Spunky Homeschool

Art or Abuse?

Jul. 28, 2006 at 9:56 PM

Homeschooling


What do you think?...
Photographer Jill Greenberg has whipped up a storm of controversy with her new exhibition, End Times. The pictures in the show, for which she deliberately provoked tearful outbursts from children by taking away lollipops she had just given them, have been described by some as tantamount to child abuse.
Greenburg titles each piece of "art work" to "to depict what she says reminded her of the "helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation."

Greenburg answers the charge of abuse in an interview with PopPhoto magazine,

Your images have certainly caused an uproar. What do you say to people who call you a child abuser?

I think they're insane...Maybe getting kids to cry isn't the nicest thing to do, but I'm not causing anyone permanent psychological damage.

How can someone who is this psychologically derranged possibly determine if she caused permanent damage to another person let alone a child? And what parent would subject their own children to this?

The title of the exhibit is "End Times". The end times, isn't that when good will be called evil and evil will be called good? Or in this case, "art".
 
This also demonstrates why just teaching our children knowledge isn't enough, they must learn wisdom. Knowledge is understanding how to use a camera, wisdom is understanding when to use it.
 
From the comments on my Blogger blog...

Shelby provided a defintion of abuse from Websters 1828 Dictionary
"To use ill; to maltreat; to misuse; to use with bad motives or to wrong purposes. To deceive; to impose on. To treat rudely."
This seems to meet that definition.

Dana said,

I don't know...I'm not one to throw around the word abuse. In poor taste, definitely. Do I question why parents would allow their children to go through it? Yes. Do I question her overall concern with real people over what she wishes to express? Yes. But I can't quite go so far as to call it abusive.

"The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act defines child abuse and neglect as: "at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker,
which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."Anything short of that is just distasteful, or perhaps poor parenting. This example, while disheartening, does not come close to compare with what real abuse is. The only logical conclusion from the accusation of abuse is that these children should be removed by the state and put into custody. And do we want that sort of precedent?

There is another option. Here is my response,

I'm not calling this "criminal abuse" but it is abuse. I liked the definition used by Webster's 1828 Dictionary provided by Shelby. I'm not saying that this woman should be prosecuted or the parents found negligent. There is another option, public shame.I don't think that we as a society should just call anything that doesn't meet the criminal definition of abuse something less than that. The state's bar for abuse doesn't have to be the same as what society will tolerate as abuse. As a civilized society, I don't think it's just in poor taste to purposefully upset another person for profit or to make a political statement. This woman is doing both, and with children. That in my opinion is just beyond distasteful. It is not the same as a mother, realizing an error and causing a child to be upset.

Public outrage and shame are useful tools in a civil society to cause someone to think about their actions and consider things differently. In fact, we used to employ them quite often. Sadly, our society is so afraid to "offend" that we tolerate that which is abuse because it doesn't rise to the level of "criminal behavior" and a state definition. I don't want the state to be the only arbitor of public behavior or its definitions.

Public shame could have a very positive impact where the criminal system might only punish her; public shame may cause others not to purchase them and the museum to pull them. That elevates the whole standard in our society and we all benefit from a little more civility and common decency.

Just how effective is public shame? Just ask blogger Thomas Hawks. Ms. Greenberg is trying to get him to stop blogging about her and her photographs. In Ms. Greenberg's worldview it's apparently okay to provoke children to tears and photograph them as a public statement, but wrong for a blogger to express his opinion about them and provoke her. (I wonder if anyone captured her outrage for the camera. I'd bet those photos would be priceless.)
 
Michelle Malkin has more links.

Related Tags: , , , ,

9 Comments and Trackbacks

posted by on Jul. 29, 2006 at 1:23 AM

Well, is it any surprise this is the artist's attitude? This is the same mentality that doesn't think partial birth abortion...well, any abortion, is murder...to them it's a choice.

Hence, inflicting pain on a child isn't abuse...it's the artist's choice.

Oh, wait....choices....hmm...that only applies to abortion and child abuse, not how our children should be educated, right?





Edited by eyecorn on Jul. 28, 2006 at 10:58 PM

posted by KarenW on Jul. 29, 2006 at 1:49 AM

And who but the psychologically derranged wants to look at a bunch of pictures of crying children?

posted by Anonymous on Jul. 29, 2006 at 3:05 AM

What kind of parents would allow this to happen? In the name of "art?" Take kids clothes off, make them cry and then click, click, click?

She is really sick, sick, sick. That isn't art in my book, and it is abuse. owever, I do think she appropriately named the travesty, don't you?

Nancy

posted by hsmomof2 on Jul. 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM

What kind of parents would allow their kids to be subjected to this? Are you kidding? There are loads of folks who would love to have their kids photos taken and displayed publicly. Dreams of fame... much more important than taking care of the children.

Really, there is no shortage of people just as twisted as this woman. But don't you bet crying babies in commercials are photographed by the same methods?

posted by spunkyhomeschool on Jul. 29, 2006 at 1:08 PM

I guess you're right about the money aspect. I haven't watched TV in over 15 years so I'm not up on what's on the latest commercials. But I can only imagine what might be there.

posted by CommunicationFUNdamentals on Jul. 29, 2006 at 4:08 PM

While I don't feel her actions are "actionable", I certainly wouldn't subject my children to this kind of abuse!

I bet she thinks it takes a lot of talent to do this. It doesn't take much talent to make a child cry! The real talent is in those who can make a child laugh!

JoJo

posted by missAnonymous on Jul. 29, 2006 at 4:16 PM

that's such a sad picture of the little baby. well, how are you? soo, telll the schmidts that i said hey...

posted by LovetheLord on Jul. 29, 2006 at 6:10 PM

i do not like that picture.

posted by Anonymous on Jul. 31, 2006 at 8:28 PM

Perhaps society's loud, "SHAME ON YOU!" would be appropriate?

Oh, that's what Mr Hawks is apparently trying to do........

Post a comment!