The fact that the children are unclothed kind of disturbs me a little.
I'm with you; why would a parent subject their child to that?
That bothered me, too, as I went through the slide show. As far as doing that to little children purposely, that is horrible. I don't think well of that woman. She is up there with the woman who writes how boring her children are.
Love and shalom,
I always think the same thing when I see a baby or toddler crying in a movie. They don't know it's just pretend and they're obviously frightened. Why would any parent do that to their child?
I think they're cute. We have pictures of our kids crying. We didn't make them cry, to pose for a photo, we just took advantage of the opportunity. But still, taking away a lollipop is not the end of the world. I think the "artists" political statements are a little silly, but again, they're cute pictures. Chill out folks.
I must agree with Andrew on this one. If all those faces where because of the loss of a lolipop that they probably got back within minutes with more. If that on a one time basis causes kids to have irreversible psyhcological damange then heaven forbid what growing up in a family with siblings will do to them and parents that may say the wrong thing at the wrong time or a hundred other little things. As for them being topless many kids all around the world swim like that or even walk around half naked and there is absolutely nothing sexual about it
I disagree with using children for one's political statements. Crying or smiling, using children for your own political agenda is wrong.
I find the pictures upsetting, which is probably what the photographer was aiming for. It bothers me that she used small children to express her own anger.
How can anyone say that it doesn't affect the children? Giving a child a lollipop and then taking it away so that they will cry is breaking trust with that child. Giving the lollipop back only teaches the child about a sick sense of humor, it doesn't create a bond between them.
Spunky said:
"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."
How true!
Andrew, there's one thing to taking picture of your own children when they are crying, it's quite another to take off the clothes of a small child, give them a treat, take it away, and then take photos. Intentionally hurting someone (especially small children) no matter how small the duration for personal gain is sick behavior.
While there maybe no "no long term" damage, is that society's new definition of abuse? There are lots of things that an adult could do that children will not remember or that wouldn't cause "long term damage" but are still sick and perverse for any reasonable adult to think and do to a child.
And in my mind, it's even more bizarre that others would look at them and find them "cute".
You may think this is an over reaction but there used to be a time when we protected our children from harm. Now we exploit them to entertain us and call it "art".
Spunky, I concur, that is abuse! When you bully little children, stripping them down, leaving them even more vulnerable than a child naturally is, and their mothers are standing right there (or even worse abandoning them!), there is no other word for it. The Webster's 1828 dictionary partially defines abuse as:
"To use ill; to maltreat; to misuse; to use with bad motives or to wrong purposes. To deceive; to impose on. To treat rudely."
Two things went through my mind as I read this post:
1)A good man out of the treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure in his heart bringeth forth that which is evil -Luke 6:44
And...
2)"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven". -Matthew 18:10 Boy, will this lady have some explaining to do...
And Spunky it doesn't stop with the camera click. Did you notice how much people are paying for these "works of art?"
"Editions of 10 Starting at $4,500"
(from the "Gallery" site)
My heart just wants to go and comfort each of them.
Wow, I hadn't seen the price. It's sad that anyone puts that much value in something like this.
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.
Then we'd have to apply the rod accross the board and I'm sure there are plenty of instances of poor choices we all have made in raising our children. Maybe we don't just sit and give them lollipops and take them away, but I know there is a large faction of homeschoolers that believe that for the parent to assert authority is "disrespectful."
Or dropping off a child with another caretaker...it often illicits the same response. We may all disagree as to the lasting harm and the overall parenting of someone who does that consistently, or better things to do. It certainly scales worse than taking away a lollipop...but I don't think the limited times I have needed someone to watch my child despite tears of protest because I had an appointment or whatever counts as abuse.
It is the motivation more than anything that is disturbing, but can we always determine motivation so easily? We cannot tell the heart of man. If I were to absentmindedly give my child a treat after a dentist appointment then, remembering the 30 minutes she wasn't to have anything, take it away again, would it be abusive? I don't think so.
