Thomas Hawk Digital Connection Thomas Hawk Digital Connection
Search
The Post About Where Jill Greenberg Thinks She Can Intimidate Me by Contacting My Employer

Update: New York Times.

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

You will 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?

You do not intimidate me Jill Greenberg. You are IN MY OPINION a morally bankrupt individual who has no problem manipulating children (interesting how your website is called The Manipulator) and trying to intimidate others from expressing their opinion and excersising their constitutional right to free speech. You are in short, IN MY OPINION, a bully. But what else might I expect from someone that treats children as lovingly as you do. Oh my, how fun, tears running down a boys naked chest.

You call your lawyer Jill Greenberg. He/She will explain to you that opinions contrary to your own are actually allowed to be thought and are actually allowed to be spoken and written. He or she will also explain to you that when you put yourself up as a celebrity and an artist in the art community that you are even held to a higher degree of scrutiny and potential criticism — as am I within my realm as a blogger.

I am all for free speech. I believe in the free form expression of ideas. I’m actually pretty open to almost all art. With the exception of things that I think are harmful to children.

And to all you parents who allowed Jill to photograph your children this way. Tears running down their precious little faces. Shame on you. These photographs may end up haunting you, they may have and may in the future hurt your children and you should be ashamed of yourselves. These so called “paid models” that you sold out for a buck. It will be interesting to see how these children feel about these photographs when they are older. When they are adults and able to speak for themselves. Somehow I doubt that they will see the legitimacy of making a statement against the Bush administration as having been worth it.

Jill and Robert. These are my opinions. I’m allowed to have them. Your intimidation won’t work. This is my computer. My blog. And thanks to the City of San Francisco free wi-fi access. Maybe you should threaten the City of San Francisco with a lawsuit by the way. I’m expressing my opinion on their public wi-fi right now.

Loading Facebook Comments ...
133 comments on “The Post About Where Jill Greenberg Thinks She Can Intimidate Me by Contacting My Employer
  1. Rubin says:

    So I’ve been reading the on going story here about this, and till now I seen what these photos are about.

    Man, this lady is sick.

    Yet another reason for me not to have children.

  2. Thomas Hawk says:

    Careful Rubin. She might threaten to sue you. How dare you have an opinion contrary to hers. The almighty artist and loving mom.

  3. Excellent post Thomas! You don’t know me, but I have the utmost respect for your integrity and intellectual honesty.

    Jill Greenberg is sick and she has tried to invoke that Hollywood/celebrity “free pass” of the double standard. If she criticizes you it is free speech. If you disagree with her sick methods then it is libel????

    Good on ya for standing by your principles!

  4. Newtronic says:

    Thank you, Thomas, for speaking out.

  5. Kudos Thomas! I am disgusted at what Jill Greenberg calls “Art”. Don’t take any grief from this sick woman and her following of deviates. I am more disgusted however with the children’s parents that allowed them to be part of this whole sick affair. My responsibility as a Father is to protect my children and to keep them from harm’s way. Thank You for standing up for what you know is right.

  6. Anonymous says:

    you can’t honestly say that if someone publically accused you of being a child abuser, you wouldn’t do the same can you? ’nuff said.

  7. Anonymous says:

    interesting fact: searching her name on google returns your original post as the 4th result.

  8. Hi Thomas,

    You dont know me, but i’ve been reading your blog since the PriceRitePhoto incident.

    My favourite thing about you is you stick to your guns, and rightfully so. This lady is sick, and I support you fully.

    -sean in Canada

  9. Anonymous says:

    I notice a lot of jealousy in Thomas Hawk. Where Jill Greenberg makes good money with her photography and exhibits in galleries, sells a lot of prints, etc. Hawk can’t seem to get passed just shooting snapshots and the occaisional group show in a coffee shop-totally anonymous type stuff.

    Jill Greenberg has made a name for herself whereas Thomas Hawk is a nobody, and in fact hides behind an alias (Thomas Hawk isn’t his real name).

  10. dendrite says:

    My favorite is the anonymous poster complaining about hiding behind an alias.

  11. Anonymous says:

    anonymous:

    his profile says Thomas Hawk is an alias. That’s not exactly “hiding”.

  12. Maybe we can work her up into a frenzy and take pictures of her agony. What do you think it would take to get her that far? Oh, yeah, a blog posting.

  13. Anonymous says:

    This sounds like something that is going to become a Law and Order episode! We’re with you Thomas, don’t be intimidated

  14. Ray says:

    Unbelievable!

    I can’t believe someone who claims the title “artist” would be so pathetic as to try to intimidate you by contacting your employer.

    Completely beyond the pale, and clear evidence that this woman is an utter and complete fraud.

  15. golly gee, you must have really scared the pants off jill greenburg, ’cause now she’s resorted to posting comments to you here anonymously! what will she think of next….and, I guarantee that 3/4 of those parents will have those pictures come to haunt them. they obviously are not sensitive to their kids’ emotional needs on a daily, everyday basis or they would never let someone exploit their kid like that.

    I feel free to say this with all certainty, as I had a photo like that taken of me, and as an adult, I can see how insensitively my feelings were treated more than just that isolated incident. we all need to pray for those kids…

    stick to your guns Thomas Hawk (doesn’t really matter what your name is!)

  16. schwerd says:

    she offends on many levels…her treatment of children, her perspective on art, her response to critique, and on and on…

    I know you will not be intimidated, Thomas…and you have support a plenty…as a not-very-good photographer and the father of three, I support you in all aspects.

    Ms. Greenberg is entitled to her opinion, as are we all, and our interpretation of art may be different, which is OK, but she is not entitled to use and abuse children for personal gain; that is abhorrent and disgusting, and indicative of no moral or ethical values of merit.

  17. James Fee says:

    Before I had a son I probably would have just laughed her work off and never thought another thing about it.

    Thanks for taking a stand against this filth. I’m all for people expressing themselves, but when it requires taking advantage of those who cannot defend themselves against a psychological attack, it crosses the line.

    Sick is right.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Tim… (Anonymous only through login laziness)

    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.

    I mean, of course, self-righteous Thomas Hawk and self-righteous Jill Greenberg. Both pushing for the moral high ground. “He doesn’t have kids!” “I do have kids!” It’s like bad pantomime, or two kids in a fight over a sandcastle. Grow up and realise how many children the US and British military have MURDERED in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then see how your sulking about lollipops sounds.

  19. Evil always seems to show its colors eventually.

    I admit to sitting the fence on this one, I have a hard time seeing lasting harm in a few minutes of trauma equivalent to what I commonly see in the grocery store as screaming kids get dragged by the candy aisle.

    But by calling your employer she firmly seized the moral low ground. Her other attacks on you also come off as desperate smears from someone with no facts to stand on.

    I’m left with the suspicion she’s as unbalanced in the rest of her life, and should be kept a safe distance from children.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Hi,

    Just been put through to your blog from the BoingBoing website and wanted to give my support. I wholeheartedly agree with your stand. Good luck with it.

    Chris
    London UK

  21. Trousle says:

    You know what’s funny? There really are people out there who believe that they have the right to their own opinion but that no one else can have a different opinion. Do you want to know what’s sad now? All of the children in the world who get pushed through the public schools without learning anything, the rich kids who grow up getting whatever they want whenever they want it by throwing a tantrum .. these are the future generation of bullies and people who think no one should disagree with them. They grew up getting their way, why should they stop getting their way just because they are in the real world now?

    I applaud the people like Thomas who stand up for themselves and who actually stand up for their beliefs. I’ve always liked the saying that goes: “I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” If more people thought that way, I think the world would be … well, it wouldn’t be much better, but there would be a lot more people out there getting along instead of fighting. :)

    Undrhil

  22. Peter says:

    what kind of sicko does this to kids? what kind of sickos would be interested in purchasing art like this? I mean, i know Rush Limbaugh just got back from banging little kids in DR, but still, he’s Republican – self-explanatory.

    i have to do more research on this sick lady, Jill Greenberg, and make sure she’s stopped from abusing these children anymore. she belongs in jail.

    also, who’s kids are these? where are the parents? the parents, if knowingly allowing their children to be abused like this, should be jailed, too.

    this is outrageous!

