More Thoughts on the Jill Greenberg Controversy
Update: This conversation is also going on over at the Utata Group on Flickr.
Update #2: Joe Wilcox, another father himself, has also written an especially poignent article on the wrong that Jill Greenberg is doing here.
Update #3: Charlie Owen offers up his thoughts on the photos as well. He’s cancelling his subscription to American Photo.
Update #4: New York Times.
Ok, so it seems like the heat is turning up on this Jill Greenberg controversy stuff. You remember Jill. The woman who takes photos of the emotionally wrenched kids in the name of art against the Bush administration (I think). I blogged about her previously here. I’ve been told by a few people that I’m quoted in American Photo this month on the subject. I haven’t seen the article yet and no reporter from American Photo contacted me so I’m assuming they just pulled stuff off my blog which is fine of course. I’ll check out the article though and report back.
I’ve been taking a lot of heat over my original post and have had a number of people approach me about softening it or pulling it down. It shows up on the first page search results for Jill’s name on Google and some people have suggested that it’s a rather harsh original article and a rather harsh original headline.
And so I’ve thought about that for a few weeks and decided not to pull the original article down. I guess in part because I still feel strongly that what she is doing is wrong. That her actions in fact invalidate her art in a way. And while I’m certainly willing to admit that my reaction to this may be very much influenced by the fact that I’m a father of four myself and that my response may be more emotionally reactive than anything. Bottom line is I can’t justify what she’s doing in my heart of hearts and think it is morally and ethically offensive. So I’m letting the original post stand. Maybe I am being harsh, but at the end of the day it’s my blog about my personal feelings and that’s how I feel. It doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right. But it’s how I feel.
The other thing that I’m going to do is post what I feel is a particularly well thought out comment that I received today on the original post by a person posting as John Hancock on my blog. He answers many of those who have chided me for my original post and who say that I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill or that what Jill is doing in the name of art is harmless and really no big deal.
These words below are his words and not mine but they rang true to me and I wanted to give them more exposure than having them burried in the thread. I have not heard from Jill directly on this matter but her husband did respond in the original post. I’d invite Jill to respond to this article and the original in person and will happily provide her space on this post to express her opinion and to defend her actions.
So here’s the comment:
“It is disturbing that all those posters defending the photographer and dismissing what is obviously being done to these children actually feel ok with what the photographer did and don’t see anything wrong with it. I can only imagine they are the same people who voted for Bush for re-election, even though they knew he lied about Iraq. I’m even sure that they could characterize their vote for Bush as art, with the same twisted logic they defend this obvious abuse of a child at the hands of an adult.
And for what? What is Jill’s main driving force here? A comment on Bush and his policies? Hardly…that is just a convenient after thought. No, her motivation is perfectly clear…$4,500 a print. And of course the attention from the controversy that will surround these pictures, which will just make her photo’s worth even more, and perhaps make her the cause célèbre of the art world…much like what happened to Sturges when he dropped off his film at a hole-in-the-wall photo lab and arose the attention of the police and FBI, which made him financially successful and famous.
For those of you who cannot tell the difference between a small child crying “at the drop of a hat” or at a restaurant and the sheer fear and complete anguish that these children obviously have, I feel sorry for you. You are obviously so desensitized and morally bankrupt that it is scary we live together in the same society. However, it doesn’t surprise me, considering the American society we live in today.
The photographer, in her own words, is tormenting these children to “give her” the look and emotion SHE wanted. She stated that she often sends the parent out of the room (and made the statement of how she was a bit upset when this happened and 1 child DIDN’T cry). The parents, when they were in the room (and they often weren’t) are just as complaisant in this abuse of children who have NO control over the situation. Compounding the children’s obvious fear and anguish is the strobes going off while in that state. Professional models or not, this obviously compounds their distress level. The bottom line is that in the supposed trusting hands of parents and adults, these children were MADE to break down into complete emotional distress and anguish just for the sake of a photographers whim at taking a photograph…one that she will sell for at least $,4500 each. This is hardly art. This is abuse, and would be called such in any other situation where a child was involved. Teachers have been fired for less by parents whose child came home crying from school.
To hear just how unconcerned the photographer is, listen to this interview http://podcasting.americanphotomag….HOTOPodcast.mp3. The sad thing is that she also used her own child as one model, and subjected her/him to the same abuse as the others. This is NOT a healthy parent/child relationship. [edit: I think he may mean this podcast but I'm not sure]
A few misguided individuals posts from above:
“Knowing that her art would be seen publicly by a lot of people, do you really think this person would do anything blatantly criminal? You can invoke this type of reaction by handing a child a wonderful toy, letting her play with it for a few minutes, then yanking it away suddenly and arguing about returning it. I know, I’ve got 2 young kids myself. Is that “abuse”? No. Is it manipulative and unkind? Yes. Is the end result art? Definitely.”
It is clear that she thinks she has done nothing wrong. Ignorance of the law, and what is morally right, for the sake of a picture is no excuse. By your own words, you say it is manipulative and unkind. And you are ok with that? An adult being unkind and manipulative to a trusting child? That behavior, expressed by a trusted adult to a 3 year old child is incompatible which many laws in this country and is a sad comment, in my opinion, on the state of the American society. With this type of behavior towards children being held up as art, and sold for $4,500 a print, it no wonder we have this anything goes attitude that has given this country episodes like the Columbine shootings. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information is a good source for information on what constitutes child abuse. And from the publication here states: “Willful harming or injuring of a child or the endangering of the person or health of a child means a situation in which any person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon, unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the child to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endanger.” WILLFULLY CAUSES ANY CHILD TO SUFFER, OR INFLICTS THEREON…MENTAL SUFFERING. Hmmm I wonder what that sounds like?
I also question your ability to raise a child. Unfortunately you have 2 children. I can only hope that make it through life with you unscathed.
“While the question of the means justifying the end certainly looms large in this instance, we would all do well to at least look at her artist statement and examine the political and artistic value of what she’s produced.”
