An Open Letter to the Editor of American Photo Magazine
I wrote the following letter to the editor to American Photo Magazine. I will report back if/when I hear from them:
“Dear American Photo:
I am deeply disappointed by the article in which you quote me in the most recent issue regarding photographer Jill Greenberg.
In the article you pull several quotes from my blog at thomashawk.com and credit me appropriately. I have no problem with this. It might have been nice to know ahead of time that you guys planned on doing this but they are my words and I stand by them.
But in having Ms. Greenberg respond to my allegations of abuse you allowed her to reply, “I know the comment you are talking about. I don’t know what that guy’s personal problems are. I don’t think he’s got kids.” etc. etc.
In my original article that you pulled quotes from I clearly stated that I was a father of four. In fact I’ve had a lot of experience with toddlers. My children are aged 1 1/2, 3, 4, and 5. But rather than disputing this fact plainly in the article you allowed Ms. Greenberg to use a lie about my not having kids in an ad hominem attack rather than dealing with the issue straight on. Ms. Greenberg (if she read my article) obviously knew that I was a father of four. What’s more, both her husband and gallery owner responded in writing to my article where again the fact that I’m a father is stated.
Further, no one from American Photo ever contacted me. Ever bothered to check on Ms. Greenberg’s attempts to discredit me. Nor ever gave me a chance to respond.
This is very sloppy journalism and I would have expected more from a professional publication. I am a proud father of four, I am not insane, and I would never do to my children, who I love deeply, what Ms. Greenberg chooses to do to hers and her friends’ in the name of art.
I would appreciate an apology and a retraction regarding this bit of one sided reporting.
Sincerely,
Thomas Hawk”
If your quote of Ms. Greenberg above “I know the comment you are talking about. I don’t know what that guy’s personal problems are. I don’t think he’s got kids.” is accurate then she didn’t lie. She of course was wrong and shouldn’t have shot her mouth off without accurate info but that’s entirely different than “lying”.
Robert, she clearly knew I had kids. I stated in the article that was referenced in the magazine as well as personally responded to by her husband and gallery owner that I had four kids.
For her to say that she doesn’t think that I’ve got kids is a bald faced lie designed only to discredit me as not understanding by not being a parent myself.
It is plainly in my article and American Photo should have seen that too in an effort to provide balanced coverage on this issue.
Eh, maybe I’m giving her more benefit of the doubt than I should but I know there are lots of things I read and respond to online, and sometimes I tell my wife about them but she pretty much NEVER reads them herself. Knowing about your previous post and having read it are two different things, if she had responded herself then that would be a different story.
I can also tell you that I can certianly understand how someone who heard about or glanced through your original post could make the assumption that you didn’t have kids, as a parent myself who already knew you had kids I remember thinking that it was wierd that you, having kids would write something like that based on the subject matter. I even looked at more of the photos in question thinking there must have been something I missed.
In any case the magazine should have fact checked and posted a clarification that you did indeed have kids.
Personally, I’ve always found American Photo a waste of time and full of fluff.
It’s amazing to me what magazines/reporters will do to get a story …
Look, the photography of that woman is for people who like to wank off to children in pain. They’re so glossy and so unnatural, titled with such inappropriate titles to the subject matter that you just have to wonder. Take a look at “The Rapture Index” for instance, where spit is seeping down from the girl’s open mouth.
If you call this art, you’ve got issues. If this is what you do to sell your photography, you’ve got even bigger issues.
That link wasn’t right – see it here
Definitely sounds like lazy journalism on AP’s part. Whether you had posted the fact that you’re a father in your blog post or not, the reporter should have followed up with you to get your feedback to Greenberg’s comments and to find out if you did have kids.
Sounds like the reporter wanted to leech off of your blog to create a little sizzle, but didn’t really care enough to do the leg work to provide a balanced perspective.
Since when do mainstream professional publications write stories about someone’s blog entry about their personal opinion on a topic???
If I want to read people’s opinions in the blogosphere, I don’t need to read a magazine for that.
I used to subscribe to the magazine, and after this, I’m glad I didn’t renew.
You said she should be arrested and connected her to child abuse, because of the type of photos she takes.
The more I read your blog, the less I think of you.
Your blog is the shoddy journalism here.
When I first looked at Greenberg’s End Times Series, my view was tainted by your perspective Thomas, and I somewhat agreed with you. When I take a step back and look at that particular series…its a far cry from child abuse. The lighting, bells, whistles, does give the series a vibrant flare. But the concept of aggravating children all in the name of…wait, what is your concept about? End Times-how the hell (pun intended)does your aggravating children connect? Its just stupid. It doesn’t even relate TO the “End Times” Its just a stupid freaking concept-not child abuse. YOU’RE BOTH WRONG! Everybody is wrong at times. It still doesn’t negate the fact that your are an excellent photographer, and when I saw her portfolio…she’s pretty good herself. Bad blood between the two of you prior to this?