  23. Jeff Atwood says:

    I don’t find these photos offensive at all. I think Mr. Hawk is far, far too sensitive. Furthermore, the whole thing reeks of moralistic judgment.

    However, I do agree that the photographer has handled this completely inappropriately (calling your work, etcetera).

  24. Peter says:

    what’s next? does she start pinching the children? does she slap them? when do we see foreign object hanging out of these children in the interest of ‘art’? where to draw the line?

    and how do we know this whole ‘lollipop’ thing is true? she could be kickin the crap out of these kids for all we know.

    sick people.

  25. Peter says:

    I’m pretty liberal on a lot of things – but intentionally inflicting emotional distress on children for profit seems a little…well, let’s just say it enrages me…slightly.

    I’m calling
    ” REL=”nofollow”>DCFS
    first thing in the morning to at least ask about this stuff. Dead sharks and pregnant Britneys and feces and Jesus and all that – sketchy. But intentional emotional (at least) mistreatment of children for financial gain? That’s a whole nother story. How is this any different from the child sex offenders so popular in the Bush Administration?

    I’ll report back with what they say, if anything.

    Here is the info from DCFS:
    ————————
    To report child abuse in Los Angeles County, California, contact the Child Protection Hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

    * Toll-free within California, phone (800) 540-4000
    * If calling from outside of California, phone (213) 639-4500
    * TDD [Hearing Impaired] (800) 272-6699

    The purpose and mission of the Child Protection Hotline (CPH) is:

    * To act as the central point of entry for calls to DCFS regarding the possible abuse and/or neglect of children.
    * To receive calls of abuse and neglect involving children and assess the level of endangerment.
    * To obtain factual information regarding a specific incident and generate a referral for investigation, if appropriate.
    * To document and transmit all referrals of child endangerment to the appropriate office, timely.
    * To ensure child safety and protection.

    During the evening, at night, on weekends and on holidays CPH will forward the referral to the DCFS Emergency Response Command Post to provide protective services to children in life threatening situations. At ERCP, Children’s Social Workers (CSWs) are on duty 24 hours to immediately investigate calls of abuse and neglect. Supervisors are also on duty for case consultations and supervision to the CSWs in the field.

    Situations that require an immediate in-person assessment are quickly assigned to the ERCP.
    ————————

  26. Peter says:

    Here is the contact info for Jill Greenberg (from her website) that I will provide to DCFS:

    ——————
    Jill Greenberg Studio / Office
    8570 Wilshire Blvd.
    Suite 250
    Beverly Hills, CA 90211
    310-360-6260
    ——————

    Looks like my link to DCFS in previous post was wrong. This one is correct.

  27. Peter says:

    And even though most of the leadership (at least) of the Department of inJustice are a bunch of criminals, they still might be willing to stick up for children if it wins them some political points.

  28. bucuhead says:

    Unfortunately, Jill is all about stirring the controversy. Seems she has accomplished just that. The best punishment is to simply ignore her “work.” she gets gleeful satisfaction from the bloggers here. Not that I disagree with Thomas or our other posters and I am glas to have freedom to read tothe free speech as well. You go Tom!

  29. Dave Zatz says:

    It’s ironic that an artist fighting for freedom of speech would try to deny that right of another. By the way… it’s totally uncool that she attempted to apply pressure through your employer – she may accuse you of libel, but now you can accuse her of harASSment.

  30. Koijima says:

    While I don’t agree that the kids were abused (sorry, I’m gonna believe the taking the lolipop away scenario than some of the more hyperbolistic suggestions made by others on how Jill Greenbery made the kids cry) she does venture pretty far into that moral grey area I’d like to refer to as being sleazy.

    I read the original post and Thomas’s opinion was well put and I see his point, and Jill’s husband’s reply also had some merit. But what she did by calling Thomas’s boss and refering to him as “insane” was over the line.

    I mean someone who believes her works were ethical and well reasoned wouldn’t use ad hominem attacks against people who disagrees with her. This calls into question her intentions, and for these photos, if her intentions weren’t pure, her actions certainly amounts to profiteering and abuse. This is no longer about the morality of the her methods, but the hyprocrisy of her actions. Clearly she has demonstrated she is a hyprocrit and of little sustance.

    Thomas you are a man of principle, bravo.

  31. Dave Baxter says:

    Thomas,
    Let her bring that slop down here to South Louisiana! We’ll burn the building to the ground! I know art is subjective and all, but please, this is rediculous. If you want to make some obtuse reference to your disdain for the Bush administration, you can do it without creulty to children. Their parents out to be slapped in the face for exploiting these children just for a few bucks. Probably another Patsy Ramsey in the crowd there somewhere!

    Instead of this crap, come visit the New Orleans Museum of Art while they are having an Ansel Adams exhibition.
    http://www.noma.org/exhibitions.html

    Now that’s art!

  32. Anonymous says:

    I go with the Sleeze comment.

    The content I’m not so sure about in of itself – because I recall a little over a year ago an AIDS awareness TV campaign that featured a toddler having it’s balloons burst by another actor – and the obvious results being used as a face for the logo and caption.

    Now – this was a paid advertisement for a non-profit that was trying to build awareness for a life-killing disease. But the set-up (if the candy story is accurate) is practically identical.

    Then there’s the tons of movies and tv shows that have had toddler-actors doing the same thing, and I doubt the directors waited for a life-neutral moment before capturing it. I also doubt that a movie house with millions on the line would have beat the crap out of Jr., but crying takes on video tape were probably not extracted by moonbeams and pink bunnies (unless the toddler had an aversion to moonbeams and pink bunnies).

    Ah – but this exhibiton goes into politics and W. Bush. Big difference. Particularly in the Red states. Let the mob go nuts now because – by gosh – isn’t protecting the minority opinion against what the constituion stands for? Not that we have much of the constitution left at present but I’m digressing…

    SO – I’m not one way or the other opinion on the art per-se (it’s actually pretentious as hell and shallow as a kiddie pool but I’m digressing in brackets). There’s trauma – and then there’s wholesale your parents killed in front of you trauma. Perspective goes a long way on this one. For instance, what if they were all getting their TB injections just before the shutter snapped – would that be evil?

    But sleeze – oh yes – we have plenty to go around. Pretentious expository on the exhibition site (for overly pretentious, time-stamped, editorializing hack photography for those who were fans of art no deeper than students of Bob Ross – but who have too much money for cocaine)? Check.

    Suspiciously over-reacting knee-jerk artist? Check.

    On the job harassment? Check check check check check.

    If the kids were physically harmed, I’d be out there with blazing torches. If it was kiddie-porn, I’d be there with a gallon of 3-dollar unleaded. But I’ll wave a lighter for a crusade against sleeze and hypocracy in the attempt to squash T. Hawk’s blogging.

    BTW – someone spam formatted the heck out of the photo blog right about the middle. That story is long but a facinating read. Heck the story arc alone sniffs of movie (or tv movie) treatment.

    And lastly, I’m going to pussy-out on the self-ID thing because I don’t need any grief from her either. Apologies for those with pussies, my vocab hasn’t had coffee yet.

  33. Anonymous says:

    When I was 6 weeks old my parents made me cry and made an audio recording of it to be the “voice of Baby Jesus” at church for Christmas. I don’t exactly hold it against them, although I did grow up and turn Jewish.

    Having said that, I agree with everyone else who observes that Jill Greenberg is a weak, self-absorbed person. Go find real children who are in real distress, and document that. What she’s doing is the photographic equivalent of astroturfing.

  34. Anonymous says:

    It’s no big deal, the children’s parents were there. If anyone had the right to take legal action againt Jill, it would be them, but they apparently approve.

    Kids cry over the smallest things. Some kids even cry when they observe that their shadow doesn’t quit following them. Should we arrest the sun for child abuse? Your attack on Jill Greenberg come of sounding like an angry, politically biased rant. You even caricaturize her as something having to do with Hollywood, as if that is some sort of codeword for evil in your groupthink clique.

    You repeatedly try to portray her husband’s response as her own response. You don’t seem to admit or be aware that there are legal limitations to what is protected under freedom of speech laws. One that is not protected is slander. What can pass under the scrutiny of law does not mean it should automaticaly pass under one’s journalistic standards.