Any artistic statement cannot justify her purposeful actions to be brought down on children who have no choice in the matter or control over the situation. Forcibly making a child have an episode of tremendous anguish, as is indicated on their faces (these children are well beyond simply crying) is an act of abuse. She is abusing her power over them, as both an adult and what the child sees as a trusted friend to their parents. I doubt if she sat the children down and said “Ok here is what I am going to do. First, we will take off your clothes, then I will have you sit right over there. Next, my assistant here and I are going to do many things to get you to cry as hard as you have ever cried before. We will do that by having your parent leave the room, giving you some candy or a toy, and then grabbing it from you. We will do this over and over until you are crying good enough for me, and then these bright lights will flash over and over again, until I have a good enough picture. We will do this and there is nothing you can do to stop me. Thank you for your time and understanding, and participating in this historic event that is really a comment on my feelings towards the Bush administration. I am sorry we have to terrorize you like this, but you see, this is for the greater good. These pictures will make that bad man go away and stop hurting other children.” There is nothing that she has produced that justifies her actions towards these children. The hypocrisy is that she is terrorizing these children to cry so she can stop Bush from terrorizing children in Iraq. I guess Iraqi children deserve better treatment than our own children do. It is so good to have such young soldiers in the fight against Bush!
“We are artists, and just because we don’t think the same way you may think when it comes to artistic subjects such as photographs of children, it doesn’t mean you can dictate the rules we live by.”
And just because you think it is ok to terrorize children doesn’t make it right, in the eyes of the law or common society. Nor does it give you the right to dictate what is acceptable in this country for the sole purpose of enriching one photographer’s life at the expense of innocent children. Her “art” and political message are no better than the crap I took this morning. The end does not justify the means.
The sickest award, although the one above is close, goes to Nicole Rawley who said…
“Shawn Oster: I believe the woman you are referencing as having had an uproar caused by her B&W; work is Sally Mann, one of my favorite photographers and heroes. She responds well to many issues brought up in this discussion here. Her oldest child, Jessie Mann, photographed many times in the buff, responds to these ideas, as a much older child (an adult) here.”
That isn’t so bad except for the fact that the link she supplies for the Aperture conversation with Jessie Mann, Sally’s daughter, is hosted on a website that states: “This web site is about and for women who are attracted to pre-teen and adolescent girls. Our primary goal is to give women and girls a tool for expressing their feelings and their love about this controversial topic, and to get people to open their minds to ideas about romantic and erotic attraction between women and girls.” (Editor’s note: weblink deleted) So basically a lesbian pedophilia web site. Why Nicole would link to a pedophilia website to justify Jill’s abusive actions towards children is beyond me. The fact that Nicole even KNOWS about this pedophilia website (are you a member too Nicole?) is sickening. Anything further that comes out of her mouth is useless.
And finally we have another person most likely to gain by this photographers pictures… Paul Kopeikin. Paul, of course, is the owner of the gallery where Jill’s photo’s will be shown, and the person with the 2nd most financial incentive to support this type of abuse being inflicted on children. Paul says:
“Innocent children are being slaughtered daily by the Bush Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan (and who knows where else) so anyone worrying about the non existent abuse of the children in Jill Greenberg’s photographs should immediately contact the White House to add their voice to ending the murder of children by this Republican Administration.” (I corrected his mis-spellings).
So Pauls stance is pretty clear. He feels that there is no abuse in Jill’s terror tactics in forcing children to cry with such anguish, but if there was, there is much worse being done by the Bush administration, and you should bitch about that instead of about someone who he stands to make a great deal of money on…about $2,250 from each print. My question to Paul is since you are so concerned about the slaughter of children by the Bush administration, have you done anything else, on your own and something that will NOT provide you with financial gain, to stop such slaughter? Have you made your voice heard to your elected representatives? Written letters to the editor stating your disgust for what the Bush administration is doing to all those innocent children? Organized a protest or demonstration? Marched on the Federal Building or City Hall where you live? Have you given ANY money to ANY organization helping either end the war or supply relief efforts to either of those 2 nations? Yeah, I thought not. Your motives are clear and your interest is self-serving. Screaming “the sky is falling” (in other words Bush is bad) is nothing more than a ploy to deflect attention from the real issue here…Jill’s campaign of terror to force young children, who have no control over their situation, into a traumatic situation full of anguish and intensity, all for the sake of a photograph. And money…don’t forget the money. I’m sorry Paul, but that is about as lame as the “We are artists…” guy above.
About the poster: I am a 47 year old white male, father and primary caregiver of a 9 year old daughter. Politically I am on the far left and have put my body on the line, and been arrested, on issues ranging from nuclear plants (Diablo Canyon) and weapons design (Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National weapons labs), to violence against women issues to the support of abortion rights. I am an artist, and have been in the photography business for over 25 years professionally, and 35 years all together. Primarily I do fine art black and white printing and my prints have been in museums and galleries all over the world. I choose not to use my name here because of the obvious reasons. I don’t need to get spammed to death, nor do I wish to become some whipping boy for people who can’t really fathom the issue being discussed here. However, that does not diminish the opinions I gave, or the reality checks I pointed out. To say so otherwise is just plain dumb. If we lived in a society that could handle such discussions without knee jerk and abusive reactions, I would gladly publish my real name. But when we live in a society that seems
to be ok with a trusted adult purposefully terrorizing a child and inflicting emotional trauma on that child for the sake of a photograph, and trying to hang some political justification on it to make it “ok”, there is just no way that any sane person would publish their name and subject themselves to the hate emails that would certainly come.
Hopefully my posts will open some minds. I fear that the sick minds out there that support this far outnumber sane and morally responsible people who see these actions for what they are…abuse.
And that is sad.”
Thomas,
First of all, I want to say I am proud you decided not to bow to pressure from others regarding your original post. That took courage and conviction in your opinion and you should be congratulated on that. I am also very honored you thought my reply deserved another place in your blog about this subject (sorry it got posted twice…you are welcome to delete one of them). It is a very troubling matter when someone like Jill abuses children, or anyone for that matter, for monetary gain and some twisted idea that it is in protest of one sort or another. More disturbing is that she is held up to praise by so many.
I hope she responds to you, and that she realizes what she has done is wrong. I doubt she will, especially when she has so much at stake at this point. Mostly it is monetary, but if she apologizes she will lose face, and I doubt, whether she finally sees her mistake or not, she is a strong enough person and has the courage to admit that she was wrong and move on.
Thanks for what you are doing regarding this. It is appreciated.
Thomas,
Her domain is “manipulator.com.”
Joe
Thomas I have realized while reading your blog posts over the past few months that you are a very passionate person, which I view as a generally good thing. Sometimes I agree with your views and sometimes I don’t. I find that your posts are often well though out, but sometimes something slips past that common sense radar of yours. Perhaps you are blinded by that passion you possess.
