| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2006 03:46:00 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Why do we categorize emotions as good or bad? All emotions are part of who we are and what make us whole. |
Because some emotions are good for you and some emotions are bad for you. |
This is the lamest statement I've seen in this thread.
So, life should be all happy smiles and joy? I guess you can have that for a while if you keep popping the valium, but that's not living. How do you know if you're happy if you've never been sad?
You can say the same thing about food, some food is good for you and some food is bad. Are you ready for a life of only grilled chicken and steamed veggies? |
No one said you shouldn't encounter other emotions??? What thread are you reading? Please don't read more into it then what I typed. Obviously life has it's ups and downs and you need to experince everything to be complete.
I believe it has been proven that prolonged anger or sadness is physically bad for your body. I would not call that a lame argument??? |
I read exactly what you typed. How is taking away a lollipop for a few seconds prolonged sadness??
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:55:13 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by frisca:
theSaj -- I understand the point you are trying to make, but you're comparing apples (death, tragedy) to oranges (some tears at a minor slight.) No mother wants their child to experience tragic death or disease, but I don't know of any mother, especially my own, who shields her child from normal human emotions and experiences. |
I didn't/don't shield my children (now 14, 16, and 20) from experiencing life. I also would not have let anyone intentionally provoke a tantrum. In everyday life, a tantrum provoking situation is usually a learning opportunity. Cereal can be eaten in any color bowl, no candy before dinner, brothers must be tolerated. What can be learned about an adult, probably a stranger (unless they knew the photographer) taking away your candy and making you sit in a chair to have your tantrum while they take pictures of you? Maybe you will learn not to trust people who give you candy, maybe you will learn a studio is a bad place, maybe you will learn to hate cameras. I just can't see intentionally making a 3 year old miserable for however long those kids were crying.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:57:47 PM · #128 |
[/quote]
I read exactly what you typed. How is taking away a lollipop for a few seconds prolonged sadness?? [/quote]
Those kids were crying for longer than a few seconds, some a lot longer.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 04:00:11 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Originally posted by frisca:
theSaj -- I understand the point you are trying to make, but you're comparing apples (death, tragedy) to oranges (some tears at a minor slight.) No mother wants their child to experience tragic death or disease, but I don't know of any mother, especially my own, who shields her child from normal human emotions and experiences. |
I didn't/don't shield my children (now 14, 16, and 20) from experiencing life. I also would not have let anyone intentionally provoke a tantrum. In everyday life, a tantrum provoking situation is usually a learning opportunity. Cereal can be eaten in any color bowl, no candy before dinner, brothers must be tolerated. What can be learned about an adult, probably a stranger (unless they knew the photographer) taking away your candy and making you sit in a chair to have your tantrum while they take pictures of you? Maybe you will learn not to trust people who give you candy, maybe you will learn a studio is a bad place, maybe you will learn to hate cameras. I just can't see intentionally making a 3 year old miserable for however long those kids were crying. |
It'll learn them not to take candy from strangers, just like their mom said! Do it and you'll cry for HOURS. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 04:02:24 PM · #130 |
If I were the photographer and I happened to stumble upon this thread, I would be overjoyed at the emotions my images had provoked. That's what art is all about... triggering emotions. :-)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 04:16:58 PM · #131 |
The kid isn't going to know if you're taking away the lollipop to mess with him or if you're taking it away from him because he doesn't deserve it.
Seriously, guys, if you're that worked up over making kids cry for this little incident, try looking at some real child abuse and do something about that.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 04:18:55 PM · #132 |
theSaj -- I understand the point you are trying to make, but you're comparing apples (death, tragedy) to oranges (some tears at a minor slight.) No mother wants their child to experience tragic death or disease, but I don't know of any mother, especially my own, who shields her child from normal human emotions and experiences.
My point was specifically to the comment that emotions were neither "good" nor "bad"....which is frankly bullshit, and I put it in hyperbole to show just how stupid such a statement was.
Of course there is a significant difference between death and tragedy, and taking a lollipop away. I had already distinguished that point in earlier statements. My point was directed specifically to kosmikkreeper's comment "There isn't "good" and "bad" in emotions. Emotions are just emotions."
Which frankly is junk...
Is letting a baby feel discomfort and pain from hunger and just letting it cry the same as a moment where the baby is well fed and happy because it's receiving attention. Of course not. Sure, there are times babies will cry. They do that.
But to say such moments are no different than happy moments is insane.
"I didn't/don't shield my children (now 14, 16, and 20) from experiencing life. "
No, we endeavor to make sure our children learn from challenging situations in their childhood in hopes of preparing them for the plethora of more challenging situations that occur in adulthood.
That said, there is a difference between evaluating a situation to determine if it is a good & safe learning experience and actively being the protagonist.
"Cereal can be eaten in any color bowl, no candy before dinner, brothers must be tolerated."