    Anyway, it sounds like American Photo Magazine is using you two to work up a controversy, or at least they did not handle things very responsibly.

  35. Anonymous says:

    The simple act of removing the children’s clothing sexualizes the work. As a former rape crisis center volunteer, I wish people better understood that it’s the vulnerability and helplessness portrayed in these works that child rapists get off on, not underaged Calvin Klein ads.

    I can think of no artist – great, good, mediocre, or anywhere in between – who degrades children to the point of tears and grafts a political message onto it.

    When did art become capturing the exploitation of our most vulnerable in realtime? This is not art, this is emotional manipulation of the cheapest and worst kind.

    Unfortunately, as with Ann Coulter, the more we pay attention to it, the more it reinforces the warped “crusade” aspect of what Greenberg thinks she is doing.

  36. zaytinya says:

    The simple act of removing the children’s clothing sexualizes the work. As a former rape crisis center volunteer, I wish people better understood that it’s the vulnerability and helplessness portrayed in these works that child rapists get off on, not underaged Calvin Klein ads.

    I can think of no artist – great, good, mediocre, or anywhere in between – who degrades children to the point of tears and grafts a political message onto it.

    When did art become capturing the exploitation of our most vulnerable in realtime? This is not art, this is emotional manipulation of the cheapest and worst kind.

    Unfortunately, as with Ann Coulter, the more we pay attention to it, the more it reinforces the warped “crusade” aspect of what Greenberg thinks she is doing.

  37. Anonymous says:

    re: sexualization of shirtless toddler

    Then there’s a lot of Pampers ads – and a ton of other toddler products that need to be taken off the air. And those canvases showing cherrubs – Museums are in cahoots!

    And don’t get me started on Hallmark – those pervs.

  38. Joy Holder says:

    Thomas, Way to go! Keep up the good fight.
    After reading the comments about children crying over nothing. It’s true they do that(at least mine do). Sometimes, over something as simple as the wrong colored shirt.
    But, some of the expressions on these children’s faces are the looks that every compassionate parent fears. The look of real pain on your child’s face.
    I understand that this was the point of her work, but it disturbs me to see that look that I try to protect my kid’s from.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Hallmark tortures adults, not children. And learn to spell “cherub”, willya?

  40. Anonymous says:

    Only if you agree to stop using words like “willya”.

  41. Mindy says:

    All I can say is that never in a million fucking years stand off-camera and watch my child in that state. I feel sick and sweaty just seeing the photos–I can’t imagine what the contact sheets look like.

    Those parents may have been sold on the idea behind the photo shoot and came to her studio willingly, but shame on them for going through with it.

  42. Lycanthrope says:

    Thank you for taking a stand for ethical freedom of expression. Unfortunately, this episode is a sad commentary on the state of personal expression in America; where everyone is free to speak their mind, as long as it offends no one. It is the reason that meaningful discussions on race, sexuality, religion, and social convention can never exist: someone will always call a foul against their own fragile sensibilities and get the discourse ruled abusive/ unconstitutional/ inappropriate speech. I cry when I think of what we lose in this country every day because intelligent free speech has been reduced to a game played by lawyers and politicians.

  43. I can’t say I’m surprised about the legal threats, accusing someone of child abuse, child pornography even From your original post: “Although the children are not sexualized, I consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind” is pretty heavy stuff.

    Though contacting your employer was definitely a very low move on her part. Were I in her shoes (ignoring the fact that I wouldn’t have made the photos to begin with) I would just write you off as an overreactive, closed minded loudmouth.

    Both Roger Krueger and Koijima have pretty good comments to add, Tim & shmooth, not so much

  44. Anonymous says:

    I totally agree that those pictures are disturbing, and not merely because the child is upset. The fact that the children are crying and half-naked (in some, they could well be fully naked) makes for a very disturbing image, with sexual abuse implications.

    It’s not the same setting as a pampers ad, where the children are laughing and having fun and the lighting is soothing. Sure, they probably just dumped a load, but that is the last thing the ad suggests.

    Jill Greenberg is pretty screwed up to even want to paint this. I could take pictures of people being tortured, and call it art, but it would still be indefensible and wrong.

    Interestingly enough, she’s into that rapture/end times crap. I thought fundies were all about protecting family values?

  45. Anonymous says:

    Frankly, there is a terrible deal of hyperventilation over this topic, and way too many attempts to demonize Jill Greenberg. Yes, her pictures are disturbing, but without being in the studio when the pictures were taken no one is capable of judging whether or not any abuse occured.

    Thomas Hawk’s original remarks were incredibly inflammatory and equally uninformed, and the Greenberg’s response was not entirely appropriate either. Both sides have behaved like utter tools in this affair, and more so many netizens have acted like even greater tools.

    Honestly, this smacks of the same outcries about Sally Mann’s photography being child pornography, which any person with a modicum of sense could see as rubbish.

  46. Patrick Matthews says:

    i contacted jill’s agents to express my concern. the smug response i got (“Art is meant to create a reaction, mission accomplished”) tries to suggest that the sinister bullying were part of the art. this is find extremely hard to believe. what a lame response. sheesh.

    email below.

    P

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Bruce Kramer < bruce@artmixphotography.com>
    Date: Jun 28, 2006 5:47 PM
    Subject:
    To: drpatrickmatthews@gmail.com

    Patrick,

    Jill’s child was photographed as well as many others. As a mother Jill has every right to defend herself against accusations that are very serious. Thomas was not there and has no first hand knowledge of how the photographs were achieved. Nor is he a doctor who can give an educated opinion of what might be the side effects from this so called horrific and traumatic experience. Thomas is the one who is being irresponsible and should stick to banking.

    Art is meant to create a reaction, mission accomplished.

    Bruce Kramer
    ARTMIX Photography
    2148 Federal Ave
    Suite B
    Los Angeles, CA. 90025
    P: 310.473.0770
    F: 310.473.0760
    http://www.artmixphotography.com

    PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

    P to Artmix

    Hi

    I just wanted to let you know how upset and disappointed I was by Jill’s disproportionate and vindictive approach to criticism: although I happen to take her side (as, er, a fan..) her actions in this episode were a disgrace. Threatending legal action, but more importantly, contacting that man’s employer, was sinister and vindictive. It’s awful to say it but I’ve never been so horrified by a stranger’s actions.

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

    P

  47. patrick matthews says:

    and more from bruce. these people really are horrible:

    Calling someone a child abuser and stating she should be arrested goes beyond criticism. Thomas with his uneducated opinions has potentially done damage to Jill’s career and should suffer the consequences of his actions. I hope his own photographs will be able to earn him a living as his future as a banker seems bleak.

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Patrick Matthews [mailto:drpatrickmatthews@gmail.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:14 AM
    To: Bruce Kramer
    Subject: Re:

    bruce,

    this is not about the work, or how the photographs were taken, this is about somebody bullying somebody, making threats, contacting a man’s employer who has no relation to his writing about jill’s work, and threatening legal action over some criticism.

    you say art is meant to create a reaction: was bullying, contacting somebody’s employers, and threatening legal action all part of the art?

    i find it very hard to believe that this childish and sinister over reaction was a part of the work.

  48. patrick matthews says:

    sorry i should make that clearer, this was the response i got to my response to bruce:

    “Calling someone a child abuser and stating she should be arrested goes beyond criticism. Thomas with his uneducated opinions has potentially done damage to Jill’s career and should suffer the consequences of his actions. I hope his own photographs will be able to earn him a living as his future as a banker seems bleak.”

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Patrick Matthews [mailto:drpatrickmatthews@gmail.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:14 AM
    To: Bruce Kramer
    Subject: Re:

    bruce,

    this is not about the work, or how the photographs were taken, this is about somebody bullying somebody, making threats, contacting a man’s employer who has no relation to his writing about jill’s work, and threatening legal action over some criticism.

    you say art is meant to create a reaction: was bullying, contacting somebody’s employers, and threatening legal action all part of the art?

    i find it very hard to believe that this childish and sinister over reaction was a part of the work.

    b

  49. Peter says:

    I called the DCFS hotline – which seems to be my mistake – and the dude (HK Harris or something Harris) pretty much made fun of me, saying “we can’t tie up this line talking”, etc. There are at least a couple of options you can choose from on their menu – one of them is to report child abuse, which I did not choose. Another option, though, is to just speak with a representative. I thought that’d be legit. So I got through to this dude, told him in 20 seconds or less that there was an art exhibit in LA by Jill Greenberg (‘have you heard of it?’ -> ‘no.’ -> ‘OK.’) – ‘well’, I said, it’s basically pics of kids crying. That’s it. They supposedly give them lollipops and then take them away and then photograph the kids crying and all that.