The comment you posted here reeks of a typical internet rant. Well structured editorial writing should be structured like a well formed debate or a piece of good persuasive writing. This comment you posted is full of one sided superlatives and needless attacks on those with differing views. Many of items the poster claims to be “obvious” (a word they use 7 times) were not at all obvious to me.
This post has lowered my opinion of you as a writer.
I’m not sure that I could call a comment “well thought out” that includes the phrase “I can only imagine they are the same people who voted for Bush for re-election, even though they knew he lied about Iraq”, seriously what does that have to do with this issue??.
In any case while I personally find the photos disturbing, though I wouldn’t have my own children participate I’m not remotely ready to accuse the photographer or parents of abuse.
The issue comes up time and again, what is or isn’t appropriate or acceptable and it all comes down to community standards. For some societies public nudity is perfectly acceptable, even normal, for other showing a womans face will get you in serious trouble.
As for the abuse allegations, even there the issue is subjective “Willful harming or injuring of a child or the endangering of the person or health of a child means a situation in which any person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon, unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering”, clearly you feel that the work of this photographer rises to that level, others might, indeed other do say that my wife and I’s decision to have our boys circumcised as infants, for relgious reasons rises to the same level. Yet in American society male circumcision is still considered normal, even common mong non-Jewish families.
In my opionon the work of this photographer clearly pushes the boundaries of community standards for our own society, though I don’t think it crosses the line, clearly there isn’t universal agreement here as you have pointed out.
Finally, you close with “Hopefully my posts will open some minds…” while it’s clear from your post that ytour own mind could not be more closed, proven by your referral to those that disagree with you as “sick” or at best “misguided”, so tell me, which one am I?
Manual trackback to http://photondetector.com/blog/2006/06/22/greenburg/
My comments from that are:
After looking at the photos, I agree.
How can I have a problem with this and not with Witkin? Easy: informed consent. It differentiates sex from rape, boxing from assault, and DNR orders from murder… an important concept, to be sure. Witkin’s models know what they’re getting into and freely choose it. With kids of this age, there’s no way to make a legal or moral argument that they’ve been informed or have consented—that’s what makes it abuse.
I’m a big believer in fighting ideas rather than people, but in this case, I can’t pretend that I don’t think that Jill Greenburg—personally, not just her methods—is a reprehensible piece of shit. And where the fuck were these kids’ parents?? I sincerely hope that every one of the subjects finds a way to sue the ever-loving fuck out of everyone involved in this shameful affair.
Talking about people giving good photographers a bad name, see the (somewhat) related piece on yesterday’s news re ‘stalking’ Maddox Jolie-Pitt on eonline.
Thomas,
I can’t help but picture my children and grandchildren (I’m currently only 25) one day sitting in art history discussing these images. But for all of the wrong reasons.
This makes me think of how my wife pops me upside the head when I tease our golden retriever with a dog biscut. Why? Because it’s wrong. He can’t tease me back just as these poor children can’t torment this woman back. It doesn’t matter that their distress will be gone in moments. It’s still distress that she is INTENTIONALLY causing a helpless child.
I read an article recently about what is or isn’t spoiling a child. The gist of the article concluded that the most important part of a childs development is loving them. If a toddler throws a tantrum over not getting their way you show them more love. You comfort them. It’s impossible to show a child an unhealthy amount of love. I see intentionally making one cry completely opposite.
And for the morons who compare this to sibling abuse… WTF??? Yeah, my brother tormented me. And I lived with it. But when my mom did it, it hurt, and while it was rare, I still remember specific instances.
Besides, these children don’t look like they are throwing tantrums. Some of them look plain scared.
Also, while I’m sure she’s good, there’s really no telling how long these kids had to sit there. Hopefully it was only for seconds each.
Jill’s a great photographer. She didn’t need to do this. And she shouldn’t profit from it. If she makes a penny off of this it should go to those children.
Since there seems to be comment on the post I made and Thomas reposted here, I’ll rebut the comments.
Glacial worte:
“The comment you posted here reeks of a typical internet rant. Well structured editorial writing should be structured like a well formed debate or a piece of good persuasive writing. This comment you posted is full of one sided superlatives and needless attacks on those with differing views. Many of items the poster claims to be “obvious” (a word they use 7 times) were not at all obvious to me.”
I’m sorry if you find my post a “typical Internet rant” as that was certainly not the intent nor do I really even know what one is, since I don’t spend my time posting to forums or blogs. It was written with emotion, and outrage, over the actions that I find, and are which obvious to me, abusive against children by an adult. Since I am not an editor, I do not write in an editorial style. However that neither diminishes the points made or my opinion. Likewise, the number of times I used the word obvious isn’t an issue. I, and thats who’s perspective I am writing from, found the instances I pointed out as obvious. Perhaps if I had sprinkled “clearly” in there you might not have been compelled to make a comment on it.
But what Is clear to me is that you make a comment on a comment, without dealing with the real subject of the thread/blog/post. I seem to remember hearing that that is called trolling.
Well, I’m not biting.
Robert wrote:
“I’m not sure that I could call a comment “well thought out” that includes the phrase “I can only imagine they are the same people who voted for Bush for re-election, even though they knew he lied about Iraq”, seriously what does that have to do with this issue??.”
What that has to do with the issue is that both the photographer, in interviews and her artist statement, along with the gallery owner, have made these images out to be some kind of stand against Bush and his administration, and its “killing of innocent children in Iraq, Afghanistan and who knows where else”. (quote from Paul Kopeikin in this post http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html ). I merely threw it back in their face with sarcasm. Sorry you didn’t get it.
Robert also wrote:
“Finally, you close with “Hopefully my posts will open some minds…” while it’s clear from your post that ytour own mind could not be more closed, proven by your referral to those that disagree with you as “sick” or at best “misguided”, so tell me, which one am I?”.
I personally consider myself to have an open mind and change it often when presented with points or evidence that my opinion on a matter is wrong or that there is a better perspective. However here, my mind is made up. I find her abusive actions on 3 year olds and her attitude so completely objectionable that there is no way my opinion could change on the matter. Is that so wrong? It it also wrong when making an argument for one particular thought or belief that you hope to change peoples minds? If it is wrong, why even respond to anything at all?
I used the word “twisted” one time and that was in regards to the logic that Jill’s actions to those children is acceptable. I honestly can not fathom the concept that her actions towards those children for the purpose of a photograph and a sale at $4,500 a print is ok. To me that is twisted…twisted from the way I was brought up…twisted from how I thought adults were supposed to treat children…twisted from all that I hold dear.
