You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

What a Child Sees

What a Child Sees by Thomas Hawk.
The Post Where Jill Greenberg Thinks She Can Intimidate Me by Contacting My Employer

Jill Greenberg. Artist. Advocate of free speech and expression. Except when someone disagrees with her and is critical of her work and methods.

Some of you may recall that recently I have been upset by the methods of photographer Jill Greenberg in dealing with and photographing children. Jill is the one who strips kids down and then works them up into a state of emotional distress and then shoots them distraught and in anguish, tears running down their little face, and calls it some kind of protest art against the Bush administration.

In my mind what she is doing is abuse. It's emotionally abusing children and it's wrong. So she doesn't agree with me. Fine. Her husband wrote a comment on my original blog post on the matter and in fairness I elevated the comment to the actual article itself. I fully admit that I very well may be reacting emotionally on this matter having four little ones of my own at home. I believed that two sides deserve to be heard and was more than happy to allow Jill or her husband or her gallery owner or any of her supporters or friends to voice an opinon on my blog -- even to the point of including her husband's comment in my original post.

But how does Jill respond?

First she tries to discredit me as an insane person with personal problems who she doesn't even think has kids (even though in my blog post about her I clearly state I've got four children, have photos of my four children up on flickr and elsewhere on my blog etc.) She tells this to a professional publication American Photo (whom I've asked for a retraction from and who never contacted me to verify her claims even though they pulled quotes from my same post that referenced that I had four kids).

Next, Jill tracks down my employer, an unrelated third party who has absolutely zero to do with my personal views and opinions and tries to apply pressure to get me to pull my post. She literally calls my boss this morning who has absolutely zero to do with any of my blogging. (By the way Jill, I blog from my own laptop on my own time). The last company who thought that they could intimidate me by involving my employer, an unrelated third party, went by the name PriceRitePhoto. I don't think they are in business anymore but feel free to Google them to read the story.

And then her husband tells me that in his opinion I'm committing libel. I'm committing libel for having an opinion that what Jill is doing to these kids constitutes abuse. That to emotionally work these kids up is abusive. My opinion Robert Green. He goes on to tell me that if I want to discuss this further that I get a lawyer.

So this is how the great artist Jill Greenberg decides free speech ought to work in this country? This is how someone who disagrees with her methods ought to be intimidated -- by threats of lawsuits and calling unrelated third parties to try and pressure someone? To try to discredit someone and make blatantly untrue accusations in a National magazine?

Jill, your husband writes on his blog that I'm a "crazy asshole with a blog." He uses an illustration likening me to a child molester. Do I threaten to sue him? No. Because speech is and should remain free in this country. Do I try to do research on the internet and track down the people in Hollywood that he's worked with and threaten to sue them? No. Again, they have nothing to do with his opinion and again it's a free country. Believe it or not freedom of speech is actually something that is constitutionally guaranteed. I am in fact, and I know this is a stretch for you here, allowed to have the opinon and speak my opinion that what you are doing to these children is abuse. And I'm not just some crazy guy with a blog. There have been other bloggers who have been critical of your methods as well. I'd encourage you to read these posts by Joe Wilcox and Charlie Owen. And you know what Jill? Joe and Charlie are fathers too. Imagine that, the shock, actual real life fathers outside of Hollywood could possibly object to your behavior. Are you going to call their employers and try to intimidate them as well?

Click here to continue reading

Comments

view profile

cameradawktor  Pro User  says:

Awesome title, and I love the stand you are taking. I continued reading and left a comment on your blog. I bet you are a great dad!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Sugar Booger says:

TH, you rule. I may support her freedom of speech, but i still think she's a freakin' idiot and i agree that this is a form of abuse. contacting your employer????? what the...?
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

bies  Pro User  says:

Contacting your employer, really, that's insane. This is an honest photo, and I love it.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

nullboy  Pro User  says:

Photographic ethics is serious stuff. Good for you for calling her out. Lame of her to try to intimidate you. I myself started a dialog with a buddy over a photograph of a homeless guy passed out in a train station. With homeless folks (like i used to be) the notions of public/private space are really blurred. But making kids feel bad so you can make a compelling picture is sick shit.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

joFFeman says:

this is all pathetic infighting. child abuse is mighty shitty, and should be dealt with accordingly by law enforcement agencies if it has indeed taken place. these catfights between 'bloggers' are just lame. i'm not hating on hawk, who i feel probably has a valid point, but boing boing for bringing attention to something petty like this.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

merkley???  Pro User  says:

i am sooooooo with you on every single point.

trouble with artists is they think they need not abide by any notion of morality -- they are of course above it all -- BARF.

and nobody is more an artist than i.

her work is disgusting.

hear that jill? disgusting. child abuser.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

whooz_queen  Pro User  says:

I don't like her work, in that its pain (even if minor in the long term) for art's sake - and how creepily self indulgent is that? Exploiting a child like that to make money off their distress is just ...wrong on so many levels.