God Bless.
One minor point, ‘The Rapture Index’ is clearly a reference to this fairly well-known website: http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html
i.e., ‘rapture’ in the sense of Revelations, keeping with the End Times theme. Not ‘rapture’ as in ecstasy.
I don’t read American Photo, I read your blog and several others that are photography focused. That’s really the larger point and it’s directly related to the print media and the practices, that readership is declining (I don’t know as fact whether or not AP is, but as a general trend it holds true).
and by the way, this comment will live on my blog as well.
http://anothergreenworld.blogspot.com
have a nice day.
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.
I can’t agree with Thomas Hawk on this one at all. Ms. Green stated that she didn’t ‘think’ Thomas Hawk has kids, not that he does not have kids. Even if Thomas Hawk says he has kids, it’s within my right to think that he doesn’t and say so.
Further, wow can we even take someone who doesn’t even use his real name seriously?
“I can’t agree with Thomas Hawk on this one at all. Ms. Green stated that she didn’t ‘think’ Thomas Hawk has kids, not that he does not have kids. Even if Thomas Hawk says he has kids, it’s within my right to think that he doesn’t and say so.”
He states it and her husband read the initial blog, where he states it, and made a post. Surely husband and wife talked about this. She was just stooping to a low position to try and discredit him. By the way, HER name is Greenberg. Husbands name is Green. Try knowing the facts before you post.
“Further, wow can we even take someone who doesn’t even use his real name seriously?”
Wow. I didn’t know stupidity could go so low. Are YOU using your name? No. So your post isn’t serious. LOL
Tim…
Wow. Just let it go and get a life. Why are you both being so moralistic about all this? Just agree to disagree and get over it, both of you. Or I’m going to take both your lollipops away.
Tim…
I mean, of course, self-righteous Thomas Hawk and self-righteous Jill Greenberg. Both pushing for the moral high ground; It’s like seeing two kids fight over a sandcastle.
Robert Green – thanks for confirming that Jill isn’t the only fucking creep in the family.
I’m the father of a 1 1/2 year old, and at first after having read Thomas Hawk’s post, and seeing the photo series in question, I felt the shots were inappropriate.
HOWEVER… child abuse is a VERY serious accusation, and throwing that around is also inappropriate.
I for one have photographed my kid having a temper tantrum — and while I didn’t induce the tantrum, I did delay comforting him in order to take a snapshot. Child abuse? Don’t think so. I don’t think actual victims of child abuse would think so either.
Open letters are for people with no clout
Robert Green said…
“and by the way, this comment will live on my blog as well.
http://anothergreenworld.blogspot.com
have a nice day.”
Obviously it is not. Seems you have deleted all your abusive remarks. Well it might just come back to bite you in the butt…I archived it!
LOL
Thomas, I wanted you to know that there were many objections to this photographer and article on the “Respond to American Photo” section of the Popular Photography and Imaging web forum, and this discussion has been removed from the forum without comment by the American Photo forum operators. American Photo has a long history of using sexism and sensationalism to sell their rag and publicising Greenberg’s ‘project’ is nothing more than an extension into exploiting children to sell magazines. Yes, it’s sickening, but not surprising that American Photo wants to suppress any discussion of this subject and their lack of ethics and decency.
Thanks for posting that. I didn’t know they would have censored free speech…especially one that they asked for and provided space for.
I’ve alwyas thought of it as a cheap rag anyway…this just reinforces it.
Thanks again.
And putting peanut butter on a kids face to get a dog to lick it for a photograph is abuse too.
I’ve posted over on flickr and your other post on this.
Yoiur “opinion” is not an opinion, it’s a fabrication and I agree with Jill’s husband – it’s slander.
These photographs are fine pieces of work, beyond your talent and skills and what really irks you (and it’s painfully apparent) is the political connection made of them.
Visit your local grocery story and just look at all the “abused” kids wailing away in the shopping carts.
These kids weren’t harmed or even provoked the were coached – just like you coach them for a smile, or a serious look with a story.
In this case the result is a few tears a natural part of childhood.
Shame on you for making it out to be anything worse.
Shame on you, Paul, evidently you have no respect for children. It’s easy to mock at the weakness of children who have a craving for candy. Do you know why they are addicted to candy? Who get them used to consume piles of candy until they teeth rot? Parents and grandparents. Children are longing for candy like adults are longing for cigarettes, coffee or alcohol, the legal drugs of a consumer society. You want to evoke anger in an adult? Try to take away any semiluxury food, drink or tobacco from an adult consumer. If you’d undress an adult standing in the limelight, surrounded by strangers, and send off the partner, many adults would freak out! Would you call them crybabies?