Sick was used 2 times. One was the “sickest award” and maybe that is not what you are refering to. But I used that for its exact meaning. The woman I was addressing that to submitted a link to a lesbian pedophilia site, which is hosting an article originally published in Aperture Mag. and is an interview with Jessie Mann, Sally Mann’s daughter. I’m sorry, but I find the idea of using that interview, and linked to a lesbian pedophilia website (whose purpose states ““This web site is about and for women who are attracted to pre-teen and adolescent girls. Our primary goal is to give women and girls a tool for expressing their feelings and their love about this controversial topic, and to get people to open their minds to ideas about romantic and erotic attraction between women and girls.”) sick. Maybe you just have different standards on what is sick or not. But since I was writing my opinion, I’m entitled to use words that I choose to describe how I feel about something.
The other usage was “sick minds out there”, for which I feel there is. Again, I cannot fathom the concept and idea that forcing children to cry and feel emotion far beyond the daily tantrum children have, is an ok concept with a lot of people. Looking at the situation simply, an adult, with the approval of the childs mother, does whatever she can to make that child have a breakdown so she can take a picture, sell it for $4,500 and call it art. Purposfully terrorizing a child…
I think the concept is sick, and those that feel its ok and try to justify it as being ok as having sick minds. What can I say…that is how I feel.
It has been stated here, as well as elsewhere, that the pictures show the children in a state of fear and I believe that to be true. One look at them and there is no question. It is far beyond any child I have ever seen throwing a tantrum. And because of that, I will use words like twisted and sick to express not only how I feel about the images, but also about the photographer who shot them and the people who think that they are ok and that nothing wrong was done in the making of these pictures.
You, of course, have the right to disagree.
Ismaili-Net.Com – 21st Century Worlds Information Guide.
A true guide for culture, a guide that teachs you that we belongs to great community and having a great historical culture. Enjoy the Worlds information Service by: Ibrahim Lodhi
http://www.ismaili-net.com
Thomas:
Dude, seriously, you need to dismount the moral high horse.
You can’t have a discussion about “opening minds” while engaging in (pre-emptive) ad-hominem attacks against those who’d disagree with you.
A previous commenter was spot on when he wrote about how this screed is like most internet screeds.
My personal feelings about Jill’s work aside (I’m not here to argue with you or stroke your ego), this blogpost is shit.
It’s shit because you’re taking a holier-than-thou tone with me (your reader), talking DOWN to me instead of with me….in other words, this REEKS of someone who’s already uncomfortable with their moral position.
I’ve told you before you’re on weak ground – I know this because you attempt to align this kind of art (yes, mofo, ART) with pedophilic child-abuse, a logic flaw known as a “false dichotomy.”
At the end of the day, friend, I don’t like being talked down to, and I particularly don’t enjoy the inference that because I disagree with your (extreme) stance I’m somehow condoning terrible actions and am deserving of scorn.
You’re a smart mofo, TH, but you’re WAY outside of your zone here.
Have you thought about inviting Jill to dinner in your home and having a dialogue with her?
Or are you not that open-minded?
-j
To Mr. Green,
Like you don’t have a vested interest in this, and that you are completely being objective. Right. Your own quote says different “anyway, my two cents, but I’m (very) biased.” from here http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-greenberg-is-sick-woman-who.html
And of course, being a producer in ads, movies and TV, you’d NEVER do anything wrong to “get the shot” the client wanted. No sireee…not you.
Listening to your wife’s interview on American photo’s site, she admits she was upset when a child didn’t cry when the parent was sent out of the room (so they WEREN’T there the whole time…interesting. Then why did you say this “no child was photographed without their legal guardian in the room.”). Your wife’s quote: “Have the parents step out the room for a few minutes and come right back and they won’t cry at all, and that’s really frustrating”. Well boo hoo. Your little wife got frustrated. I guess that is worse than the kids being terrorized WELL beyond normal crying.
So, most of the kids are models huh, and your wife “…don’t want to upset the children too much”. And yet that was the whole point of the shoot, wasn’t it? To make them as upset as possible so she could get a” powerful image”? Yes it was. Now we know that “Some of them cry on their own…they don’t like being photographed” and “…not their natural habitat without their shirt on” and yet “most are child models”. That sounds weird…if they are pro, how do they get work if “they don’t like being photographed” and that it’s “…not their natural habitat…”? She had even seen what would happen, when she photographed the brother of a girl she was shooting and saw the contacts in which he was “holding his hand up to his mouth looking totally horrified”. And this is where she got the idea…from seeing another child “totally horrified”. So clearly, since she “…don’t want to upset the children too much”, she just had to do it again. She KNEW she could get a child to be horrified, and yet she inflicted this on other children on purpose. Is there anything that comes out of her mouth that ISN’T hypocritical? I haven’t heard any yet. And perhaps you need to read this http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/defineall.pdf where it states California Law: ““Willful harming or injuring of a child or the endangering of the person or health of a child means a situation in which any person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon, unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the child to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endanger.” WILLFULLY CAUSES ANY CHILD TO SUFFER, OR INFLICTS THEREON…MENTAL SUFFERING. What part of that DON’T you get? Your wife willfully caused a child to suffer, AND inflicted thereon MENTAL SUFFERING by horrifying the child. And it was premeditated. Perhaps a definition of horrified is in order: “To cause to feel horror. To cause unpleasant surprise to; shock”.
Now your wife claims “Not doing any permanent psychic damage” and yet, here is a quote from a poster who went thru the same experience your wife put these kids thru…”A photo was once taken of me in this state at the same age, and I was laughed at while the photo was taken. I now see this photo as an incredible disrespect to my feelings and looking at it makes me sad.” I didn’t know your wife had a degree in child psychiatry to be qualified to give such an opinion. Well, certainly she isn’t biased in that opinion. Right.
All this is for what? What is Jill’s main driving force here? A comment on Bush and his policies? Hardly…that is just a convenient after thought. No, her motivation is perfectly clear…$4,500 a print. And of course the attention from the controversy that will surround these pictures, which will just make her photo’s worth even more, and perhaps make her the cause célèbre of the art world…much like what happened to Jock Sturges when he dropped off his film at a hole-in-the-wall photo lab and arose the attention of the police and FBI, which made him financially successful and famous.