To try to initimidate you out of having a negative opinion on your work, well, that just speaks for the desperation of these people, really. Where once her work seemed mostly harmless, prompting people to think about how the children get into that state makes for negative publicity and potentially shuts her income stream down.

Well, I hope it does, anyway. I don't have a probelm with a picture of a child crying, if the child is reacting to a genuinely stressful situation that wasn't engineered specifically for the purpose of making him/her cry. I do have issues with using a child's distress for the purpose of entertainment.

Thanks for standing up to the bullying antics of the so-called artist.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

timguest says:

Get a life. Both of you. I feel like taking away both your lollipops.

Watching you fight over the moral highground is like watching two kids fighting over a sandcastle. "He hasn't got kids"; "I HAVE got kids!". Remember how many children have been MURDERED by the US and British military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stop sulking about lollipops. People in the west (where I am, too) are obsessed with their own lives.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

btezra [deleted] says:

~I admire your tenacity and your subtlety in response to the artist and now her husband...just knowing that an artist is on your ass for free speech makes me sick, art is being free, art is the freedom of expression...she has shown her true colors as someone who is purely motivated by the shock-n-awe factor to create hype to fuel her real intention, make a shitload of money for something that hardly qualifies as art or even photography worth buying as an investment or as an indelible shot that you cannot live without...she is obviously attacking you because she feels her hype is in danger, because without it she would not even have her 15 minutes of fame, which she has enjoyed but without regret I inform her is now over~
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

OwenBlacker  Pro User  says:

I have to agree with everyone else here, particularly harpy. Freedom of speech is one of the most important things — expressing an opinon about her methods is certainly not something that should elicit that kind of reaction. She seems a little overparanoid to me, and possibly in need of a restraining order.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ajschroetlin  Pro User  says:

I hate people that do one thing and say another. If what you say is true, she is very good at that. I will do some research and I'm sure I'll find that you are telling the truth about her methods

I don't have any kids YET. Just got married. I do have lots of friends and family with kids and am around them all the time. You know how I get my best kids photos. The ones with the most emotion.

I let them be.

I follow and play and all the emotions come out. The fun of going down the slide. The not so fun of falling off the back of the slide.


I dislike our President too and our government in general, but NOBODY should suffer so that I can prove a point. Especially a child. That seems a little contradictory to the anti-war movement.
I can't understand what kind of point she would be trying to make anyway. That kids suffer. No chit!

They suffer a whole lot worse in other parts of the world. Why not go to Iraq and take some pictures of those kids. How about sub Saharan Africa. I'm pretty sure you won't need to take away lollies to see some tears. If this is the case, and they ALL acted this way because lolly pops were taken away, that only proves that we have spoiled kids here in the U.S. Not that they suffer.

Are all these kids in the images from broken, dysfunctional homes? Do their parents struggle to get by? Are they hungry and sad? Even if this is the case, why prop them up, take off their clothes and exploit the sadness?

What will be accomplished and could the kids say "NO" if they want to?

Like Thomas said in his blog....

"Did it last for 10 minutes, 2 hours? Multiple sessions? Would it matter to any of you?"

It's apparently petty to some. Yeah we have bigger fish to fry but behavior forms at a young age. Being pro-active now leads to less "Columbines" in the future.


Keep up the good fight. Free speech is a terrible thing to waste.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Wiedmaier  Pro User  says:

I was going to comment back in your Utata thread, but it got locked, and since the drama keeps going, I'd just re-iterate that you're right, she's wrong.

But that said, how much of this is actually a free speech battle, and how much of this is an attempt to generate that 16th minute of fame?
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

chadlewis76  Pro User  says:

I can't imagine what would drive someone to abuse children like this, and then seek to silence those who speak out against it. Jill Greenberg is obviously very disturbed.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

/donohoe says:

I can see how art can justify itself and sometimes artists should not explain their work. This is not such a case.

In the end, she made little kids cry. That is not art, that's abuse. To echo other comments, the fact that kids cry all the time of their own accord is one thing, and does not mean its okay to inflict it.

I experience pain every now and again, but does that make it okay to hit me with a baseball bat, photograph my response and call it art ... ?

Shame on her, shame on their parents.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mgabrys says:

So if you see a photo on a (very) profitable money-making news site showing kid being vaccinated - and the usual reaction from a toddler getting jabbed by a needle - you're Stalin. And for all those who watched tv shows or movies with toddlers in a less than happy state - you're Stalin followers - or something.

And the Pulizer prize should be revoked from the famous photographer who shot the napalmed kids in Vietnam because - I mean holy crap - the length he went to get a photo for money from his news agency, and he's rewarded with even more money from prize commitee? What is the world coming to?

Sorry - not enough info here to go on, any context on professional standards in the field by other photographers or artists doing the same thing for different purposes in tv, film, aids commercials, or the press - or any perspective whatsoever. Although we've got more knee's jerking than fans of 4 espresso shots.

I'm also wondering what people think of child development research groups that ellicit reactions from kids in set situations every day. Is this abuse as well? I'm not even sure people have a firm grasp on what abuse IS. Legal or otherwise.