Sorry...I've just been hearing the word thrown around a lot lately, and it is starting to get to me.
These images don't look like children who have just had a lollipop pulled from their little mouths or hands... this looks like a child at the end of a tantrum. I can recall the look on my chldren's faces at the end of a long tiring day when they are so upset because they are tired and we are trying to calm them and get them to relax. That kind of exhaustion crying is the reaction I see on the faces of the children in those images. It makes me so sad and, frankly, angry at the adults who did this on purpose.
PS - I apologize for the poor writing skills above. I am aggravated.
Let me clarify:
"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? If I give my daughter a lollipop and she immediately begins taunting someone with it, she'll lose it. If she were to make some sarcastic comment like "it's about time" she'd lose it to the next waste basket. Obviously that is a bit different as it is a consequence, but how well can the state determine the difference?
Hopefully the parents were present and reviewed what was happening and determined that it would be of no lasting harm to shed a few tears. I disagree with them, and wouldn't subject my child to that no matter the benefit...but I won't advocate the removal of children from their parents without evidence of a larger pattern of damaging behavior.
Dana, I'm not calling this "criminal abuse" but it is abuse. I liked the definition used in the comment above. I'm not saying that this woman should be prosecuted or the parents found neglectful. 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. 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 definer of public behavior. Public shame could have a very positive impact where the criminal system will 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.
I heartily agree with that, Spunky. It is sad that people are so afraid to offend. I think it has to do with the feminization of society. But then, that is another topic.
To the person who wasn't disturbed by their nakedness, there are a lot of pervs and predators that love to look at pics of children like that. It'll probably sell more of the pics for that female that took them. That is extremely sad!
Love and shalom,
I understand where you are coming from, but I do believe there should be uniform standards. And I'm tired of the term being thrown around. Interestingly, at the time Webster wrote his definition, children were used in a much harsher fashion than today. Whipped with belts which most of us today would find abusive, working long hours in the fields and factories, which today we consider exploitation. "Nurturing" was not much of a concept recognized by a good deal of parents, and children weren't removed from the home. There was no CPS. Students were rapped on the knuckles in school, leaving their hands swollen...for swinging their feet too much, not knowing their lessons and not completing their lessons. Something our culture today would never tolerate from paid public educators. Children were raised with the rod, and it was not seen as gentle correction, but a true "thrashing."
By the same interpretation, most homeschoolers will fall into the definition of abuse...a good deal of the secular homeschoolers and secular America in generall feel we are decieving our children by teaching them our religious values. In fact, that seems to be spelled out in the UN treaty regarding the rights of the child. Some of them object rather heartily to common forms of discipline in Chrisitan homes...I'm not talking about the Pearls, but when outcry is raised over a swat on the hand, something is amiss. And Christians, in return, view the lack of authority (at least in perception) taken by parents of unschoolers to be "sinful."
Homeschooling itself is viewed as abusive, ill treatment, as imposing on our children by way of denying the rights of free association in the schools...and perhaps for the wrong purposes at that. At the very least, we are "imposing" our values on them.
It is a very serious charge...and please realize that I come from a background working with these children which makes me a tad on the sensitive side when the word is brought up. I know what abuse looks like. I've seen the emotional scars, the detached children, the sickening files. There is no comparison.
I don't have a problem with the outcry or speaking out against it. But let's assume that the natural effect shall be yet another law. How do we want that law to read?
Criminal abuse rises to the level of necessitating state involvement. What else do we have? Casual abuse? It still should have some sort of lasting harm above and beyond a temper tantrum. That in no way indicates that I have any less distaste for the actions of this woman or question her overall character any less. But I'm more likely to call "abuse" with the parent who tells her child "no" three times in the store and then gives in. The child is happy, but there are long term consequences to this behaviour pattern. And the parent is inducing multiple temper tantrums...training their children to have one every time they confront the word no. I still just call it bad pa
(continuted)
I still just call it bad parenting, however.