Any artistic statement cannot justify her purposeful actions to be brought down on children who have no choice in the matter or control over the situation. Forcibly making a child have an episode of tremendous anguish, as is indicated on their faces (these children are well beyond simply crying) is an act of abuse. She is abusing her power over them, as both an adult and what the child sees as a trusted friend to their parents. I doubt if she sat the children down and said “Ok here is what I am going to do. First, we will take off your clothes, then I will have you sit right over there. Next, my assistant here and I are going to do many things to get you to cry as hard as you have ever cried before. We will do that by having your parent leave the room, giving you some candy or a toy, and then grabbing it from you. We will do this over and over until you are crying good enough for me, and then these bright lights will flash over and over again, until I have a good enough picture. We will do this and there is nothing you can do to stop me. Thank you for your time and understanding, and participating in this historic event that is really a comment on my feelings towards the Bush administration. I am sorry we have to terrorize you like this, but you see, this is for the greater good. These pictures will make that bad man go away and stop hurting other children.” There is nothing that she has produced that justifies her actions towards these children. The hypocrisy is that she is terrorizing these children to cry so she can stop Bush from terrorizing children in Iraq. I guess Iraqi children deserve better treatment than our own children do.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference between a small child crying “at the drop of a hat” or at a restaurant and the sheer fear, complete anguish and the horror that these children obviously have, I feel sorry for you. You are obviously so desensitized and morally bankrupt that it is scary we live together in the same society.
Of course you and your wife will never admit what she really did. She especially has to much at stake to admit she purposefully horrified children for a photo project and $4,500 a print, so I guess this is all moot. However, one day you will be held responsible for your actions.
I just wish I could be there to see it.
folks,
John Hancock is Thomas Hawk.
What gets me is that all of these judgments are being passed when the only evidence we have is a 1/60th of a second slice of time. We don’t have a video of an entire session. Haven’t you seen pictures of Pres. Bush where they catch him the middle of saying something and he looks foolish. Or where a photographer catches a celebrity in a particular pose on the beach that makes them look fat?
I’m not defending the artist here but I don’t think there is enough evidence in the photos themselves to say this extreme tormenting and abuse. I mean, some of these kids could have just frowned and the photographer could have caught it “right.”
I’m sorry, but, John Hancock can not make these kinds of statements and then remain “Anonymous” because “he doesn’t want to be spammed to death”. Especially after being “arrested” and “putting his body on the line”. As much time, energy, and thought that might have been put into his comment, none of it means two cents if this person is condemning people (the artist, the gallerist, other commentors) and not standing up as himself. He should know that more than anybody if what he writes is true.
For all of you worried about the tears of these children, I beg you to refocus that worry to the real threat. What is said below is all over the web, and whole heartedly believed by enough Americans to elect Bush. This mentality is what will kill our children- these people have a reason to want the world to end- to fulfill a religious prophecy.
Jill Greenberg is speaking out against this. She knows that if her own children knew what was stirring in their world today… The ‘agony’ on their faces is the agony of the world we are leaving them. The fact that they are upset because of lights, camera, action, is trivial. Their ‘agony’ is what we will all feel when it reaches 130 degrees this summer, when the Middle East takes action against itself or us, when closed minded people start to rule the Democratic state of America.
And by the way, how do you think the industry gets kids to cry in commercials, movies, etc. The exact same ‘methods’ Jill Greenberg used. The only reason she is the basis of controversy is because she is such a good photographer we believe the agony that never existed.
With all of the energy being put into this, it proves what we could do if we focused on the real issues, the real abuses.
We are now 98% confident that the UN Plaza will be hit by a terrorist nuclear bomb between Thursday evening June 29th and Tuesday evening July 4th, 2006
“It is certainly true that: No nukes is good nukes! But just because we got the date wrong (3 times) does not mean that the scriptural threat has evaporated. It is still there in black and white in bible symbolism. So we still have the almost impossible task of persuading a typical New Yorker with faith in God, that the Bible predicts the very day and place of the first terrorist nuke. There is obviously a massive credibility gap between: “Here endeth the lesson” and “Here endeth NYC”. But every journey, however long, begins with one small step. So here is our attempt to fill that gap.
Firstly we again strongly advise anyone in New York City with any faith in God, whatever his religion or whatever his distrust of organised religion, to take the last Thursday in June off and to get out of NYC for that weekend and not come back until the evening of July 4 if nothing happens.
You can then study this fascinating article outside NYC at your leisure, during that weekend or more to the point, after that weekend! It is going to be hard to find the necessary time during the next few days, given the busy schedule of every New Yorker, to sit down and fully analyze the fruits of 14 years of bible decoding and reach a rational decision about such a momentous prediction. So the sensible course of action might be to judge for yourself whether we are sincere in our efforts to decode the bible. And if you see that we are sincere, then rather than taking an intellectual walk from basic faith to accurate bible prophecy, just rely on all of the work that we have so far done and on the basis of your faith and our sincerity, take the weekend out of the city.
We have everything to lose and nothing to gain if we are not sincere. We also have a lot to lose if we do not eventually get this right. We have done this work in order to save lives. We risk looking like complete and utter turkeys on July 5th if nothing has happened by then, rather than looking like the wackos and complete turkeys that we presently look like to most people. But it does not really matter what we look like, what matters is that people start taking the bible seriously at this late stage in the divine plan.
But for those of you who are interested in bible prophecy, in detective stories, in understanding God’s love, in intellectual puzzles, in Stargate type Sci Fi from 3,500 year old documents written in Hebrew and from 2,000 year old documents written in Greek, or in the absolute spiritual truth that lies just beneath the thin and perishing plastic veneer of this wicked and Pharisaical administration of mankind, which promotes morality with its lips but rewards immorality with its currency, which promotes multilateral peace with its lips, but wages unilateral war with its armies and its bureaucrats, which praises God with its lips but destroys this planet he created with its technology and leaves more than half the children in the world in want of food, medical care or schooling. Let’s take a walk together…”
I just came upon this controversy accidentally. I checked out Greenberg’s photos and those kids pretty wretched. I assume they’re for sale. I’m fairly liberal on most issues, but that woman and the parents of those children are just plain wrong. I can’t imagine considering those atrocities as art. There’s no excuse.
Wait a second. You just posted a link to a website which you yourself describe as pushing “lesbian pedophilia”. So that means that you, Thomas Hawk, are the one promulgating kiddie porn. I think the cops should bust into your house, sieze your computer, shut down your website, take away your kids (I hope none of them are daughters, since you obviously, by posting that link, endorse lesbian pedophilia), and haul you off to jail. That fact that you even *know* about this website is sickening. That you would post the link to it is criminal. You sick bastard… I’m calling the FBI on you.