    Dude gave me the “well we can’t be tying up the phone lines talking and all that – this is a hotline – did you actually see abuse?” I thought, “well, if I actually saw abuse, MF, I would’ve hit option #1), you f*cking moron!”

    Needless to say, I was chill – cause I’m cool like dat. Told the fool, again, that all I saw was pictures. I didn’t witness anything happening to the children, only the resulting pictures.

    That was pretty much it.

    So I went back to the DCFS site and saw that I’d called the hotline number as opposed to the info line. I then called the info line and got a busy. Will try again later.

    Public Info Line – (213) 351-5602

    I’m not gonna be like most people and be like, “Oh – it’s ok if the Israeli are committing crimes against humanity by bombing bridges and power stations in the finest display of collective civilian punishment since the U.S. invaded Iraq”. If we all went out of our way a bit more things could be a lot better. I believe everyone who is at all concerned about this issue has a moral responsibility, at least, to follow-up on it in some way. The pictures are there. You see them with your own eyes. You see what they did to those kids. You know how it was allegedly done. Do something about it.

  50. Anonymous says:

    I’m sure glad the individual too ashamed to use his real name, aka Thomas Hawk, has kids that never cry.

    Must be nice. My 5 month old sure cries at times, as I’m sure every other kid does – it’s a natural process.

    Another moron with a blog. But let’s not blame Thomas Hawk and his garbage.

    Put the blame where it belongs: American Photo – a garbage magazine.

    And unlike Thomas, I am in the photo business, so I must keep anonymity for employ sake.

  51. Anonymous says:

    I’m sure glad the individual too ashamed to use his real name, aka Thomas Hawk, has kids that never cry.

    Must be nice. My 5 month old sure cries at times, as I’m sure every other kid does – it’s a natural process.

    Another moron with a blog. But let’s not blame Thomas Hawk and his garbage.

    Put the blame where it belongs: American Photo – a garbage magazine.

    And unlike Thomas, I am in the photo business, so I must keep anonymity for employ sake.

  52. John says:

    man, that’s pathetic.
    It seems that this Jill person is incapable of relaying her own opinion; so she makes photos of others to ‘play out’ her opinion. It’s not a surprise that she attacked your comments the way she did. She seems to be unable to confront directed communication.

  53. Peter says:

    OK – i called the info line and they were nicer, if short. I told the story to a receptionist who then directed me to another lady who said that they only get cases after abuse has been reported ‘downstairs, on their hotline’. I told her they just made fun of me, so that was a waste of time, but I asked, “so, the only way to report potential abuse is to accuse someone of a crime?”, and the answer is ‘yes’. I don’t feel like doing that quite yet, because I’m no fan of cops, but I’m going to track this story and consider reporting the abuse. It is, of course, child abuse – the question is, does it warrant criminal charges and all that? Maybe I should let DCFS decide. It’s horrible to think someone is profiting from this. Unreal.

    DCFS said you can report abuse anonymously, but I’m not interested in ‘anonymous’ – I’ll leave that for the anonymous critics on this board.

    There should be some medical ethics community-type people that will look into this – physicians/psychiatrists/etc.

  54. Anonymous says:

    Apart from the controversy over her methods, the photographs themselves just aren’t really that good. It would appear that she is deathly afraid of bad press, and obviously not aware of the old adage “no publicity is bad publicity.” Why continue to draw attention to her work when it should stand or fall on its own merits?

  55. Anonymous says:

    Thomas Hawk called her a child abuser in his title, he runs a crappy blog where he shills for companies he has an interest in, and basicly acts a fool

  56. Angrman says:

    She is a loon for suing over an opinion expressed under the constitution. No wonder we are the most litigation happy country,too many cry babies with thin skin and no sense of self.

    Yuck.

  57. Anonymous says:

    I fully support Thomas’ right to speak his mind, and I don’t care for Jill’s attempt to silence him. But, I also don’t care for those people dismissing her work, even though they don’t care for it. It’s just not good for the world of art. If you don’t like it, say youdon’t like it, don’t say it’s not art.

  58. Anonymous says:

    REPOSTING BEST POST SO FAR:

    Frankly, there is a terrible deal of hyperventilation over this topic, and way too many attempts to demonize Jill Greenberg. Yes, her pictures are disturbing, but without being in the studio when the pictures were taken no one is capable of judging whether or not any abuse occured.

    Thomas Hawk’s original remarks were incredibly inflammatory and equally uninformed, and the Greenberg’s response was not entirely appropriate either. Both sides have behaved like utter tools in this affair, and more so many netizens have acted like even greater tools.

    (I would add that the photo magazine may be trying to stir something up, and we must not forget the publicity this “feud” is generating for all involved.)

    Also, to schmooh, I admire your passion and desire to do something positive, but please do not compare this photo incident to the horrible acts commited against the Palestinians by the IDF. In the latter case children actually die and are dismembered,etc. Let’s keep a proper perspective; it may have been the hyperbolic language of Thomas’first post that brought this this far (though I understand he may have been upset,sometimes it is best to cool off first) Lets all be reasonable about the extent of what is and is not happening here, regardless of your opinion.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Frankly, there is a terrible deal of hyperventilation over this topic, and way too many attempts to demonize Jill Greenberg. Yes, her pictures are disturbing, but without being in the studio when the pictures were taken no one is capable of judging whether or not any abuse occured.

    Thomas Hawk’s original remarks were incredibly inflammatory and equally uninformed, and the Greenberg’s response was not entirely appropriate either. Both sides have behaved like utter tools in this affair, and more so many netizens have acted like even greater tools.

  60. Aaron says:

    But, I also don’t care for those people dismissing her work, even though they don’t care for it. It’s just not good for the world of art. If you don’t like it, say youdon’t like it, don’t say it’s not art.

    This is so ridiculous.

    Everything is art I guess, right? Today it’s paid bullying and possible child abuse (admittedly debatable). But according to you, we should be forced to accept this as “art” and we should not challenge it.

    Tomorrow I suppose it could be paid murder or rape which is being sold for $4k per photograph. But that’s still “art”, right? And you would still accept it as such?

    Btw, I don’t think people here give a sh*t about whether or not this is good for the world of art. I surely don’t. If this is the direction the world of art is headed then it deserves this type of criticism.

    I’m so friggin tired of people hiding behind the word “art”.

  61. katrina says:

    She is sick and child welfare should shut her down immediately! In fact I know just the person for the job….

  62. Carl Malten says:

    But, I also don’t care for those people dismissing her work, even though they don’t care for it. It’s just not good for the world of art. If you don’t like it, say youdon’t like it, don’t say it’s not art.

    THe world af art will survive. Frankly is not even the work of a technically skilled photographer.

    Apparently Green knows that. I just got my comment deleted on his blog.

  63. wondermonday says:

    I fine these photos interesting. The fact that these children are portrayed with a fantastic, doll like light gives them a sort of angelic texture that makes me feel they are safe. Yet, when you look in their eyes and see the anguish in their gesture it reminds me of taking my kids to the Dr. for shots.

    Just like that famous phsychology experiment where subjects were measured to see how much pain they would inflict under the impression of authority… Great experiment; we learned a lot about the human condition, but largely deemed unethical by today’s standards. I am afraid this work falls in that same catagory.

  64. Clark Kent says:

    Mr. Anonymous has a great point TH, you should not have used a alias to publish a web site which has nothing to do with your professional life. Look how freely Mr. Anonymous expresses his ideas, indifferent to any potential fallout from those who consider his opinions controversial, despite the fact he is in the photo business. Unlike you and I, Mr. Anonymous is obviously a man who has nothing to protect.

