him to stop screaming was for me to hold him in my lap. He's sort of smiling in the picture, but he still has these BIG tears in his eyes. It really doesn't take much to get kids that little screaming. Sometimes they do it just because they don't want their pictures taken, they photographer is a stranger, the camera looks like it's from Mars, they're in stiff uncomfortable clothes, and on and on and on.
<<<>>>
If you want to see something truly creepy look up pageant photography. They take what started out as a standard glamour picture of a young girl, make her look like a rubber doll, give her unnaturally large, zombie like blue eyes (even if they actual girl doesn't have blue eyes). The end product may or may not look like the actual girl. Two of my co-workers have their daughters deep into the pageant world, and they had some of those kinds of pictures done for a big pageant in the mid-west. They kept ohhing and ahhing about how great these pictures were. My boss and I were standing there going, "But she doesn't look like that! Her eyes aren't blue! She's much prettier than that!"
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:54:05 AM · #83 |
Photographing a dead person just dragged out from under their wrecked car after an accident... probably legal.
Photographing a dead person just dragged out from under a car you stuffed them under after you killed them for the shot... the photographing part is still probably legal, but the killing part probably isn't.
:-P
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:55:14 AM · #84 |
uh-oh, i just remembered i have one in my portfolio
LOOOL, yeah ... make a move towards my lolipop i'll kill you with my stare :>
funnytodabone
EDIT> minor stuff
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 08:55:51.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:05:40 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'll have to call names on this one:
The parents = child abusers
The photographer = a whore for money |
Well said !
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:08:22 AM · #86 |
.
Message edited by author 2006-08-12 21:41:49. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:26:34 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by Drummie:
Making a chilld laugh & smile is a good emotional experience. Manipulating a child to cry is just twisted. These poor kids might be afraid of having their picture taken at a studio for a very long time!
Would've been better if she had just taken the time to catch them crying naturally on their own, & then snapped a photo.... |
So it's so much better if she sits in a room and stares at the kid until they get bored to tears hours later? :D
I don't think these are any worse than the naked baby pictures your parents take of you when you're 18 months old and show them to her friends and co-workers when you're 18 years old (I am more bitter towards my mother about the second part than the first part).
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:55:13 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by kashi:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'll have to call names on this one:
The parents = child abusers
The photographer = a whore for money |
Well said ! |
Actually, one might argue that both of these comments could be considered slanderous and/or libelous.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 10:04:30 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by modgethanc:
Originally posted by Drummie:
Making a chilld laugh & smile is a good emotional experience. Manipulating a child to cry is just twisted. These poor kids might be afraid of having their picture taken at a studio for a very long time!
Would've been better if she had just taken the time to catch them crying naturally on their own, & then snapped a photo.... |
So it's so much better if she sits in a room and stares at the kid until they get bored to tears hours later? :D
I don't think these are any worse than the naked baby pictures your parents take of you when you're 18 months old and show them to her friends and co-workers when you're 18 years old (I am more bitter towards my mother about the second part than the first part). |
I meant to say that if she had taken a photo of them in their own environment, naturally.....not the studio......& happened to catch the moment as it happened...... |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 10:05:17 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by kashi:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'll have to call names on this one:
The parents = child abusers
The photographer = a whore for money |
Well said ! |
Actually, one might argue that both of these comments could be considered slanderous and/or libelous.
Ray |
A good lawyer could probably get me off by bringing up the fact that I added the rider, "just my opinion." ;-)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:26:05 AM · #91 |
Irony, irony, irony...
She seems to be doing all of this to make a political statement. Yeah! She seems hyper-critical and if I might add, the whole exhibit seems to be a creative criticism of the conservative political right.
I just find it funny that such leftist criticism finds nothing wrong in causing harm, albeit temporary, in order to make their statements. I rather doubt she was the patient sort who simply waited until they cried of a their own accord.
And no, I don't believe that it was a simple lollypop for all of those cases. Perhaps a couple but I'd wager $50 that the lollypop was not the only method used. And was probably one of the nicer ones. And there is a difference between perhaps capturing a photo of your little child crying or pouting versus an assembly line of making children cry.
So the end result is it that I walk away with the same message I usually feel from the left side of things. Uber-hypocrisy. "Oh..bad bad evil evil...but we'll do anything, even EVIL to make our point and win our goal."
Artistic yes....poor character also a yes. *shrug* This is, IMHO, akin to the National Geographic shots of the leopard attacking the baboon which years later we learned they kept the leopard caged without food until it was starving and then released it on a baboon. Giving them a great photo pawned off as natural - when in fact it depicted a very unnatural situation.
It may be great photography but the ethics are poor.
- Saj
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:36:20 AM · #92 |
Are the photos good? - Yes
Too much NI? - Not sure, but the photos look good.
Is it art? - Depends who you ask
Is it child abuse? - Probably not if done once or twice, but if you did this all the time to the same kids I would say yes.
Will the kids be traumatized? - Not from just these photos, but eventually they will be if their parents keep pimping them out to projects like this to make some $$$
Were the kids happy again after the photos were taken? - Probably
Were they really confused? - Probably
Did making kids cry make her famous (or more famous)? - Yes
Will she profit from making these kids cry? - Yes
Is the photographer a nice person? - Highly doubtful as nice people don't intentionally make kids cry and they would never profit from making kids cry.