See how easy it is to go overboard with this stuff? See how easy it is to come across as sanctimonious and hysterical? Maybe Nicole found the interview by typing “Jessie Mann interview” into Google.
Let’s ease up on the accusations here a little, can we?
You’re kidding, right? Thomas did not post that ink, someone who wrote a comment did. BIG difference.
And taking your advise, googleing Jessie MAnn Interview didn’t show the lesbian pedophilia page http://www.google.com/search?q=Jessie+Mann+interview%22&start;=0&ie;=utf-8&oe;=utf-8&client;=firefox-a&rls;=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Why Nicole wouldn’t just go to Aperture’s page, the publisher of the interview, to get a link to the interview is beyond me.
It doesn’t matter whether it was his post or a quote from someone else. Thomas Hawk is publishing the urls to kiddie porn sites. He is making it easier for pedophiles to indulge in their criminal and disgusting behavior. He is peddling child pornography. He should be arrested, and his children taken away from him.
Wanna keep going on this, John? Because it sounds to me like you are making excuses for a child pornographer, in fact enabling hinm to continue to publish the web addresses of these immoral, horrifying and illegal websites. So I think maybe you, too, should be arrested, and your computers seized, and your children removed from your home. Is that why you don’t publish your real name, you revolting man, you child molester kiddie pornographer John Hancock?
Yes, or course you are right Mr. Anonymous…what was your last name again? Or even your first one? I don’t see you using yours, sport, so you have nothing to say about that now do you? I thought not.
I’m sure if you write to Mr. Hawk and express your concern he would take the link off. However I think you are more interested in diverting attention from the real issue…one that you can in no logical or meaningful way defend, than you are about any concern you might have for a link buried in this blog somewhere.
When you have something relevant or even interesting to say, write back. Otherwise you’re really making yourself look foolish.
Boy, talk about a non-denial denial. I believe “John Hancock” has just admitted that linking to kiddie porn is all right by him. Because, of course, what other people do and support is an excuse for him to judge and spread hate, but what he does is not “relevant”, or a “real issue”.
This, of course, is a classic example of what pedophiles regularly do: misdirect people from their own filthy and disgting obsessions.
Judge not, lest ye be judged, Mr. child molester John Hancock.
“…misdirect people from their own filthy and disgting obsessions.”
Seems this is exactly what you are doing.
BTW Einstein, the links have been removed after I brought it up to Thomas.
So now what are you going to try and divert from the issue at hand? I wonder Mr. Anonymous…if that is indeed your real name. Maybe its Robert Green.
Soulds plausable to me. Only difference is you know how to use decent grammer. Mr. Green couldn’t write himself out of a wet paper bag.
You both are just so laughable its not even funny.
Holy shit: you’re even dumber than I thought. By taking down the link all you’re doing is admitting that you did something wrong in the first place. If not, what are you trying to hide? (As if this stuff wasn’t cached on Google anyway).
So now you can be described as “Thomas Hawk and his pal John Hancock, who linked to child pornography and then, under pressure from commentors, hastily removed all evidence of their wrong-doing”.
It’s not the crime, Johnny-boy, it’s the cover-up.
You make this way too easy.
Anonymous is right. I have reported this site to the CyberTipline at http://www.cybertipline.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId;=2446
and I will follow up as necessary. The fact that you would link to a child pornography site, and then try to cover your tracks by deleting the link is horrible. You should be ashamed. I hope you spend the rest of your life in jail.
CM
Obviously you don’t know what really happened, or else you wouldn’t be able to say anything. Thomas did not link to that lesbian pedophilia site, Shawn Oster did, when she was trying to justify/compare Greenberg how she forcibly induced 3 year old children into a state of emotional distress with the way Sally Mann took her images, and used an article by Aperture with Jessie Mann, Sally’s oldest daughter. I confronted her about it, asking why she would link to a lesbian pedophilia site and how she even knew about such a site, and how I thought it was sick. I also wrote to Aperture telling them that their article and picture of Jessie Mann had been harvested and was linked and being hosted by that site. They demanded that it be taken down and it was. They also thanked me for bringing it to their attention as they certainly didn’t want to be associated with that kind of site. Because I knew the link was no longer valid, I suggested to Thomas that he take it down. It didn’t have anything to do with anyone complaining and Thomas has always made the point that he DOES NOT CENSOR what people write here, (unlike Mr. Green, Jill’s husband who deleted his entire blog on the subject, mostly because he spent all of his entry cursing Thomas out, which of course made Mr. Green look like an idiot). This puts him in a catch-22 situation…he’s damned if he leaves it up, being accused as a pedophilia himself, or he’s damned if he takes it down, as only doing so because a few people have brought it up when they have nothing else better to say. I mistakenly included that link in my rebuttle, mostly because I wanted people to know just how sick of a site it was, but also a bit foolishly. It was already in the blog and I should have thought better than to repeat it, and I admit to that mistake. Otherwise there is nothing else to be said on the matter. The link is not longer valid, and thushas been taken down because it is irrelevant. And I admit my mistake, but it too is irrelevant, since the link no longer exists. Do any of you make mistakes? More importantly, do you ever admit, publically, when you do? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Takes too big of a person to admit a mistake, and , well, y’all just don’t seem like you could fit those shoes.
However, I’m sure you’ll find some reason to divert attention away from the real issue and make this into something it is not.
John and Thomas,
why do you argue with jackasses and jackals? I have read the whole stuff about the “controversy” and now I am very sad and angry. Newspapers and broadcasts all around the world (sic!)have reported upon an abusive quarrel just because Thomas had insult Mrs. Greenberg, so Mr. Green had to defend his female. She passed the bucks. If you ask real friends of children, serious photographers or institutions taking care of children there is no controversy!
It was her intention to provoke emotions? Has anybody read the “prolog” on her homepage? (www.manipulator.com). I have never read before anything more hypocritical. She tried to hush up her technics/techniques by disparaging toddlers: moody cry-babies which suddenly become hysterically. My daughter (nearly three) is not a cry-baby, she is an intelligent, courageous girl, who would fight like a lioness, if any asshole tried to take her lollipop away.
Check this out: she would cry out against anybody trying to take away her property! Mrs. Greenberg surely would have cried if any child had taken away the fucking camera from her and threw it on the floor.