This woman should not make a profit off doing this to children. It is offensive, and I don't think we should tolerate businesses (or atrists) who utilize other human beings in this fashion, especially children.
The children are definitely being "used." A low level of "exploitation" perhaps.
exploit: To make use of selfishly or unethically (from Answers.com...Webster's 1828 is of no use on this one : )
I agree that these children are being exploited...this denotes both selfish and unethical use of a child. But it fails the test of lasting physical or psycological harm that I believe is necessary to term something as abuse, whether that be criminal or not.
My stance isn't about not wanting to offend anyone. And it isn't about curtailing public outrage. I'm connecting this to a much broader "trend" I seem to notice that entails using the term abuse rather liberally. I object only to the word "abuse" not to the outcry against it.
I understand your point. But public shame isn't easy to garner. It takes quite a few understanding and supporting a certain "societal standard" to have any effect one way or the other. I think we are in agreement that the behavior is reprehensible but might differ on the actual vocabulary used to condemn the action. Perhaps abuse may be too strong for some, but distasteful is clearly too weak. This goes beyond just what I prefer to see in a photograph which would be a matter of taste. This hits to the core of what we as a society will tolerate as art. And what if any recourse we have to prevent this women and others like her from profitting from such behavior.
By the way, if you click on the link to the updated post at the bottom, there is a photographer who is condemning Ms. Greenberg quite harshly. He believes the sessions went beyond just a quick shoot, to the point where parents were asked to leave to the room, in order to get the children to cooperate.
Honestly, I think it is really bad taste. I'm not sure I'd call it abuse, but I do think it is awful to make a child go naked, give them a treat, whip it away and snap them pitching a fit for it. Maybe not classic abuse, but very poor taste.
And $4,500. Oh my. I wouldn't pay that for GOOD art (love art, just no budget for it).
This is just one more thing that makes me shake my head and stand in amazement of how far we've slidden down the slope of morality.
Andrew, I'm just curious, how would you view the photos of this were done to an elderly person who was not able to communicate their unwillingness to particpate but a legal guardian gave them permission? How about someone who is mentally disabled? Assuming that a similar "non abusive" form was used to make them react in a similar fashion, after they were stripped of their clothing. Maybe they were shown a photograph of a past person or event in their life which produced similar emotions. Does the subject of the photograph or their age change make a difference? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to learn.
Whatever else it is, it's cruel. That one could profit from deliberate cruelty seems wrong. I can't look at any of those pictures long. And I have on many occasions laughed (Inside) at my own kids silly tantrums, while thinking how beautiful they are even angry. I even have pictures of them crying as babies, because it was so rare, and they looked like such funny little old people.
BUt I"m disturbed by these pictures.
These children were given a sucker and then the "artist" removed it from them - and it illicited THESE faces? Surely not. These children appear to have been crying for an extended time. My goodness. My heart breaks for the children when I look at them.
My 9 yr old walked in while those pics were on my screen. Her response? "I think the reason that they're crying that hard is because someone has done something that is cruel to them. I think it's VERY SCARY Mom what people will take pictures of these days. Why would a woman be so MEAN to children? I think the reason they're crying that hard is because the parents left the room. Because I KNOW they're not in there or she couldn't take those pictures. They wouldn't let her, I'm sure, especially they wouldn't let her take their clothes off."
What wisdom! Too bad Jill Greenberg doesn't demonstrate such wisdom.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hug that wise little girl and apologize for her having to see such a thing!!
What about the passage about parents not provoking their children to wrath? I'm sure that would apply to them letting someone else do it. My son is somewhere on the autistic spectrum. There are some things that I do, unintentionaly, that freak him out. The terror just overwhelms him. Even simple things, he has no clue why they just happened. Children need security and people they can trust. What kind of trust would it build with my son, if I let another adult provoke him to wrath while I am standing right there? Is this the way God treats His children? Does He yank things away from us for His fun and profit while it does us no good?