Is there a difference between snapping a photo while your kid is already upset about something and intentionally making them upset just so you can snap a photo and sell it? - Hell yeah!
Are the kids in these photos more then just a little upset? - Yes, these do not appear to be simple, "I want a lollipop" cries.
Would I let her babysit children? - Never
Just my $.02
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:49:31 PM · #93 |
I cannot imagine deliberately making a child that upset for the sake of a picture. Yes, 3 year olds cry over almost anything, and will probably not remember this in 20 years, but I would never have let anyone make my kids that upset for the sake of art (or for any other reason). Did I ever make my kids that upset? Of course--putting popcorn in the wrong bowl could easily do it. It's called life. Taking a lollipop away, having mom leave the room, putting them in a scary situation, all at the whim of a photographer is not life, it is a decision made by adults to use a small child's vulnerability.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 01:12:16 PM · #94 |
| It works though, doesn't it? Attention-seeking garbage that I consider it to be, nevertheless its getting our attention. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 01:14:12 PM · #95 |
Come onnn think about it, you guys probably did worse things to your kids just to teach them a lesson. I remember a lot of things my parents did so I would grow-up. Hell, their siblings, cousins and friends DO worse things then take away their lollipop. Cousins take away whole barbie-houses and ruin pictures! :P Can't say you'll get traumatized over that. They're still doing worse things to me and I would personally prefer having my picture taken while I'm hurt then being hurt for no reason. Cause art is a reason.
I say everything for art. I'll personally loose all my ethics, all my culture for art. If you're not prepared to look art right in the eye, you are not an artist.
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 13:16:14.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 01:15:26 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Irony, irony, irony...
She seems to be doing all of this to make a political statement. Yeah! She seems hyper-critical and if I might add, the whole exhibit seems to be a creative criticism of the conservative political right.
I just find it funny that such leftist criticism finds nothing wrong in causing harm, albeit temporary, in order to make their statements. I rather doubt she was the patient sort who simply waited until they cried of a their own accord.
And no, I don't believe that it was a simple lollypop for all of those cases. Perhaps a couple but I'd wager $50 that the lollypop was not the only method used. And was probably one of the nicer ones. And there is a difference between perhaps capturing a photo of your little child crying or pouting versus an assembly line of making children cry.
So the end result is it that I walk away with the same message I usually feel from the left side of things. Uber-hypocrisy. "Oh..bad bad evil evil...but we'll do anything, even EVIL to make our point and win our goal."
Artistic yes....poor character also a yes. *shrug* This is, IMHO, akin to the National Geographic shots of the leopard attacking the baboon which years later we learned they kept the leopard caged without food until it was starving and then released it on a baboon. Giving them a great photo pawned off as natural - when in fact it depicted a very unnatural situation.
It may be great photography but the ethics are poor.
- Saj |
You probably bring up some of the better points I've heard yet, but I still have issue with one.
You suggest that it would take more than a lollypop taken away in a lot of the cases to get a child to cry that vehemently (as do others as well), but speaking from 10 years of childcare experience.. well, no, 99% of the time, taking a lollypop away *IS* all it takes to get that level of outright anger and tears from a child.
We don't *know* what her methods are, but I highly doubt *any* of them even come close to anything that would be looked at sideways by child protection agencies... I honestly doubt it. It certainly doesn't take any nasty methods to get a child to become outraged. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 01:16:07 PM · #97 |
| Here's my question: Why are all the crying kids topless? Maybe THAT is why they're crying. The mean lady took their clothes. If they weren't ALL topless, I'd think that she just snapped away when the kids were crying anyway. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 01:29:01 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
We don't *know* what her methods are, but I highly doubt *any* of them even come close to anything that would be looked at sideways by child protection agencies... |
Oh, I doubt that it was in fact anything one would call "abusive" and I strongly doubt that any of the kids will suffer permanent harm. A lot of it has to deal with the spirit of things. Causing discomfort and harm of children, even if negligable is questionable for the purpose of art and political commentary. Capturing it for rememberance sake is one thing...creating it for commentary's sake is an entirely different thing.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 01:40:59 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by kashi:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'll have to call names on this one:
The parents = child abusers
The photographer = a whore for money |
Well said ! |
Actually, one might argue that both of these comments could be considered slanderous and/or libelous.
Ray |
Only if they are incorrect. As well, slander is typically associated by the legal profession with the spoken word. Libel typically requires a broadcast medium. Internet communications have come to be regarded as a broadcast medium in some cases. Since no names are mentioned, it's very difficult to prove defamation of any particular individual in this case.
If slander or libel were ever charged in this case, the parents and / or the photographer would have to be willing to subject their actions to some intense scrutiny in order to prove the falsehood of the statement. I personally bet that no parent of any intelligence at all would risk losing their cash cow to child protection agencies by filing suit for libel and thus having this entire situation FULLY brought to light.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 01:42:53 PM · #100 |
| Has anybody seen the play or movie 'The shape of Things'? |
|
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 05:18:16 PM EDT.