  65. Netwalker says:

    I was reading your article, and remembered a photo session I did with my sons, and one of them told me that he felt as been a doll, because I told him what he had to do (it was an school scene, with him writing on a book).

    if my son felt that way for something “simple”, I can’t imagine how those kids must feel after doing that kind of things. It has to be very stressful for them, and emotionally demanding.

    Keep on going Thomas, you expresed yourself and that it’s what freedom of speech it’s all about.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Hmm, I guess Jill and Robert have nothing better to do than to try to shore up their reputations by posting anonymously on the blog.

    (no, I’m not them…just too lazy to register).

    I’d like to address the “both sides are tools” comment, because there is a huge difference between the two sides.

    Thomas is blogging about this topic because he found the pictures disgusting. He gets no monetary reward; in fact, he actually gets legal threats and slander.

    Jill’s motivation is greed, pure and simple. She wants the thousands of dollars for her crappy pictures (to me, they look like something Thomas Kincaid would do after a psychotic break), and will do anything to get that money. Torment children? Sure. Slander? No problem. Trample other people’s first amendment rights in order to protect her own? Sounds great!

  67. Derek says:

    [Reposted from the other thread.]

    You know, Thomas, as someone who’s been harassed for his art several times now, I can’t actually believe you’d go after another photographer like this.

    You don’t get her art. Big deal. The security guard at 45 Fremont street probably didn’t get your art, either. But for you to assume that these children were abused, call the artist “sick” and “evil”, speaks more to your assumptions than her work.

    For you to call this child abuse without knowing the facts is no different than the security guard calling you a terrorist for taking photos of a building. You’re both making bad snap judgments based on assumptions and bias.

    This is not child abuse. This is art. You’re allowed to not like it. I think it’s beautiful and obviously very powerful. But then I think all art is bullshit.

    But isn’t going on a blog jihad a bit much? Shouldn’t you, of all people, cut the artist a little slack? Isn’t that what you’d want when you’re out shooting and uninformed people make negative assumptions about what you’re doing?

    I’ve followed you and your work for a long time, but frankly, I’ve lost some respect for you today.

  68. Anonymous says:

    You’re accusing her of a serious crime in your blog jihad. There are laws against that, you know.

  69. Anonymous says:

    1. Photography tells the truth.
    True
    False

    2. Art appreciation is objective.
    True
    False

    3. ‘Naked’ and ‘nude’ are exactly synonomous.
    True
    False

    4. ‘Pornography’ is inherently sexualized; without some erotic content, it’s not pornography.
    True
    False

    5. An observer of a work of art can determine the exact nature of the process used to create the art.
    True
    False

  70. John Hancock says:

    katrina said…

    “She is sick and child welfare should shut her down immediately! In fact I know just the person for the job….”

    Call them. What are you waiting for?

  71. John Hancock says:

    “Thomas with his uneducated opinions has potentially done damage to Jill’s career “

    Well boo fuc$ing hoo. Let’s see…”potentially done damage to Jill’s career”, who terrorizes children just to get a photograph she will sell for $4,500 each, is more important than the photographers act of terrorizing the children?

    Sure buddy…what ever you say.

  72. John Hancock says:

    From: Bruce Kramer < bruce@artmixphotography.com>

    “Thomas was not there and has no first hand knowledge of how the photographs were achieved. Nor is he a doctor who can give an educated opinion of what might be the side effects from this so called horrific and traumatic experience.”

    Actually, sir, Jill was very explicit in her interview podcast with American photo on not only how she made the children cry (and how upset she was when her trick of sending a mother out of the room didn’t work) but also how she got the idea in the first place. That came from a shoot she did of a little girl, whose mother brought her younger brother to the shoot. Jill shot him, and upon return of the processed film and contacts, was “delighted” to see the horrified look of the boy. She then thought, “wouldn’t this be great if we called it “bushes War” (or some crap like that)” and did a whole series?

    Well she has done that…made children feel forror, done a project, and is selling them for $4,500 each.

    Yeah…Jill’s an upstanding member of society.

  73. John Hancock says:

    Bravo Thomas for sticking to your guns. As I said, I will stand by your decision to continue to speak out about this as long as we both have breaths.

  74. Anonymous says:

    Can either the photographer or her husband tell us that these children were told that they were going to a photo shoot and were going to end up with tears streaming down their face so the nice lady could make money from it? Anyone who knows kids can see that some of them have really been bawling. What kind of parents allow this to happen deliberately while watching? I guess in Hollywood, it’s always been ok to abuse children to make money. The photographer’s husband clearly admits this. There’s a big difference between a kid asking for a lollipop, being denied and having a tantrum for a minute or so and the scenario of being taken to a studio, posed in front of lights, being given a treat and then having it taken away for no reason and then being photographed while your wondering what the hell you did wrong to get the treat taken away from you. Its cruel.
    I was willing to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, but contacting the employer of ‘Mr Hawk’ shows that she clearly has something to hide, or thinks she’s above being criticised. The thinly veiled threats by other posters (clearly friends of the photographer) that ‘Mr Hawk’s’ banking career is over shows the kind of thuggery that lurks behind the photographer’s modus operandi. But I guess that’s how she gets those high profile gigs, it’s certainly not because of her photography. She’s the definition of a one-trick-pony. She seems like the kind of photographer who takes a shot of a blind man on the street and slinks off without giving him money or asking for permission…

  75. Peter says:

    Dropped a few rejoinders to various comments:

    > Jill Greenberg has made a name for herself

    So has George Bush.

    > I’m all for people expressing themselves, but when it requires taking advantage of those who cannot defend themselves against a psychological attack, it crosses the line.

    Praise Xenu! Preach, brotha!

    This is very basic, and has been lost in the argument, here. These kids are not animals, they are not monkeys, they are not
    our pets – they have rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. Just because Iraq can’t defend itself from America doesn’t mean it
    doesn’t have the right to self-determination. Just because a child can’t defend himself from a vicious adult doesn’t mean
    that child doesn’t have the right to live free of adult-inflicted psychological abuse. Then there is just the indignity of it.
    When I think of how _I_ would feel if I came upon a picture of myself being treated like a lab rat, it makes me intensely angry.
    I’d be callin moms and pops stat and saying, “If we weren’t starving to death, you have a _lot_ of splaining to do!”

    What are the short and long-term affects of this abuse? Does the abuser-also-known-as-an-artist know what they are?
    Where did she get her medical degree?

    All that said, I wouldn’t do this to my dog. I mean, if I heard
    someone was doing this to their dog, and they were in my neighborhood, they’d be getting a knock on the door right about…oh…now. I wouldn’t
    physically or verbally assault anyone, but I’d try to put an end to whatever cruelty was occurring – however possible.

    Can you imagine a raging drunk coming home and screaming at his dog until the dog runs and cowers, shivering, under the kitchen table? Then,
    in his drunken state, drunk dude snaps a few photos of sparky so
    he can paint ‘em up. Later, when the raging drunk is sober, he gives Sparky a bone, and Sparky is in a good mood, and does not outwardly appear
    ‘worse for the wear’ as (I thought) someone said earlier (but now can’t find the ref). Sparky’s just dandy, now, and he has no recollection of all
    the terror, either – at least as far as raging drunk ‘artist’ goes, so what’s the prob? Check it out, Sparky! – You just made me another $3,500!
    See you tonight when I get home from the bar! ;D

    What this raging drunk dude did to his dog is very similar to what Jill did to these children, except Jill did it to HUMAN. F*CKING. BEINGS.

    Sick. Sick. Sick.

    > I’m gonna believe the taking the lolipop away

    someone shows me pics like this, and I’m not believing *anything* they tell me about how they treated these kids. i can see with my
    own two eyes how they treated these kids. the only question is, how much worse is it than they’re letting on?

    > a toddler having it’s balloons burst by another actor

    I’d be on those sickos, too. It’s not moral or decent to treat children like inanimate objects to be manipulated for our own gain –
    sorry – call me old fashioned, call me…i dunnno….um, decent – but stop abusing children in any and all forms, forever, always.
    That sounds easy enough, dunnit?