Exactly Leigh Ann. I also thought of the scripture "whatever you do to the least of these you have done unto me."
I think "expoit" more accurately defines what is going on. My problem with abuse is that, while there are levels of it, their should be longterm negative effects to be considered abuse. There will be none, if lollipops are indeed the only issue. Or even if just the absence of mom (which would more likley garner such an expression).
I wish to be very careful about the exact language used because it can and will be turned around and used against homeschoolers if our definition of abuse is too broad and too imprecise. And really, there is greater lasting harm to the child subjected to second-hand smoke in a vehicle than what these children endured with the taking of a lollipop and perhaps several minutes of separation anxiety. If something else went on, the woman belongs in prison...and I'd hope these parents would be the first to prosecute.
Please don't think that because I focus on this word that I'm any less outraged that anyone would call this art or that anyone would subject their child to this. Public discourse and outrage is called for...and education about the matter so people know what is going on.
I'm just looking a little past this issue and connecting it to the ever broadening range of people who view conservative Christianity as "abusive" and wsh to be sure that whatever definitions we agree on, legally or socially, cannot be used to call down any more cries of abuse on parents who "indoctrinate" their children, use corporal punishment (no matter how minor or infrequently), assert authority in choosing friendships and activities, reject what is considered solid educational methodology and teach a curriculum that is outside of state standards, perhaps even leaving out "vital" subjects such as evolution. All of these examples, widely found in Christian homes, could fit under the Webster's definition of abuse because it is not specific enough. Probably because child abuse was hardly on his mind. Actually, this is going on longer than I intended...I'll take it up on my blog.
I understand what you're saying Dana. Words are important. While some sort of outrage is called for, how we express that outrage should also be considered. Good food for thought.
ok, went on a little longer than intended and really is two posts spliced into one, but here it is: Children as Images
If she wanted a child crying while taking pictures, just send her to any Sears Portrait Studio. She'll have plenty of children crying or frowning. Mine's one of them.
"Parents do not exasperate your children...." (somewhere in the Bible I know I just can't find it)
Amy Jo in AZ, I got a real kick out of your comment 
, my husband used to be a RM with Walmart portrait studios ...
Exactly Leigh Ann!!!
I'm glad my previous comment came out useful Spunky .
Dana, I think I know what you're getting at and I don't think we *exactly* disagree but I can't bring myself to call this stuff simply "distasteful" 
. It does fit the definition of the word abuse, maybe we need to find a more harsh word to use for the more severe abuse.
I completely agree with you Spunky that there is a difference between "criminal" abuse and the "lesser" abuses. I don't think that this lady should be jailed because she took lollipops away from toddlers but I don't see how she got that many children to look so tortured by simply taking candy from babies...when my husband saw the picture on Michelle Malkin's website he said, "That girl looks like someone's coming after her with an axe!". That had been my first thought exactly!
I call it something a little stronger than "distasteful." I realize my comments have been rather lengthy, but exploitation rings truer.
I don't think it fits abuse because there will be no lasting harm to the child. And as much as I LOVE Webster's 1828, I think it is too vague to be useful, largely because child abuse wasn't what he was referring to.
It was not considered an issue in 1828. And this woman could have whipped these children to get them to cry for all anyone cared, so long as the parents said it was ok. Children were largely considered property. The first laws to protect children weren't to come out for 50 years, AFTER animal cruelty laws.
Think about the condition of children in the 1800's. Children were maimed in child labor facilities and it scarcely raised an eyebrow. This wouldn't have been considered anything touching abuse back then.
If she did something more, she deserves to be jailed. But for the moment, I'm not so quick to judge. I've seen some awful temper tantrums over less. She said some started the moment they were put on the platform. Young children will do that.
She also added the lighting effects which highlight the anger...making their skin shiny like one might expect a thoroughly worn out, sweaty child to be.