She shot 35 little indivduals, guinea-pigs for her, a “series of tests, not art” (the german photographer Thomas Ruff), she alarmed them and payed the parents (400 bucks). Where is the controversy? You scandal-mongers created an area for her defenders which keep on repeating the lie that all the children just cry for a lollipop! Long ago Mrs. Greenberg admitted that she used some other “techniques” to alarm the children, if the lollipop-technique did not work. But the parents were within cry of their children watching their lost children crying for them! Some other techniques – international standard, I suppose – wobbling box – stripped off – I know these techniques. Mrs. Greenberg played with fire when she experimented with human feelings just to get perfect pictures illustrating her world-weariness. She simulates sympathy with children and slander them like her defenders. I am angry when I see the boys and girls showing true anger and disappointment. Some of them rear and rebel, but they have no chance. We cannot see their hands, guess why? Any idea?
Mrs. Greenberg called it “pain” to intensify her political message, being attacked she keeps on mocking at the “stubborns”. Her defenders keep crying up her “art”, crying up the selling price on your blogs. Macy’s wants to buy the complete series of experiments for their advertising (the poor stripped off children have to be dressed!). So we see that the pretended “art” with its political message is nothing more than scandalously advertisement. However, we have learned that in the USA you can use/misuse/abuse toddlers by every possible means as a stepping-stone for advertisement. There is no person or any institution courageous enough to file an information. Just gossip. Jill said…Jack and Jill said…Jack in the box said…Jack Pudding said…if there were a video tape, I am sure, the “artist” would be on remand. I can hear the 35 children crying off against Jill: why are you doing this? What have we done?
And I can see the hands of the adults seizing the wrists. Show me the video tape if I am wrong.
The german organisation for children’s protection said that the the pictures are an infringement upon human dignity.
So keep from our playgrounds, Jill!
We donnot sell our children
Bernd
Germany
John and Thomas,
why do you argue with jackasses and jackals? I have read the whole stuff about the “controversy” and now I am very sad and angry. Newspapers and broadcasts all around the world (sic!)have reported upon an abusive quarrel just because Thomas had insult Mrs. Greenberg, so Mr. Green had to defend his female. She passed the bucks. If you ask real friends of children, serious photographers or institutions taking care of children there is no controversy!
It was her intention to provoke emotions? Has anybody read the “prolog” on her homepage? (www.manipulator.com). I have never read before anything more hypocritical. She tried to hush up her technics/techniques by disparaging toddlers: moody cry-babies which suddenly become hysterically. My daughter (nearly three) is not a cry-baby, she is an intelligent, courageous girl, who would fight like a lioness, if any asshole tried to take her lollipop away.
Check this out: she would cry out against anybody trying to take away her property! Mrs. Greenberg surely would have cried if any child had taken away the fucking camera from her and threw it on the floor.
She shot 35 little indivduals, guinea-pigs for her, a “series of tests, not art” (the german photographer Thomas Ruff), she alarmed them and payed the parents (400 bucks). Where is the controversy? You scandal-mongers created an area for her defenders which keep on repeating the lie that all the children just cry for a lollipop! Long ago Mrs. Greenberg admitted that she used some other “techniques” to alarm the children, if the lollipop-technique did not work. But the parents were within cry of their children watching their lost children crying for them! Some other techniques – international standard, I suppose – wobbling box – stripped off – I know these techniques. Mrs. Greenberg played with fire when she experimented with human feelings just to get perfect pictures illustrating her world-weariness. She simulates sympathy with children and slander them like her defenders. I am angry when I see the boys and girls showing true anger and disappointment. Some of them rear and rebel, but they have no chance. We cannot see their hands, guess why? Any idea?
Mrs. Greenberg called it “pain” to intensify her political message, being attacked she keeps on mocking at the “stubborns”. Her defenders keep crying up her “art”, crying up the selling price on your blogs. Macy’s wants to buy the complete series of experiments for their advertising (the poor stripped off children have to be dressed!). So we see that the pretended “art” with its political message is nothing more than scandalously advertisement. However, we have learned that in the USA you can use/misuse/abuse toddlers by every possible means as a stepping-stone for advertisement. There is no person or any institution courageous enough to file an information. Just gossip. Jill said…Jack and Jill said…Jack in the box said…Jack Pudding said…if there were a video tape, I am sure, the “artist” would be on remand. I can hear the 35 children crying off against Jill: why are you doing this? What have we done?
And I can see the hands of the adults seizing the wrists. Show me the video tape if I am wrong.
The german organisation for children’s protection said that the the pictures are an infringement upon human dignity.
So keep from our playgrounds, Jill!
We donnot sell our children
Bernd
Germany
OK, so I am not usually driven to make any blog type comments but for this I make an exception. I accept that kids (I have 2 myself) will cry for many inexplicable reasons. Often it is just a temper tantrum. I don’t think I fundamentally feel that what Greenberg did was in any way comparible to child abuse (none of these kids will remember later in life ….though the pictures may not let them forget). What I do have a problem with is Greenberg saying it is an artistic statement about how she views the state of the World and then……charging $4,500 for a series of 10 !!! If she made her statement and then set out to use the images to raise funds for some rational and worthy cause …maybe she might have credibility. Making kids cry as Art for pure personal gain….just unethical and insincere. That’s really what I think of her…really up her own @#$% !!
I feel sorry for the sheer ignorance of some of the comments I have read!!! My son is the boy who has been featured on most of the publicity surrounding these photos.I can only speak for my son and myself. My son was in no way abused Jill actually got the photo because he didnt want to leave I told him “ok Honey its time to go and he started crying!!!There was no “tormenting etc…..It just goes to show how judgements are passed without knowing the facts.Has anyone ever heard of Photo enhancement????All I can say is I was there and it is ludacris the ridiculous press this is receiving!!!!It is the cynisism of the adults that view the photos and the presumption that these children were harmed and tormented. For those of you that have children I dont know if you have ever left them at preschool at they are hysterically crying for you not to leave and they are over it two minutes after you go but it is the parent that is affected all day..My son is a wonderful gregarious boy who loves going on auditions ( which only occur maybe once a month, at the most)At the shoot I personally did not want to give him a lollipop and take it away.I simply told him like I have on many auditions what was wanted I said honey they want you to cry he responded “ok mom no proplem”but didnt really cry until I said “lets go” Im tired of all of the assumptions made regarding this .I just feel that unless you were there dont make accusations that are false.