On the other hand her "professional" reaction to Thomas' critique is PMS-worthy re:on-the-job harassment, but of course the accusations go well into libel territory. Content - I'm undecided apart from the substance about as shallow as a kiddie pool - although compositionally excellent - and the quasi-politico instantly dated message is grossly pretentious. If it was presented as an intense study of human emotions, then not so much (bad marketing by the gallery?). And over-reactions? Oh we - got lots of them.

Overall - it's a pissing contest that Boing Boing gave press to thinking they had another hot story on their hands from one of their "buddies". I wouldn't be surprised if this also showers up to the top of Digg.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lenne0815 says:

I agree so much with timguest, get a life, both of u.

Theres a woman which takes away lollies from kids and make photos of it, thats a fact. then why the hell somebody comes and talks about child abuse and on the other side, why does she call his employer ?

cant even believe what ive read, think its an all american problem *lol* greets from germany
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Big_frank says:

Timguest... two wrongs don't make a right. I bet you stole kids lunch money as a child too.

lenne... world war II is over you guys lost remember, hitler is dead ok?
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

bitrott says:

To both of you: Way to coopt freedom of speech debates for your own lame squabble. You're a self-righteous prick and she's clearly petty and ridiculous herself. She should have just breezed on to the next critic's site instead of getting worked up over yours. You offered little to nothing in the way of legitimate art criticism, so why should she bother? She shouldn't have tracked you down that was just bat-shit crazy, but hey, maybe next time you'll respect that humans, with real lives and careers are often affected by the BS spewed by some asshole blogger. Aaaw, she reached out and touched you in your comfort zone... chilling? Hardly
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ballookey  Pro User  says:

What's interesting is her (and her husband's) complete lack of understanding of the word "libel". You, TH, saying that you think what she does is child abuse is NOT libel. It's your opinion. Her husband calling you a child molester on his blog IS libel because he's (hopefully) misrepresenting you via a false and malicious statement. You COULD sue him, if you chose. They don't have a leg to stand on though, because even though it's only opinion, it's quite arguable that she's abusing childeren.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Liquid Soap Dispenser says:

First I read your above comments and thought this Greenberg chick (and husband) were horrible. Then I read your original post and thought she was a child abuser! Then I saw Greenberg's husband's statement that the reactions from these kids were elicited simply by taking a lollipop away from them (parents were present, etc.). This made me question whether Greenberg deserved the harsh critique you gave. Since she is walking the line, the discussion of ethics is very important and well deserved. However, your article (blog) made her out to be a horrible terrible child abuser.

I thought about the distressed faces I've seen kids make when they simply don't get their way. I realized a good photographer would be able to capture a lot of apparent distress , even though the actual stimulant is far from what the world would label abuse. Perhaps you did not know her methods when you wrote the original post, and based your comments on a visceral reaction that we have when we see what we perceive as distressed children.

Greenberg wants to shock people, so she should not be surprised that at least one person was mortified to the point of crucifying her in a blog. However, calling her a "child abuser" is such a damning accusation in our society (regardless of free speech issues), one can certainly understand her fighting to have that label removed. There are a lot of moral high grounds clashing on this one!

I guess if you play with matches...
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

guignol says:

I think the problem with your communication on this issue is the level of hyperbole. Your language verges on hysteria. It would be less easy to scoff if your turned it down a notch.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

gummih says:

Listen - the woman is into making money for taking the clothes of kids and making them cry! That's fact! And I despise her for that fact! She should be ashamed of herself!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

gadlaw says:

Hey Bitrott, having an opinion doesn't make you a 'self-righteous prick', calling someone else a prick makes you a prick. And having an opinion on someone who induces pain and fear in children in the name of art seems only human and humane. If it affects the 'artist' that her work is correctly identified then well and good. If there is an explanation then I'm sure the artist, her husband or defenders would have put it out there right away. That's my opinion and yes thank you I am a prick.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

bengo says:

my goodness that really is vile. contacting your employer. sheesh. what a horrible woman.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Be Still  Pro User  says:

"Abuse" is an emotionally laden term these days, hence the over the top reaction you elicted.

I think the term I would use in this situation is "exploitation". It's a perception that I give considerable thought to since I post photos of my own little boy on Flickr and blog about him as well.

I do wonder what kind of logic pretzel-shape a parent has to twist themselves into to allow someone to deliberately antagonize their child, then photograph the outcome for the masses, however.

Also troubling are the strong arm tactics being applied to silence a critic. Censorship is not a behavior befitting of an "artist".
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dps_42 says:

Guh? Really GUH? Freedom is as Freedom does, ( I know a little trite, but true).
Keep up the good work!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

abeanpie says:

Contrary to other posts, I actually believe this is an important discussion to have in a world where images, people and events are easily distorted and where opinions are only right and wrong. An open discussion of ethics is good, but I believe you have to be able to open your mind if you are presented with something you do not understand. How else can we grow as a community? (even an online one).

