(Untitled)

Apr 18, 2006 11:38

photographer Jill Greenberg beautifully captures photos of children crying


Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 24

nshgrl April 18 2006, 21:27:46 UTC
she's lucky she didn't use Syd as a model when she was little, she would have pulled back a nub!

Reply

madcowmartini April 18 2006, 21:36:23 UTC
lol! she does seem like the fiesty type..

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

madcowmartini April 19 2006, 16:20:57 UTC
hey meg! *waves*

i agree. i just dont see taking a lollipop away from a child as such a grave offense as some people do. yeah its kind of mean, but children are resiliant, and like you said, they cry because thats how they communicate and learn from whats going on around them.

i think the photos are beautiful. children's emotions are so pure and their sadness has been captured perfectly, for what thats worth.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

madcowmartini April 19 2006, 16:40:19 UTC
LOL! you totally just made coffee blow through my nose. DAMN YOU MEG.

Reply


rachelraygun April 19 2006, 02:14:45 UTC
These images are beautiful and very powerful.

That being said, the titles she gave them absolutely kill it for me. So cheesy. :(

Reply

madcowmartini April 19 2006, 16:24:09 UTC
oh i didn't even look at the titles until you mentioned it. you are right. :/ one-word titles tend to do that though.

Reply

blackturtleneck April 19 2006, 16:34:22 UTC
Yeah, maybe that's why a lot of art is "untitled".

But on the other hand, these images are much more interesting than any portrait of me as a child. As well, I'd love to have grown up knowing that my parents were cool enough to have me participate in something like that, cheesy titles or not. Seriously. Can you imagine the bragging rights? "Oh yeah? Well I'm so hardcore that when I was a kid, I was in a group of photos called End Times." Heh

Also, judging by "Mercury's" tongue, it looks like some of the kids got the lollipops anyway.

Reply

madcowmartini April 19 2006, 16:39:28 UTC
hahaha... well i HOPE they gave the kids back their lollipops after the photo was taken. i mean, it would only be right ;)

Reply


sarcasmosis April 19 2006, 21:11:17 UTC
yawn. the pictures are ok and all, but her intended message is pompous in its own context. yeah, it's manipulation. boo fucking hoo. it's sure as hell not abuse. it's actually fucked up that the definition of abuse has been eroded so far.

oh and i should note that i hate kids.

Reply


isobal July 8 2006, 21:51:00 UTC
It is very clear that the photographer exploited the childrens emotions and their vulnerability. However, the childrens parents/guardians had to have agreed to this. These works sold for $4,500 and up. The parents probably got paid to have their children pose...... I do know that the artist also used her children as models also. She wanted to give the message in this exhibit about the state of the world. The only point of integrity in this exhibit is that she is a perfect example of the sorry state of the world and how far one would to make a buck.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up