    Some things in this life – precious few, perhaps, are just black and white. Seize the day – this is one of those times. Don’t. Abuse.
    Children. It’s really not any more complicated than that – I promise. If you want to invent some hypothetical, we can talk about
    hypotheticals, but I’m more interested in reality for those children. Are they made to suffer? Yes. Intentionally? Yes. At whose
    hands? And why?

    I mean, cockfighting and dogfighting and lots of that stuff is even banned in the South – in the South. And in LA we’re abusing _humans_.
    They’re only children, I know, but they’re still human, right? I mean, do they have a dog in this fight? Do they have a say? Apparently,
    not. Who’s gonna stick up for their rights? Who? Not the ‘artist’. Not their parents.

    > If the kids were physically harmed, I’d be out there with blazing torches.

    So, what, exactly, are we saying here? That pyschological abuse doesn’t count? That only a certain level of psychological/physiological-type
    abuse counts? What if we needed the kids to pee themselves, and we determined the best way to do that was to put them in front of a room of
    laughing people? Is that abuse? What if we needed the kids to sh*t their diapers? Could be leave them in the middle of an empty room and then
    have a bunch of adults run in the room screamings bloody murder while running straight towards the isolated child?

    Are the Gitmo victims abused? Sure, they’re bound and occasionally beaten and all that – but the really bad stuff, one suspects, is the
    profound psychological torture. Does that even count for anything, or does the torture have to leave visible scars?

    It’s just nonsensical to talk about physically vs. psychologically harmed/abused/tortured. If it was done against their will for profit, and
    it wasn’t in the direct best interests of the kids, what difference
    does it make?

    In the above example with the raging drunk and the dog, would you feel better if the raging drunk didn’t scare the dog
    sh*tless, but instead kicked the sh*t out him? I mean, would you *then* protest the raging drunk’s behavior? Or should abuse for profit
    just be outlawed because it’s twisted and sadistic and not decent and just not right on any level, ever?

    > Kids cry over the smallest things.

    So do adults. That doesn’t mean I’m going to run around the streets of San Francisco calling out all the fatties I see just to upset
    people. And I especially wouldn’t do it to kids who are not capable of defending themselves or fighting back in any way.

    > without being in the studio when the pictures were taken no one is capable of judging whether or not any abuse occured.

    that’s exactly why we need to get to the bottom of this. how much did she abuse these children? how, exactly, did she coerce these
    reactions? did she threaten them? did she lie to them? did she frighten them? this is 1 + 1 = 3 kind of stuff, here – easy.
    it’s time Ms. Jill went on the record, under oath, about how, exactly, she abused these children. we need to know – now. we need to know
    that the abuse has stopped. we need corrective action taken against Ms. Jill, the parents, and anyone else involved in pimping
    these children. we need to set up safeguards for children being used in art shows and _all_ art productions – tv, radio, movies, etc.
    we need to have a long, national discussion, apparently, about the need for abusing children for ‘the greater good’ or ‘art’ or
    ‘money’ or whatever. i mean, if it’s not “don’t ever do it, don’t even think about doing it, don’t. do it. ever.”, then we need to
    talk about it and decide as a society what level of child abuse is acceptable to us.

    > Both sides have behaved like utter tools in this affair

    the typical ‘not my problem – i am _so_ above this – I have better things to do’ response. you’re not alone, unfortunately.

    > Calling someone a child abuser and stating she should be arrested goes beyond criticism.

    someone produces pictures of abused children, and puts them in front of me, i’m gonna react. if that person was the latest
    Bush official to get arrested for sexual child abuse, I’ll think ‘not surprised’, but I’ll also think “wonder how long they’ll
    be in jail and who’s sex slave they’re going to be?” and “thanks goodness for the little bit of justice in this world”.

    That’s just me – I’m a common-sense kinda guy. I’m pretty sure that advocating someone go to jail for their crimes is a
    form of criticism. I’m no Blake Gopnik, though, so I could be wrong.

    > this is about s
    omebody bullying somebody, making threats,

    I’m quoting this out of context, but it struck me. This is exactly what Jill did to those kids, too. The difference is, those kids
    were defenseless.

    > My 5 month old sure cries at times, as I’m sure every other kid does – it’s a natural process.

    covered this already, but to reiterate, so what? bleeding is a natural process, too – lots of people have done it – I’m sure
    every other kid has done it – many times. that doesn’t mean we should start stabbing children with our favorite Utrecht tools.

    > I am in the photo business, so I must keep anonymity for employ sake.

    translation: I’m too cowardly to take a stand.

    > please do not compare this photo incident to the horrible acts commited

    outrageous.

    the point of the ‘comparison’, of course, is to implore people to get of their butts and _do something_ about this abuse.
    nobody tried to equate this child abuse with the rape and murder of hundreds/thousands of men, women, and children.

    “Shmooth just compared the color mauve with Hitler. OMG. He _just_ compared mauve to Hitler. No, I’m not kidding. I swear…
    I mean, mauve is, like, yuck! but to compare it to Hitler, who was responsible for the death of like, all those other
    colors, is like, so. over. the. top. He really needs some perspective.”

    > This is not child abuse. This is art.

    apparently, child abuse and art are always mutually exclusive events/entities. who knew?

    > 5. An observer of a work of art can determine the exact nature of the process used to create the art.
    > True
    > False

    How about this, instead?

    5. An observer of a limbless Iraqi corpse can determine the exact nature of the process used to create the corpse.
    True
    False

  76. Axial says:

    Capturing human emotion is important to bring issues to the world (famines wars etc) so that we can address human problems and reduce suffering.

    Capturing real situations spontaneously is a challenge.

    Being the cause of suffering by staging negative emotional experiences to capture the “art” makes the “artist” part of the problem and in my opinion it becomes “bad art”.

    As has been mentioned earlier, psychological experiments have been carried out in the past that are no longer considered ethically acceptable. If nobody spoke up when they consider something to be wrong then we would never improve our ways.

    Well done Thomas for speaking up.

  77. Anonymous says:

    She obviously has issues and should be arrested for abusing children, and the willing parents as well. I’m willing to be in no way will she reveal just HOW they get these children so distressed. Keep up the good work Mr. Hawk.

  78. =)Bnpositive says:

    I’m another father, of two beautiful children, who tries to comfort those kids when they’re crying and or hurt. I don’t intentially incite feelings of distress in their lives. Thank you for standing up for your integrity and values.

  79. Michael Charkowski says:

    I just went to her website because I figured you guys must just be missing the point of her photography.

    I appear to be wrong.

    I don’t have any kids, but I know enough of them to know that for these kids in these photographs to look like they do, what was done constitutes abuse.

    I am, like, Mr. Free Speech. But this is wrong.

  80. Dove says:

    Seems to me that Thomas’s intention with his first post was clearly to stop Greenberg from producing her “art”, thus limiting her free speach. He acted as judge and jury, then set out to work his readers up into a fury. Mission accomplished – they’re now threatening to “burn the building down”. So, on the free speach front, they’re both hypocrites.

    I also can’t support Thomas’s liberal use of invective: “sick”, “child abuse”, “stripping”, “rage”, and on and on.

    Compare that to Mr. Greenberg’s original response – which seemed quite measured, and I don’t think it is at all clear who began the escalation here.

    You should all walk away and say “sorry” before someone gets hurt.

  81. Anonymous says:

    There hasn’t been much comment on the semantics of this discussion, but I think it’s worth pointing out what I see as the major problem with Mr. Hawk’s argument.

    When, in a world where children are murdered in horrendous ways every single day, we use the word “child abuse” to describe Jill Greenberg’s methods, what word can we use to adequately describe a child dismembered by a bomb?

    While I think Ms. Greenberg’s methods of getting her pictures are reprehensible and, as others have said, sleazy, I simply don’t think they are serious enough to warrant the term “abuse”. They’re bullying and unkind, and I do believe that making a child cry deliberately and for profit (rather than for the child’s wellbeing) is simply wrong and should be illegal.

    And, of course, Ms. Greenberg’s subsequent pursuit of Mr. Hawk with threats and calls to his employer is exactly what one would expect from a bully. If Mr. Hawk’s statements had met the standard for libel or slander, I’m sure he would already have heard from Ms. Greenberg’s lawyer.