To begin, Hawk's post was made on his computer and on his time, but it was public and it should expect it to be read by anyone. Likening Jill to Michael Jackson was a cheap shot and calling an interaction you did not witness "abuse" is probably over stepping bounds abit.

I am sure Jill and her husband were upset. That does not make it fair for her to try and silence your opinion (go after your work, etc). I do not know the course of event, since it seems Robert tried to explain the context in which the photos were made. Maybe it could have stopped there, who knows. I agree with Hawk, that the American Photo might be guilty of sloppy journalism. Although the focus of the article was her, not Hawk. They simply took public writing and let their interviewee respond to it. not quite worthy of a retraction.

I understand the frustration involved because I have been challenged on my ethics online and to be blunt usually the accuser doesn't take the time to think about the context.

As for the work, I love it. I believe that art is meant to delve into realms we find uncomfortable. Having a photo tear at your heart is, in my opinion, a good indication that the work is strong.

It's too bad the discussion has caused ruffled feathers, but honestly what would any of us expect when our work is challenged. It's a good lesson for any photographer who shows publically (even on a blog/flickr) to think about your work before you post it, because someone will challenge you.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

novabeatnik says:

While the taking away of a lolipop may not seem abusive, having your clothes removed ,set out under lights in a studio, then being given a candy only to have it taken away for no reason will definatly leave an emotional scar on a child . I work with children in residential care and exactly these sort of seemingly minor events can cause major emotional problems later in life.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

wvperegrine says:

Your comments have merit, Thomas, and maybe her art has merit too. Her methods are worth examining, though.

By selling and/or displaying her work in any public venue, Jill Greenberg's work is clearly subject to "fair comment and criticism" under U.S. libel law. But unless Jill Greenberg herself is a "public figure" beyond reasonable doubt, "fair comment and criticism" does not justify anything that could be construed as a personal attack. I am not a lawyer, and this is my opinion based on about 30 years in print journalism. I've never been sued for libel or slander, but I've studied it. Maybe that's why I've not been sued.

Without specific personal knowledge of her methods, I think it's irresponsible to conclude that she is actually subjecting children to abuse, but the pictures are exploitative at some level and it seems to me you're right to raise this as an ethical question.

I understand her reaction and her husband's reaction. I wouldn't make too much of the "free speech" issue myself, though, because malicious speech is not protected. I don't think you intended to be malicious, but if you folks start name-calling back and forth .... Well, anyway, I think you might do well to rephrase any perceived accusations as questions or concerns, and keep any further discussion focused on the ethical aspects of her photographic technique. That's a debate worth having, and some of the related issues are not.

In a spitting match like this, everybody walks away wet.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

tbarkow says:

To timguest and others -- fighting over the moral "high ground" is the point here. How do you expect people to reject the worst atrocities if we don't try to define basic moral boundaries? Clearly, as a society we tolerate a lot of crap -- including all kinds of killing. Our morality is often blurred and confused -- this kind of discussion helps everyone clarify their moral frameworks, regardless of which side of the argument they choose. As Thomas has said, talking, it's a good thing.

As for "abusing" children, what Jill did may not be a big deal to you or me, as adults. But we're not talking about adults. We're talking about children under the age of 3 who don't have the emotional comprehension or experience we do. To them, it's clearly a big deal -- as their reactions clearly prove out. And knowing that it's a big deal while continuing to provoke them is what makes it wrong.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

tmetcalfe says:

First ammendment protection doesn't cover libel, and you have to be careful when you express an "opinion" that someone is committing an offence of some sort - such as an "opinion" that some practice is tantamount to abuse of children.

However, it's up for a court to decide and they are fairly wise in the US in these things. What her husband thinks about what is libelous isn't worth a penny. The artist portrays her work publicly and criticism of her methods is fair game. I agree with you, actually. She's just the latest, most fashionable, adopter of this kind of tragic and exploitive journalism.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

finnigh  Pro User  says:

Let me see if I have all the salient points:

Intentionally distressing little kids to record the moment and sell it for a profit - check
Using the selfsame photos to further your political agenda - check
Untruthfully labeling someone insane for criticizing your methods - check
Trying to get your critic fired - check

These sound more like the actions of a heartless corporation rather than anything to do with art.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Chris Demwell says:

Thomas, I think you're being a little unfair in your assessment of what's going on here. You're getting very worked up and upset - maybe they just want to take your picture that way! You know what to do - take your shirt off, and get someone to shoot a head shot of you looking distressed.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

doggo  Pro User  says:

Thomas,

With respect, I sympathize with your view, but I think your blog entry about it is rather overblown. The language you use, you call her evil, horrible, and sick, is much more intense for the subject than necessary. You characterize her work as child pornography. It's no wonder that you've gotten some serious kickback from her and her husband.

I didn't see where her methods involved more than taking a sucker away from a kid. And while that's kinda cruel, I wouldn't inflate it to "abuse". C'mon, kids go into hysterics if they don't get the cereal they want at the grocery store.