I love these portraits and think the work is one of the strongest series of children that I’ve seen. You folks who are writing must not be around children very much, because if you were, you would know that small children cry a lot–over everything. They are not adults and not able to control their emotions yet, so they cry about the most mundane and small things. I would hardly call “taking away a lollipop” abuse!! Seriously, this is an insult to all of the poor children who suffer from true abuse. If you are all so worried about abused children, you should volunteer at a shelter, instead of ranting about something so ridiculous. I am placing an order for Greenberg’s book right now!
Just a question, does anyone know how the kids are doing today? Are they playing happily with their mom n dad laughing, giggling, and sometimes crying? Do you think they remember the day when the lollypop were taken away from them?
If we’re talking about abuse, those emotions should’ve been etched deeply in their hearts and they should have some sort of hatred for their parents or whomever took that candy from them.
But that’s not how kids are. They just cry because they can’t have what they want. They cry when their diapers are wet, they just cry all the time for as long as they want. And after their diapers are changed, milk is fed, mommy’s holding them in arms, they’ll be as angels again, and not even the slightest worry about what had made them cry.
I was looking at my baby photos, i was crying desperately for a candy…. Well, i can’t remember what that was all about. I just thought i looked horrible
. Can you pick up your old baby photos and remember what u were feeling?
And then i remember a science project about facial expression. They used babies as test subjects. (this was on Discovery channel). They would put a baby in a room with their mom, mommy’s cradling the baby. And then the baby will be put on a crib, while mommy is given a baby doll. (They’re testing if babies can feel jealous or not). This act makes all the babies go to tantrum and cryyyyyyy (*oeeeeeeee…. i want my mommmy!!!!*)
Now, how come nobody’s protest against that? It’s the same artificially induced cry.
The reason why is probably because the outstanding photgraphic quality of Jill’s. It is above reality, it looks so heart wrenching because of the crystal clear detail of their expression. I applaud Jill for her technique.
Now try imagining baby pics taken with our pocket camera. I’m sure you proud parents have one in your handphone.
Jill Greenberg loves images of crying children, they make her feel something
“I’ve always loved images of crying children. They’re so powerful, they’re so emotional and in an age where we’re all image saturated there are still some
images that sort of cut through the rest and still make you feel something and still get you and I sort of like that”
Her daughter “cries for no reason, a hundred times a day. It’s normal”. “Children cry all the time…totally on their own”.
So let’s shoot them in dozens, as many as possible! It could be dangerous to shoot them on a playground, because their parents would abuse you or beat you up,
so you have to book some models: “Kid models aren’t very expensive – not as expensive as monkeys, for example”. Lucky mom!
They are so vulnerable, they cry for no reason, if you cut them. You just have to ignore their feelings and they cry on their own!!!
- they don’t really like being photographed..
- children don’t really like, that’s not their natural habitat to be in a photo studio without their shirt on and sometimes that makes them cry
- and sometimes we gave them some candy like a lollipop, and than we take it away which is an interesting job for my photo assistants…most of which don’t have any children (Maybe getting kids to cry isn’t the nicest thing to do, but I’m not causing anyone permanent psychological damage)
…sometimes we’ll have their moms step out of the studio for a couple of minutes and then come right back… sometimes they won’t cry at all…and that’s sort of frustrating because we’ve found some gorgeous children who sort of look at me like,,,yeah, you can take away my lollipop that’s not going to make me cry
Children have always been used for political propoganda, it upvalues the artificial artifice.
I like I can sort of have a little bit of a political message at the same time. I try not to take anything too seriously, it’s sort of funny in a way, these children are crying and you know the picture is called Grand Old Party…”
I’d like to respond to the comment of the mother (10:19 A.M.)now we know that your son was not abused, and he was not tormented. Fine. I have respect for your conscience and your conscientiousness. You did not want to give him a lollipop and take it away. As far as I know (podcast american photo) it was an interesting job for her photo assistants “…most of which don’t have any children”.
Evidently they had no twinges of remorse.
You did not want them to snatch the candy from your son. Fine.
Surely Jill had to accept that some parents would accept every method to make their children cry, for being “successful”, and some parents did not want to upset their children very much. Your son loves going on auditions. Sure. He’s a child. It’s a funny thing: make-up, dress up, put on an act. He feels that he is important, they single him out for praise, though he is a small child. I see that you’re proud of your son. It should be normal. I hope you tell him every day that he is a wonderful boy. And I hope you’ll never tell the whole world that your child cries for no reason, a hundred times a day, or other stupid things. Your brave boy did not cry for no reason. He’s not a crybaby. He cried because he did not want to disappoint you and the other people. You expected something absurd. Sometimes small children have tantrums (like adults), they want to force something, it’s a power struggle. But if a human being (a child or an adult) weeps, he feels pain and anguish. That’s biology. Tears ease the pain! “Nothing is more pure than the anguish of a child” (Jill Greenberg). That’s true. Jill tried everything to play the pain down by mocking at the children, by mocking at her own child. That’s the reason why many parents are angry. Your son is longing for your appreciation. You said “lets go” and he thought that he failed, that he did not come up to your expectation. That’s a good reason to cry… for a child and for an adult like me.
Sven, Germany
Wow. Alot of sand-filled vaginas in here.
GHD MK4 curly hair straightener
Permit your head of hair to angle for fifteen accounts and once more attain abiding your head of hair is absolutely dry You can dry your curly hair by itself or with curly hair dryer Accomplish abiding the hairdryer pointing straight down which can accept the aftereffect on hair follicles that would acquiesce them to point down and complete abiding your hair shine
Research is an absolution or even a curse Of advance it is definitely an alloyed absolution on this break too for people with affection for look aided by the accession of ghd MK4 GHD MK4 hair adamant is absorbing and no agnosticism may be the absolution of research With the entire added role that has been an absolution to acclimatized the asparagus waves It truly is artlessly absurd and can’t be carried out unless of course you get one for you
With numerous advantageous appearances has develop into the aboriginal very best for appearance aficionados The brand new larger technology is suggested to align your locks afterwards damage What is GHD MK4 curly hair adamant is success Able-bodied looking at the chump critiques which could admeasurements the acceptance of it What could be the affidavit for this kind of reputation
In accordance to chump acknowledgment showed that humans achieved acclaim on your DVD MK4 ghd ghd straighteners be acutely advantageous to customers who’re accomplished together with the actual approach to attain an precise model Too the votes of barter for above superior articles or blog posts that motion GHD Hair Straighteners affliction head of hair additional safely afore and afterwards software the straightener All that is precise advantageous for those who carry out your head of hair extra commonly or you are able to say frequently