Of course....and I never said otherwise. My issue with this photographer is that I found it extremely hypocritical to complain about the world situation and then be the protagonist in discomforting children so she can make her political statements. Shatters the ENTIRE point of her artistic endeavor IMHO. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 04:20:54 PM · #133 |
| All i got to say is WOW!! The work is GReat....and those crying kids... just make me feel sad....i know if i had a kid i dont know if i could stand being in the room while they were been photographed...... i duno |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 04:22:03 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Why do we categorize emotions as good or bad? All emotions are part of who we are and what make us whole. |
Because some emotions are good for you and some emotions are bad for you. |
This is the lamest statement I've seen in this thread.
So, life should be all happy smiles and joy? I guess you can have that for a while if you keep popping the valium, but that's not living. How do you know if you're happy if you've never been sad?
You can say the same thing about food, some food is good for you and some food is bad. Are you ready for a life of only grilled chicken and steamed veggies? |
No one said you shouldn't encounter other emotions??? What thread are you reading? Please don't read more into it then what I typed. Obviously life has it's ups and downs and you need to experince everything to be complete.
I believe it has been proven that prolonged anger or sadness is physically bad for your body. I would not call that a lame argument??? |
I read exactly what you typed. How is taking away a lollipop for a few seconds prolonged sadness?? |
Where the heck did I say taking a lollipop away is prolonged sadness???? Please provide a quote of something I said that would lead you to beleive that. Also please provide a quote of something I typed that would lead you to believe that I think everything should be "all happy smiles and joy."
Please re-read our above conversation very closely. You asked a "philosophical" question about emotions. I answered with a medical fact that might answer your question. You assumed by pointing out the fact that I meant that no one should ever experince "bad" emotions. That was an incorrect assumption as I do not believe that at all. I tried to clarify, and now you are assuming that I think taking a lollipop away from a 3 year old one time is prolonged sadness???? Again, incorrect assumption. If you read one of my other posts in this thread, I actually said I didn't think it was a big deal doing it once or twice! Now, if you insist on replying again, please stop assuming and try to stick with things I have actually typed.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 04:51:46 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Why do we categorize emotions as good or bad? All emotions are part of who we are and what make us whole. |
Because some emotions are good for you and some emotions are bad for you. |
This is the lamest statement I've seen in this thread.
So, life should be all happy smiles and joy? I guess you can have that for a while if you keep popping the valium, but that's not living. How do you know if you're happy if you've never been sad?
You can say the same thing about food, some food is good for you and some food is bad. Are you ready for a life of only grilled chicken and steamed veggies? |
No one said you shouldn't encounter other emotions??? What thread are you reading? Please don't read more into it then what I typed. Obviously life has it's ups and downs and you need to experince everything to be complete.
I believe it has been proven that prolonged anger or sadness is physically bad for your body. I would not call that a lame argument??? |
I read exactly what you typed. How is taking away a lollipop for a few seconds prolonged sadness?? |
Where the heck did I say taking a lollipop away is prolonged sadness???? Please provide a quote of something I said that would lead you to beleive that. Also please provide a quote of something I typed that would lead you to believe that I think everything should be "all happy smiles and joy."
Please re-read our above conversation very closely. You asked a "philosophical" question about emotions. I answered with a medical fact that might answer your question. You assumed by pointing out the fact that I meant that no one should ever experince "bad" emotions. That was an incorrect assumption as I do not believe that at all. I tried to clarify, and now you are assuming that I think taking a lollipop away from a 3 year old one time is prolonged sadness???? Again, incorrect assumption. If you read one of my other posts in this thread, I actually said I didn't think it was a big deal doing it once or twice! Now, if you insist on replying again, please stop assuming and try to stick with things I have actually typed. |
Look again and you will see that I did not ask the original question.
Your answer was that some emotions are good and others are bad. You provided nothing to indicate what makes an emotion good or bad for you. Since the original discussion in this thread was about taking a lollipop away from a 3 year old to make them cry in pursuit of some artistic goal, the obvious conclusion, since you did not specifically state any other, is that the emotions evoked by taking away the lollipop are somehow bad and should be avoided.
You attempted clarify this and say it has been proven that prolonged anger or sadness have a detrimental effect on your body. The key word here is "prolonged". If it takes prolonging to make anger or sadness "bad" and the emotional response (sadness) from removing a lollipop is "bad" then either the response from having the lollipop is "bad" or your reasoning is wrong.