    Why don’t we all try a little harder to keep a sense of perspective and not use language that most people associate with sexual predators and maniacal people who beat their children? It makes us look silly and damages what is otherwise potentially a good argument. If the law does indeed allow this kind of insensitivity and bullying of the helpless for profit or art, the law needs to be changed.

  82. Anonymous says:

    There hasn’t been much comment on the semantics of this discussion, but I think it’s worth pointing out what I see as the major problem with Mr. Hawk’s argument.

    When, in a world where children are murdered in horrendous ways every single day, we use the word “child abuse” to describe Jill Greenberg’s methods, what word can we use to adequately describe a child dismembered by a bomb?

    While I think Ms. Greenberg’s methods of getting her pictures are reprehensible and, as others have said, sleazy, I simply don’t think they are serious enough to warrant the term “abuse”. They’re bullying and unkind, and I do believe that making a child cry deliberately and for profit (rather than for the child’s wellbeing) is simply wrong and should be illegal.

    And, of course, Ms. Greenberg’s subsequent pursuit of Mr. Hawk with threats and calls to his employer is exactly what one would expect from a bully. If Mr. Hawk’s statements had met the standard for libel or slander, I’m sure he would already have heard from Ms. Greenberg’s lawyer.

    Why don’t we all try a little harder to keep a sense of perspective and not use language that most people associate with sexual predators and maniacal people who beat their children? It makes us look silly and damages what is otherwise potentially a good argument. If the law does indeed allow this kind of insensitivity and bullying of the helpless for profit or art, the law needs to be changed.

  83. I don’t care for Jill’s photos at all, although I don’t necessarily agree that they constitute child abuse. It is telling to me that her web site is called “manipulator.com” (as Thomas points out). It is reprehensible for her to contact Thomas’s employer. Jill, the only moral method for fighting opinions is with counter-opinions. Leave strong-arm tactics out of it. Thomas has every right to call you out for such abhorrent behavior.

  84. Aaron says:

    When, in a world where children are murdered in horrendous ways every single day, we use the word “child abuse” to describe Jill Greenberg’s methods, what word can we use to adequately describe a child dismembered by a bomb?

    I think I know what you’re trying to illustrate here, but that’s just a poor example. I would not consider “a child dismembered by a bomb” as child abuse. Horrific accident or murder? Sure. But it’s in a completely different class from child abuse, and as such there’s no confusion in terminology here and we can use plenty of descriptors for “a child dismembered by a bomb” which don’t interfere with the term child abuse.

    And for everyone who keeps referring to the war and using that as a basis for claiming that we shouldn’t even be complaining about this……where do you draw the line? Should we not complain about parents hitting their children because much worse things are happening to children in the war? What about rape, pedophilia, drugs, etc? It’s all better than being blown to bits by a bomb, so should we not complain about these things? Sorry, this argument doesn’t hold water.

  85. Aaron says:

    Seems to me that Thomas’s intention with his first post was clearly to stop Greenberg from producing her “art”, thus limiting her free speach. He acted as judge and jury, then set out to work his readers up into a fury. Mission accomplished – they’re now threatening to “burn the building down”. So, on the free speach front, they’re both hypocrites.

    Interesting, I didn’t know that paying a parent for the privelege of bullying their defenseless and noticeably terrified child on film is protected under the first ammendment.

  86. Mike @ MAO says:

    Thomas.. you are such a fool..

    Your attack is the best thing that has ever happened to Jill Greenberg and her Photographic career!

    You’ve just helped her more than any dealer or art critic could have even wished!

  87. leahpeah says:

    it’s hard enough to help your kids through trauma that happens organically in their lives without subjecting them to it.

    i’m trying really hard to understand what made it seem fine for her to do this series, since it looks like she has done a lot of nice work during her career. could it just be a judgment error? but moving beyond her motivations, which were certainly to gain fame and call attention to the war, neither of which are inherently bad, what were the parents of those children thinking? your job as the parent is to keep them out of those kinds of situations, not get paid to put your kid in them. of course, i’m assuming that the parents got paid in some way but i could be wrong.

    i’ve got four kids and just taking a lollypop away from one of them never got them that worked up. they might have thrown a tantrum but that would have been anger showing, not sincere hurt like those little kids are showing in their eyes. and removing the clothing on a young child might seem like no big deal until you consider how vulnerable they already were on a set, on a stool, under the lights, with no parent nearby to comfort them. can you just see that scene in your mind’s eye? those kids might have liked a shirt or blanket to hold on to and maybe wipe their snot on. of course, that might not have worked as well with her intended aesthetic look – iridescent skin with tears, nothing to detract from the pain and suffering. i get it. i just don’t like it nor do i agree with it.

  88. Jill says:

    When universities want to engage in research, their plans must be reviewed by an IRB – a board that decides if what’s being proposed is ethical.

    Does the photography industry have some similar entity or code by which Ms. Greenburg’s actions would be judged en masse by that code or industry standard?

  89. jerry says:

    OK.. I have just viewed all the Photographs on this issue and also read all the comments and now I feel I MUST add my 2 cents worth.
    Fist let me say I am a Father of 5 and never, ever would I allow this torment to be inflicted on my children. Not for any amount of money.
    Second.. I have not read one mention of the Titles that were given to these photos. this one is titled PRAYER
    http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/works.htm?index=1
    but I think the prayer is asking for the Savior to protect him from his pain.
    other titles such as Awe and Faith and Grand Old Party for Christ sakes, this child looks like his begging for his life. I am disgusted by these Photos and cant help to think that if the crying I imagine in that studio was coming from my home window.. I would be typing this from PRISON.
    One last thing.. If I were the parent of this child in the title Revelations and I walked into the studio and saw this look in her eyes, I would defenately be looking at charges. This little one resembles my own 2 year old and it truly sickens me to see these eyes:
    http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/exhibitions/endtimes/works.htm?index=3

    I am all for free speech, hell if I wasnt I wouldnt be typing this. But it is time someone stood and SPOKE for these little ones.
    Enough said… jerry

  90. Anonymous says:

    Kids cry. They laugh. They jab their sister or brother to get a rise out of them. It’s part of the range of human emotions.

    In about 30 seconds they go back to pretending to be superman or a doctor or an astronaut. That’s how quickly they change their mood. It’s not tormenting. Or “inflicting pain” — unless you use a very, very broad definition of pain.

    And Mr. Hawk, if you dislike that she is manipulating children to get her pictures, I promise you that you are just as big manipulator of people. You probably know exactly what to say to push your wife’s buttons. You use anger or false solicitousness to get what you want rather than just asking for it. You are sneaky and lie to get what you want. How do I know this? Because you are a human being and part of being human includes all those things as well as the generosity and love that we’re capable of.

    Please everyone: find a more worthy cause to spill all this angst and anger. The world has bigger issues to deal with than complaining about kids being made to cry for a photograph.

  91. Anonymous says:

    Paul, you call naming some innocent person a ‘child pornographer’ free speech? I think you are starting to take yourself a little bit too seriously. You think you have power? Enough power to make some people go out of business? Good for you! But please be aware that you can hurt people very personally by accusing them publicly. Is that what you want? If you just want to state an opinion then please show some responsibility and do it in a decent way. The way you did it in this case reminds me more of mob law then anything else.

  92. trilion99 says:

    Paul, you call naming some innocent person a ‘child pornographer’ free speech? I think you are starting to take yourself a little bit too seriously. You think you have power? Enough power to make some people go out of business? Good for you! But please be aware that you can hurt people very personally by accusing them publicly. Is that what you want? If you just want to state an opinion then please show some responsibility and do it in a decent way. The way you did it in this case reminds me more of mob law then anything else.

  93. trilion99 says:

    Paul, you call naming some innocent person a ‘child pornographer’ free speech? I think you are starting to take yourself a little bit too seriously. You think you have power? Enough power to make some people go out of business? Good for you! But please be aware that you can hurt people very personally by accusing them publicly. Is that what you want? If you just want to state an opinion then please show some responsibility and do it in a decent way. The way you did it in this case reminds me more of mob law then anything else.

  94. Lycopersicon lycopersicum de la Drago Blanc says:

    While I would not go as saying Ms. Greenberg is all wrong. I am behind you on this issue. By any account, her action, the way she intentionally putting a Child in stressful and emotional state is to me unjusted and ethically unacceptable.

