Jill Greenberg Discussion / Controversy

A blog post about Greenberg's methods has turned into some sort of publicity war.

The original comments, calling her abusive, here:

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html


Details of Greenberg's later harrassment of the blogger here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/176785431/


If you aren't familiar with here work, it explains that she takes toddlers and emotionally manipulates them into rages. This comes from Joe Wilcox:

The Gallery’s Website quotes the author, "I love the raw emotion of children, because it comes close to the anger and helplessness I feel about our current political and social situation."

More: “I manipulate my subjects to evoke an emotion to illustrate my personal beliefs…I had to learn the hard way that they had to be no older than three because beyond that they just don’t cry so easily,” Greenberg explains. "At that age, one needs to merely give them a lollipop and then take it away, et voila - pain and agony."

Personally, I find her methods pretty rank. I can still remember very clearly when, as a maybe 5-year-old, a friend of my siblings took my Romper Stompers (waaaaaaaaahhhhh) and refused to give them back. And the ensuing shit fit I had. The sibs all thought it was pretty funny until it became clear a parent was going to hear about it. Did I ever mention how messed up my family was?

leafing through a copy of American Photo.

I read a little bit about it, but I don't think the article mentioned that she manipulates the kids into crying. Maybe it did because I didn't read the whole thing.

I don't agree with her methods because not only is it cruel to the kids, but pictures of raw human emotion should never be manipulated. Now I know that rule applies mostly to photojournalism and not to "photo art", but even in art there needs to be a sense of authenticity.

But having said all that, what's up with the parents who allow their kids to go through this just for a chance to see them in a photo?

If she's guilty of child abuse (and from what I read it sure looks as if she emotionally abusing the kids), so are the parents for permitting it