Also, these are children. They are resilient. She's not subjecting them to months or years of this treatment, which could, probably, produce emotional trauma.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

On the other hand, Greenberg's work seems like cheap emotional manipulation with a very shallow political bent. Her work is the equivalent of a James Cameron film, lots of pretty colors, explosions, and technical competence, but really weak on story and dialog. The kind of thing unsophisticated comsumers eat up. Which is why you may be seeing a counter-smear campaign from her. There's probably a lot of money at stake.

Her behavior, and her husband's seem just as overblown as yours. Theirs, however, shows a certain vindictive nature which is at odds with the message of Greenberg's art. That vindictiveness, though, may speak more truth about this couple than Greenberg's little cruelties to her subjects.

All in all, I think both sides are showing the modern American character, a propensity to blow concerns out of proportion. Use much more force, rhetorically, than is necessary to argue a disagreement, then respond back and forth in a vindictive way, neither side willing to admit to mistakes or compromise. And to use children as idealogical pawns in those arguments.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

bitrott says:

hey 'gadlaw', he's not a self-rigteous prick for HAVING an opinion, his opinion itself is self-rightous pricker-y. Having opinons and being wise about using them is both what is and isn't wrong with this issue. Also his opinion reveals to the world what a self-righteous prick he is. Art is art you soppy weepy bleeding hearts. Do you want your freedom of speech or not? Suck it up!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

wylkyn says:

Okay, here's my opinion based on my observation of children. Kids don't suddenly become drenched with tears and drool snot as soon as you take away a lolly. They cry, sure...they ask for it back, they beg, they do what they can to get it back. But there has to be some manipulation beyond the moment to get them worked up into the emotional state displayed in those photos. Unless these are very poorly behaved children (and the artist claims that one of them is her own daughter) the child is going to be sad and confused. But these children were obviously taken beyond that point. Maybe the lollipop was shown to them, but kept out of their reach. Maybe they were taunted or told in a stern manner that they couldn't have it. I don't know. I wasn't there. But the artist's insistance that all they did was to give a lollipop and then take it away seems like a crock to me. These pictures hint at some sort of sadistic manipulation of the child's emotions, and that's why I think it is abuse. Abuse...not simply exploitation.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

etchalon  Pro User  says:

Oh for god's sake who cares?

The work isn't interesting and neither is the moral outrage about it. If you don't like the techniques the artist used, don't send your kids to her.

There, problem solved.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

j l t says:

it seems to me that jill is so used to being a manipulator-as-artist, that she is fast becoming a manipulator-as-person, as well. the more you bend human beings (children!) to your will, the more you find it easier to do all the time. she's just as bad as the administration she criticizes, in this case.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

dr kitsch says:

As a Pediatrician and a father I can certainly say that Jill Greenberg's behaviour does fit with every definition of child abuse I use in my clinical practice.
If an adult deliberately makes a child distressed for financial gain or for their public attention this is deliberate child cruelty and exploitation which equates to child abuse under the UN Rights of the Child to quote only one definition of child abuse.
It's exploitative, shallow, simplistic and ultimately nauseating.
It's also just bad art and the only downside of all this attention is that this 'artist' is deriving the oxygen of publicity for her infantile posturing.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

c_hinsh says:

Okay ... wow! I read this post and thought to myself, "Jill is really kind of over the line here." Then I read your blog post about her and thought, "Wow ... TH is being a bit harsh." Then (stick with me here) I went to Jill's photo set and looked at each of the photos at least a few times.

The longer I looked at it, the more disturbed I became. Not at the "message" Jill is trying to deliver, but that these kids were (I'll try to find as neutral a word as I can here) less than honestly portrayed(? how's that?) in her photos.

It would be one thing if she had managed to capture the children crying due to some other reasonable experience. It's quite another if they we're crying due to being manipulated by the photographer (and, ostensibly, their parents). Yanking candy from a kid is no better than smacking them on the fanny. It's worse, in fact, because you are confusing the hell out of them. The child believes he deserves the candy that he's holding, and to take it away is punishing him when he, in fact, has done absolutely nothing worthy of punishment.

Sorry, Jill ... not gonna call you a child abuser (I don't need you whining to my boss like a baby who has had her candy taken from her), but you need to find a different method.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

brassai2003 says:

Yeah! Why can't she be more like Ann Geddes? (that little pea-pod baby is REAL art. and that Celine Dion book...oh my....look out MoMa)
Seriuosly, when will people like you learn Hawk? the more you gripe (scream actually) the more press you give her and the higher her prices go esp. for the kid shots...
I'm defending her art , sure. I'm not defending the contacting yer boss thing though that's totally f'ed up.
But it sounds like you're obsessing almost to the point of someone thinking maybe that you're christian right with some moral ax to grind in everyone's face.
And Merkley??? that's such a dumb ass statement dude.
Oh yeah, pick up that Ann Geddes book/calendar/coaster/shower curtain/greeting card. It rocks. Esp, the little bumblebee.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

brassai2003 says:

Maybe these kids are smarter than you think and really know what's going on in Washington
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lizstless  Pro User  says:

I don't know much about libel, but I know the basics - " libel and slander are two forms of defamation, the tort or delict of publishing (to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation. Libel is defamation that can be seen, such as in writing, printing, effigy, a movie, or a statue" (lifted from wikipedia).