If you don't want people to fill in the blanks in your statements, don't leave the blanks open.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 05:28:58 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Look again and you will see that I did not ask the original question. |
Correct. I assumed that you asked the question since you responded so aggresivly to my answer. That was bad of me, I should have looked closer. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your answer was that some emotions are good and others are bad. You provided nothing to indicate what makes an emotion good or bad for you. |
My answer was "Because some emotions are good for you and some emotions are bad for you" (note the "for you" part). I didn't think I needed to say that any more clearly. I also figured if someone wanted more clarification they would ask rather then assume.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Since the original discussion in this thread was about taking a lollipop away from a 3 year old to make them cry in pursuit of some artistic goal, the obvious conclusion, since you did not specifically state any other, is that the emotions evoked by taking away the lollipop are somehow bad and should be avoided. |
If you read the question that I answered, it was a "philosophical" question about why we think that way in general. I answered in general. The question and my answer was a step away from the original topic of the post.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You attempted clarify this and say it has been proven that prolonged anger or sadness have a detrimental effect on your body. The key word here is "prolonged". If it takes prolonging to make anger or sadness "bad" and the emotional response (sadness) from removing a lollipop is "bad" then either the response from having the lollipop is "bad" or your reasoning is wrong. |
I added the word prolonged, because I didn't want anyone to think that I was saying one or two instances can cause harm to you. Again, I was answering Kosmik's general question that was a step removed from the original topic. I in no was typed, meant or implied that taking a lollipop pop away from a 3 year old is prolonged sadness. In fact, in another post on this thread I said the opposite.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you don't want people to fill in the blanks in your statements, don't leave the blanks open. |
If you are not sure what someone means, asking them to clarify is much wiser then assuming and calling their argument lame.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 05:31:58 PM · #137 |
And... I made this post earlier, which pretty much covers my opinion on every aspect of this topic. If there are any blanks you want me to fill in, please ask.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
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 05:44:37 PM · #138 |
I'm a big blue meanie because I took this today: 
Of course, I didn't do anything to make her cry. Another child had accidently knocked her down. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 07:24:21 PM · #139 |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 07:25:39 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you don't want people to fill in the blanks in your statements, don't leave the blanks open. |
If you are not sure what someone means, asking them to clarify is much wiser then assuming and calling their argument lame. |
Your argument that some emotions are "good" and some are "bad" is still lame. ANY emotion can be fit into either category.
It's like food, too much of anything is bad, but no one food in and of itself is bad. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:04:12 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
 |
LOL!!!!
I don't like this particular collection, and not just because I think they're creepy. They just don't do it for me. How'd she get those poor kids to look like they're made out of hard plastic? Why are they ALL topless? To me, that's as creepy as making those poor kids cry.
However, I was looking at some of her other stuff, and I think that it's A-freaking-mazing. This collection is beneath her abilities. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 09:54:37 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
|
That is just perfect...LOL Pass some this way...
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 10:13:13 PM · #143 |
as i said :
i think i would start to cry if i take a lolipop from him :-)
EDIT: bump :-)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 10:14:09 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your argument that some emotions are "good" and some are "bad" is still lame. ANY emotion can be fit into either category. |
Correct, I'm lame. Sorry for any inconvience.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 10:33:56 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your argument that some emotions are "good" and some are "bad" is still lame. ANY emotion can be fit into either category. |
Correct, I'm lame. Sorry for any inconvience. |
No, you aren't lame. Just the statement you made. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 11:42:52 PM · #146 |
This is the longest thread I have ever read and one of the more interesting ones too. I personally don't see a big problem with this. I have seen mothers smack the crap out of their kids hands or butt for touching knick knacks that they refuse to put out of the childs range of temptation. I've seen moms say, no, you cant go with me to the store that sparks an insane asylum of emotion.
These photoshoots all probably take place in less than 3 minutes and then they get their lolly and are on their way. Sometimes just sitting a kid on a table and moving 5 foot away can spark this type of drama. Some of those kids probably didn't even need a lolly to go into this meltdown.
I like the photos, yes, a little disturbing, but I like that. I wouldn't want to dwell on this type of photography, but apparently it's just a small part of what she does. Who knows, maybe she was experimenting and has since moved on to other things.
It's been fun reading you guy's comments though!! Lots of good points brought out by all.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 12:12:03 AM · #147 |
I agree with LoudDog's statements.
We, as parents are given the task of protecting our children. I don't feel that allowing another adult to taunt children is protecting them. If this were another child teasing your child with lollipops or anything else, would you react? Of course you would! So...does having a little cash and publicity make the scenario right? No way! |
|
|
|
04/20/2006 12:14:30 AM · #148 |
To anyone who expresses outrage at the manipulation of children for photographic enterprise:
Please confirm that you have never, and will never, asked a child to say "Cheese" for a photograph.
Smiling and crying are two extremes of the same emotional line. How is it permissible to evoke one emotion, but inexcusable to evoke the other?
Fin.
(O.K. not so Fin. I did also want to say that I think the pictures are powerful, and emotive, so the artist (please realize that these are, indeed art) has met her goal. I'm technically slightly turned off by the excessive, IMO, hair lighting... Great shots though.)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 12:18:03 AM · #149 |
Un-fin part 2:
Oh, and I just looked at the photos again... On the second one that the gallery has highlighted in the press release, "Mercury," the child's tounge is clearly discolored from having just reciently had a lollypop (or some other candy). So to anyone who thinks she's slapping the kids around, there's some (anctidotal, at least) evedince to the contrary.
I'll actually be in LA towards the middle of June and I will go see this exhibit.
---A
Message edited by author 2006-04-20 00:23:19.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 12:24:50 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by livitup:
To anyone who expresses outrage at the manipulation of children for photographic enterprise:
Please confirm that you have never, and will never, asked a child to say "Cheese" for a photograph.
Smiling and crying are two extremes of the same emotional line. How is it permissible to evoke one emotion, but inexcusable to evoke the other?
|
For the same reason it is ok to tickle a child but not ok to slap them across the face. IMO :o)
|
|