I'm not defending her in the least, but I think there is nothing to be gained by throwing out accusations against what we think must have happened based on our impression of what would or wouldn't make a child scream like that.
I also would guess she took many photos of each child and chose the one that looked the most anguished.
I've had to give up on photo shoots at the store because my daughter wouldn't stop crying. It doesn't take much.
The "use" of children for ANY adult purpose, whether it be making a political statement with a preposterous photograph or the utter evil of child pornography, is simply wicked.
Children are entrusted to our care and nurture. Those parents should be publicly humiliated along with that incompetent photographer.
When we, as parents, PERMIT the "use" of our children for ANYTHING, we open the door to all manner of evil. How dare we feign shock over the abuses that children suffer in our post modern society! We've permitted it.
Wow, I'm in the minority here! Just a couple points in my defense:
1) They're only "naked" from the waist up, which is how my three boys have spent about 90% of their childhood. If some weirdo gets off on that, that's his problem. Ever seen those Anne Geddes photos of naked babies? Nobody things those are sexual.
2) I can't conclude that the subjects are being "tortured". My boys at that age could really throw down a major tantrum at the very slightest inconvenience. Taking away candy? - Yup, that would do the trick! Heck, they look like that almost every time we have to leave Grandma's house, or McDonalds (please don't think I'm abusing my children by feeding them fast food once in a while)...
3) As someone else noted, the photos have been digitally enhanced to make the kids appear more hot and bothered. Touching up the red cheeks and the glistening sweat. We've all seen photos of ourselves wherein we were trying to SMILE that we come out looking like we were being attacked by an axe murderer. She probably took 50 shots or more of each child and used the one that caught them in their very worst moment of expression.
4) Again, I dislike the artist's political statement, but the kids are darn cute.
5) If I wasn't able to find them cute and laugh a little when they cried, I would go nuts, because they do it a LOT!
This may be a male vs female response we see here. I know I won't persaude many angry mommas to see things my way. You feel very protective, but see if your husbands don't agree with me a little bit.
PS - The link by my signature is my wife's blog, not my own. She may disagree wth me on this one, so if you did visit, please don't judge her by my comments here.
PS2 - I really enjoy your blog, Spunky, it's been a great source of encouragement as we begin homeschooling our 3, 4, and 5 year old boys. I don't mean to be a disagreeable troll, just sharing my two cents.
Thanks for the perspective. I hadn't considered the male / female perspective. Although, if you go back to the post I updated it with a link to a hotographer who is disturbed by the photos. He blogged it and Ms. Greenberg has threatened to sue and called his employer to fire him.
Oh brother! These pictures are sad, sad, sad!! I don't get the naked part either. I know there are kids in other countries that walk around naked. And my baby is in just a diaper right now because it's really hot and we don't have AC. But these pictures seem weird to me. Kids cry enough without being provoked to cry so I think capturing a moment when your child is crying is ok (I even have some of my kids crying). But to take off a kid's clothes and make them cry is just weird and wrong. I can't look at the pictures they are too sad. They are SOOOOO young too!! There is no way that they can understand why an adult (someone who should be protecting them!!!) would take pictures of them naked and make them cry. NOT that anyone needs to understand that. It's really bazaar and creepy what this lady is doing. I feel really sad for those poor kids. What are these parents thinking (perhaps they are not thinking)?? UGH!!! =(
I wanted to add that most of us would not look at pictures of a naked baby/child and think it is sexual. BUT there are men (called pedophiles) that would see these pictures and think it's totally sexual. It's really sad but SO true.
=(
Dana, your thoughts are well expressed on your blog. You make a good point.
Thanks, Spunky. It's so rare we disagree on much of anything : )
It may seem somewhat trivial as the only real difference is in the words, but at the same time I do not wish to have the definition of abuse broadened any. That is the problem with the UN's CRC. The definitions are too broad and can be used to bring down restrictions on any number of regular family activities.
Commenting by HaloScan