At its basic - it would seem a headline of "Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse" could well qualify for libel if, in fact, Jill G. has not committed a jailable offense. I'm not gonna say one way or another whether it's libel or not, but it would seem to me that it's certainly up for a debate, and if you told told the world that I should go to jail for something, and I didn't believe it to be true, I'd probably sue you for libel as well. You can say "that's my opinion," and it may be, but you publiclly published a sentance - a headline - that reads as a fact.

We don't get to choose which parts of the law we like and don't. The first ammendment is vital, of course, but libel laws exist, and they're every bit as valid.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

NelC  Pro User  says:

Freedom to speak is freedom to criticise. Freedom to speak is not freedom to hurt. Hawk is exercising his rights and in a responsible way. Greenberg is abusing her rights by intimidating Hawk and by treating children -- albeit for a few minutes -- like things, not defenceless beings with rights of their own.

Greenburg is perfectly within her rights to make herself suffer for her art. She can even make others suffer if they give informed consent. I don't believe that anyone has a right to make children suffer for art's sake.

Hawk is being responsible by pointing this out. If Greenburg had the courage of her convictions she would have no need to intimidate; she could just stand her ground, debate with Hawk if she would, or ignore him. She is well out of order trying these underhand tactics against Hawk, and as others have said, are of a piece with intimidating children.

I have no taste myself, but manipulating children to tears is so far over the line that even I have no hesitation in labelling Greenburg's pictures as bad taste.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

NelC  Pro User  says:

IANAL, of course, but calling someone "sick" could be defended as just an opinion, coming as it does from a layman, and not a doctor. As it's not a professional medical opinion, I don't think anyone would take it as a definitive truth. Therefore not libel. An insult is not automatically libel.

"Should be" also labels the rest of the title as opinion. Hawk is perfectly within his rights to say what he thinks should happen. If he couldn't say that -- if none of us could say that -- then there'd be no freedom of speech possible. Freedom of speech implies a certain emotional robustness is required from the citizenry.

Anyhow, if you're going to sue, then sue, don't bluster. If you want an apology, then ask for an apology, don't threaten with legal action.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

NelC  Pro User  says:

Anyone else thinking of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit? Quick, somebody, write a script!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mgabrys says:

Welcome to Law and Order - tonight's episode - two people pissing for an hour. Enjoy.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Sbocaj  Pro User  says:

That's a nice cross you've nailed yourself to, TH.

What's next....you're the victim??


I say this to you as someone who has deep respect for your eye as a photographer, and your insights in the tech world: LET. IT. GO.

You're a smart motherfucker, TH - this is not your battle.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Guy Flâneur  Pro User  says:

Why doesn't somebody just call the cops? if she's engaging in unlawful child abuse, she should be prosecuted under the law. From what I've read, the law is pretty careful about the use of children as subjects for artistic purposes, and that presumably covers photography as well as performance. So why not surface the issue as one that should be investigated under the law?
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

madamesoybean says:

What I really want to know is...who are the parents of these children? Why did they allow their kids to be put into such a state and then photographed? Are the kids actors? Models? I'll bet you don't think they'll remember it because they're so young...you're wrong Mommy and Daddy. It may not be abuse but one has to admit, it sure is mean.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

lbsterling says:

Libel Libel Libel!

The rest of this mudslinging match isn't interesting, but the libel issue is.

Various posters above have gotten it either mostly right or mostly wrong, but the point is, in the world where everybody is a publisher, either everbody is going to have to undertand libel law better, or libel laws are going to have to change.

In fact, TH publishing a statement (yes, of opinion) that Greenberg is abusing children is probably libelous.

She'd almost certainly lose a case against him though, either on the grounds that a) it's true! or b) TH's remarks, though libellous, fall into the category of fair comment on a matter of public concern. Also, she has made herself something of a public figure by thrusting herself into the limelight of a political debate.

My $0.02.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

i went and checked out her stuff -- bubblegum babies in tears!!!

it feels like she's tapping into the "how to make first world babies interesting" vein

can't say it's all that successful and just WHO exactly is buying this stuff?
who would want a highly glamorized photo of a topless crying baby?!

i'd rather have one of a baby wrapped up in gucci and crying. wouldn't that be more "artful?"

ANYWAY, i wrote the gallery and suggested some "things" they could also consider exploiting. good old hellay
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

UPDATE:

so paul wrote me back and i did think it was kind of funny:

Scott,

Jesus weeps for you and your ungodly sins. You will burn.

Paul

Paul Kopeikin Gallery
6150 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Ph 323.937.0765
Fax 323.937.5974

Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

CantikFotos [deleted] says:

Ain't the 21st Century a wonderful time to live? Where any wacko with a political axe to grind can call themselves an "artist"?

Illegitimi non carborundum.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

shay4brains says:

There's some irony here.

Jill Greenberg, who is a great photographer/artist regardless of her political beliefs has the nickname "The Manipulator."

But after reading the post on Boing Boing about what a complete "victim" Thomas is and then his way-over-the-top blog post I think that he too is deserving of a similar title to Jill's.

And most importantly, there's nothing good for photography that comes out of this. Not one thing.

A golf clap for getting some publicity out of whackyness. (Podero~!)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

SF buckaroo  Pro User  says:

I agree with Thomas 100 percent.

Does that make me subject to libel too?
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monsieurgrand02  Pro User  says:

I went and checked out Jill's website. Now, after trying to ignore your article and your comments towards Jill's work, and then looking at her photos of the crying children for the first time, I truly have to wonder how she goes about getting her shots. It's not like she walks around town looking for crying children. These kids are sitting or standing topless in front of a backdrop. Which is a little twisted just at that level. But then they're all in varous states of anger and distress. So she is actually forcing these kids into a state of distress in order to grab the particular photo that she wants. Thats just completely sick and way beyond child abuse.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mrrofu says:

It is obvious to me that Ms. Greenberg is yet again playing the role of manipulator. She is manipulating this publicity for her benefit. She doesn't care what your/our opinion is. She is simply stoking the flames to elevate the story. Now that this has made its way to the MSN front page I guess she has been successful. Bad publicity is better than no publicity. Smart lady. A sicko yes, but still a good marketeer.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mrsgorilla1  Pro User  says:

I have to say from looking at Greenberg's work that I find it more than a little disturbing. I mean, it's not as if she's capturing these photos "in the wild". She's deliberately forcing these children (who have no say in the matter) to emotional distress. Shame on the parents of these children for allowing this to happen. In my opinion, this isn't art. This is just stupidity.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

elneenya2 says:

My first reaction to Ms. Greenberg's art is this: Cop-out.

I see nothing challenging or interesting about her work. I see a potentially challenging subject--children--photographed in the most effortless and cowardly way.

My thoughts, after looking at her photos, immediately jump to the conditions fabricated for that scene--not politics or whatever Ms. Greenberg wants me to see. I can't even pretend to see any statement in them. They are so shallow, that they don't conjure any imagination--only studio conditions. Shouldn't photographic art make one use one's imagination, at least a little?

While I am by no means a professional photographer, I dabble and experiment and study photography obsessively, and I can occasionally produce a shot that I can be very proud of. I know of several ameteur photographers that have much more imagination--and integrity--than Ms. Greenberg. Good for her, I guess, for rising to the top without exhibiting any real professionalism.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

imanptest says:

What did Thomas Hawk expect to happen, when he calls for a fellow photographer to be "Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse" (as he does in the title of his article) for simply doing what is a common practice in commercial photography? As has been pointed out previously, the tactics Jill Greenberg employs are ones used in making movies, advertisements, etc., etc. I fail to see why something she has done in the name of art is worse than the same thing done to sell a product. If Thomas Hawk had made those same comments in a newspaper he would probably have been sued by now. What would any of you have done if you had been accused of being a child abuser and a criminal in a public forum? Her husband may have gone somewhat overboard in contacting his employer, but what would you have done to protect someone you love?
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

"Her husband may have gone somewhat overboard in contacting his employer, but what would you have done to protect someone you love?"

i would've slapped her in the face and taken her picture, of course
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

joshifoto [deleted] says:

I think you need to chill out. Kids throw tantrums all the time and sometimes taking a photo of them can actually help lighten the situation when they see the photograph. My niece starts laughing if I go to photograph her when she's crying!

And the fact of the matter is that you've only got yourself to blame for getting into this mess in the first place. Grow up or shutup!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

CrazyCookieWV says:

I think that those photos are totally beyond belief! I would consider them ABUSE! If I took photos like that, you betcha the Welfare would be beating down my door....or the people next door .....you know?

We need to take a stand for these kids!

This little voice from WV.....

Laura
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

aurora_tf152 says:

If you are interested in Jill Greenberg's art or how this controversy is affecting the value of her art, you can check it out on eBay. I'm selling a picture from her Monkey Series:

cgi.ebay.com/Worried-from-Jill-Greenbergs-Mon key-Series_W...
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rigas  Pro User  says:

The whole controversy makes me feel America is becoming mad! Hopw could you ever call the Jill Greenberg photos "abuse"?
Mr. Thomas Hawk is due for a visit to the psychiatrist!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Paul+G says:

I think you are WAY over reacting.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

chadlewis76  Pro User  says:

Yes, he's way over reacting to having a psycho wannabe artist ,who profits from the suffering of children, call his employer in an attempt to get him fired. I mean, what kind of pussy gets all worked up over mere child abuse and theats to his livelyhood? Be a man! Quit your job and beat your children full time!!
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Pieter Pieterse  Pro User  says:

Thomas, I used to have respect for you, but since you found that you could use flickr as a soapbox for your bigotry, I don't anymore.

Flickr was not invented as a platform for all your personal vendettas against other people. If Flickr represents anything - then it is definately about diversity! Something you seem to have lost sight of completely.

Please take your intolerance somewhere else and try posting only your photos to flickr again. I think everyone will be better served. This is the wrong forum.

Your attack on Jill was uncivilized and reflected more on your shortcomings than on hers.

I'll thank you for introducing me to Jill Greenberg's work.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

elneenya2 says:

1) Flickr allows us the capability of having discussions and posting comments about photography. That makes it a perfect platform for discussing photography in an uninhibited way.

2) Pieter, I respect your position on the issue, but you are essentially calling Thomas an extremist, when the issue at hand is Jill Greenberg's extreme behavior. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Sure--Thomas has opened a can of worms by starting this discussion, but how many of the flickr posts have been from Thomas? Not a single one. Most of your distaste for this issue is likely coming from other people's opinions. I think Thomas is extremely smart for staying out of this discussion. It kind of makes us turn the microscope on ourselves. And it also gives us a clearer picture of what outsiders really think of the issue.

3) As far as I can tell, Thomas has only posted his own photographs on flickr.

I agree that both sides have inflated the issue FAR beyond an arguable point, but again, isn't it we who flock to this discussion who are fanning the fire?
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

OwenBlacker  Pro User  says:

I have to agree whole-heartedly with elneenya2. Surely the whole point of this discussion here is to debate the issue. I don't think anyone is “using Flickr as a soapbox for bigotry”.

And, surely, the whole point of Flickr being a “social software”, “Web 2.0” site is to enable people to interact, as well as looking at pretty pictures. If we only wanted to post our images for people to see them, there were plenty of sites that did that before Flickr…

I fully respect that you disagree with Thomas on this issue, Pieter Pieterse, but I think your attack on Thomas is just as unjustified as you feel his “attack” on Jill Greenberg is.

I couldn't agree with elneenya2 more.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Pieter Pieterse  Pro User  says:

Elneenya, you misread - of course Thomas posts only his own photos - that was never disputed.

I hoped that he could continue to post only his photographic works and not the diatribes. I think flickr is a forum where visual communication is practiced, whereas the written word is more suited to other types of blogging, perhaps?

But, here I am actually discussing it, so I guess by partaking, I'm proving myself wrong. Point taken thus on the interaction and yes, we are fuelling the fire, which is probably great. It all points back to the effectivenes of Jill's masterful artwork. It provoked an emotional response and much social debate. In my opinion, that is the very purpose of art in society.

Owen, as regards the soapbox. Flickr has a much higher potential for high placement in search engines than say a personal site or blog. Knowing that, you could use the description field in combination with some arbitrary photo, like what is done here - to boost the publicity of your message.

The last thing I wanted was to also seem to "attack" Thomas, that was not my intention.

I referred to "bigotry", because of the language used while voicing his opinions. Thomas expressed his dissaproval with phrases like "Sick Woman", etc. Such language does not constitute civilized debate, but is rather harsh and sounds sexist ?! Such behaviour is perceived to be extreme - at least outside the USA?
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Pieter Pieterse  Pro User  says:

After all that, I think elneenya and Owen are both right.. I should have perhaps just stayed out of it - I didn't really contribute to the conversation in any meaningful way and still had to explain after the fact.. I was, in fact, actually being intolerant myself.

My apologies to you, Thomas, I added no value - I should have just left it alone.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

torbakhopper  Pro User  says:

i still wanna know what kind of people buy these works and hang them on their walls for enjoyment

so let's move past the whole behavioral issue and focus on economics for a second

it strikes me as HILARIOUS that her "value" has gone up as a result of this. predictable novelty career patterns make for really sad encores (you know, what next?). but the old medical advice is to get the poison to rise to the surface for extraction... one good turn [of the knife] deserves another

the ultimate revenge on her project is here, and growing. if any should like to contribute, please feel MOST welcome: happiness is EASY
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mherrero  Pro User  says:

Excellent portrait and good light.
--
Seen in someone's favorites.
Posted 35 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Paul+G says:

Oh I see plenty of bigotry here
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

vica♥dicker says:

gorgeous.
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cin cin fu says:

Per favore, aggiungi la tua immagine al gruppo/
Please, add your photo to/
Por favor, agrega esta foto a:

Negli occhi di un bambino (In the eyes of a child/En los ojos de un niño)
www.flickr.com/groups/659614@N22/
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mhwaad2000 says:

such a nice boy
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

[?]
view photos Uploaded on June 27, 2006
by Thomas Hawk

Thomas Hawk's photostream

32,207
uploads

This photo also belongs to:

Getty Artist Picks Oct 09 (Set)

74
items

10 Faves or More (Set)

3,722
items

25 Faves or More (Set)

1,173
items

Utata (Pool)

Tags

Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with 10 10

Additional Information

AttributionNoncommercial Some rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Add to your map