    Freedom of expression here is being misplaced and misrepresented. If Ms. Greenberg believe truly that she had nothing to be afarid of, then she should have no problem with others criticizing her photos. Just being famous do not endear anybody to be any preferent than any other individuals.

  95. angry white male says:

    Oh man I am so angry right now I’m trembling! Jill Greenberg, in my humble opinion, you need serious help from a mental health professional…right after you stand trial on charges of reckless endangerment of a child and producing and distributing child pornography! If ever a woman deserved to be called the “c word” it’s Jill Greenberg. I think I’m going to be sick.

  96. Anonymous says:

    You people are all so pathetic, no doubt childless. While children around the world are starving, you idiots stand by and bicker about taking candy from a baby and photographing it! George Bush is the president? Who elected that idiot? Sorry, I was busy making absurd accusations about child-abusing photographers! You are all sick, sick people with too much time on your hands and no idea of what is important in life.

  97. Anonymous says:

    you do know that you have an ad on your homepage that features a crying child right? the one with the business guys body photoshopped on the crying baby’s head? Sound like your some kind of proponent of child abuse…. fucking idiot… mind your business.

  98. Anonymous says:

    This topic really doesn’t warrant this kind of discussion… it’s this simple: Jill Greenberg= creative photographer, “thomas hawk” (what a fucking idiotic pseudodym… its almost worse than that Savage asshole on the conservative radio)= buttinski dirtbag with a shitty view of art. There is no controversy…. just one idiot and a handful of concurrence.

  99. Anonymous says:

    The writer of that article missed one key source, though – he should have called Thomas Hawk for comment. By doing that, he paints him as frothing and irrational, kind of like Bill O’Reilly or Matt Drudge. I’m sure that he is a reasonable person with reasonable concerns about the exhibit, and I think that angle was really missed.

    I do take Mrs. Greenberg’s side in the matter that nothing was done wrong, but the article missed a point that needed to be said.

  100. Skul says:

    Doing something to a child to cause distress, photographing them and calling it “art” is not “art”. It’s just plain stupid. What kind of a parent would put up with that garbage? Perhaps the same kind that would send there little ones the Michell Jackson’s for a sleep-over? Just stupid, not art.

  101. Skul says:

    Doing something to a child to cause distress, photographing them and calling it “art” is not “art”. It’s just plain stupid. What kind of a parent would put up with that garbage? Perhaps the same kind that would send there little ones the Michell Jackson’s for a sleep-over? Just stupid, not art.

  102. Anonymous says:

    I think it would have been more aristically challenging to portray adults crying like that, and they would’ve been savvy to what was going on.
    Then there would be no hassles.

  103. Mykl says:

    It’s obvious this “lady” has a twisted and deep seated hatred for President Bush. She also has a deep seated hatred for little kids, as I’ve seen both “photo-essays” and she could have easily used the same captions for the “monkey” pics.

    She choose to torture little kids instead.

    No ambiguity here, all you “anonymous” chickenshit bastards.

    Step up and post your name you gutless pieces of dreck.

  104. John says:

    Thomas,

    I agree with you on this, but isn’t there some way to remove the “Anonymous” option from comments. Seriously it’s hard to follow the discussion when every other commenter is anonymous.

  105. Jack Slidell says:

    I cant believe this broad – she has barbara striesand’s disease evidently, the one where everything you say is free speech but everything the other guy says that you disagree with is hate speech, yeah that disease. Its most commonly found among well healed left coasters. I like how her hubby THINKS you may have libeled him. I am guessing he isnt a lawyer or he would KNOW if he were libeled. I guess he wants to play “my lawyer can beat up your lawyer” They sound like two elitist whack-jobs to me and she should DEFINATELY be investigated for Child Abuse or any other possible related criminal charges. I dont know whats funnier her childish fit over the President being in office or the fact that she comes across just like one of her photos. In any case its just another example of sick, sophomoric “transgressive” art thats so cliche at this point it makes me want to say “will the last transgressive pop artist to place a revered symbol of any kind in a mason jar of filled with urine please turn out the lights as you leave, its over already – walk away”. Of course the ral kicker is that this flap has now been picked up by michellemalkin.com and/or drudge so the real sh1t storm should break sometime around Monday Morning. Someone needs to mail her a box of lollipops and tell he to get over it.

  106. Anonymous says:

    I love the irony of all you babies crying about this supposed abuse.

    I am attaching each of your comments to one of Ms. Greenbergs’s photos mentally as I read them.

    Hawk = Hack
    Greenberg = Art

    Ha Ha Ha Loosers.

  107. Mad Mikey says:

    Hawk,

    Stand your ground – these wimps don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of silencing you.

  108. Ralphyboy says:

    I would love to see her face when (eventually) a judge makes her cry. Of course she won’t understand why (like these little tikes didn’t understand why). And she will probably try not to shed tears (it will only make it worse when they finally do come out. She should ask her victims, they know).

    I can’t imagine the flips and twists that will go through her head the first time she hears the rumblings of a “Victim Class Action Suit” headed her way. Oh, it may be years down the road. But I trust our bumper crop of litigators and victim’s attorneys to put her on the list of “fish in a barrel” defendants. I mean, she has so proudly presented the evidence of her miss-deeds. Even to the point of going on cable news and other interview type shows (can you say “taped confession”) and telling all the nice little details about her forethought and intentioned “stripping to the waist”, “making the children cry”.

    But the one that will cinch the monetary judgment against her will be the quote from this ScarboroughCountry interview wherein she says “I’ve gotten some, actually some great jobs as a result” of stripping these kids to the waist and then making them cry, and then selling the photos that I took of them in that emotionally distressed and vulnerable state.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I26UhE1njFc&search;=Jill%20Greenberg

    If you watch this interview please watch her eyes… She can’t even look into the camera as she answers the questions.

  109. Anonymous says:

    Jill Greenberg successfully exposes raw emotion! If only adults knew such open expression, but no, adults hide their anguish, anger, and despair behind cloaks of smiles. That’s how serial killers are born: hide it, hide it. We can learn from these photos: Express yourself as only children can- let it go in the moment; don’t keep it bottled up inside!!!
    Amy

  110. Susan says:

    Keep up the good fight. I cannot believe (well, sadly, I CAN) that someone would exploit children to make a political “statement.” It’s sad when crying becomes a political arguement.

  111. Anonymous says:

    Did you know that the advertisement for Paint Shop on your sidebar has a picture of a crying baby? I am disgusted and outraged by that abuse of an innocent child.

    Give me a break…

  112. maureen reeves says:

    hiya thomas,

    maureen here from london, england where we dont do that much sueing so everyone has an opinion on everything! am always shocked that the luxury of free speech isnt respected in a western country. erm mother of two myself and i must confess to taking a picture of my oldest son when he was two and had long hair which had knotted and he wouldnt let me comb and went into a strop, so i photographed him crying in an manufactured situation, dont know if that makes me as bad as jill greenberg or not. i think i have two questions though, does anyone know how she got them to cry? and are they part animation, because they dont look like straightforward or natural lifelike images, could it be they are made to look like they are crying? what do you think?

  113. Ralphyboy says:

    I am renaming a few of Jill’s “End Times” photos. Let’s see what sticks. Perhaps her attempt to tar Bush and the GOP with this sick work of hers can be pinned more firmly upon the true perp here; Jill Greenberg.

    Remember that not a single one of these kids was thinking about the current problems of the world while they were crying for Jill. They were crying because of, well, Jill and her aspirations for fame, fortune, and artistic recognition.

    So… here goes.

    The photo titled “four more years” gets added to and becomes… “no, not four more years of Jill…”

    “angry country” that shows a little boy in an apparent nazi salute is now… “Yes Jill… I’ll cry for you”

    “shock”… “why are you doing this to me Jill”

    “the truth” is “Jill Greenberg did this to me.”

    “the rapture index”… “what did I ever do to you Jill?”

    “nucular (sic)” “Yes, it is Jill.”

    “spin”… “But I don’t want Jill to baby-sit.”

    And the one that should worry her the most… “big brother”… Or, as it shall be named if justice is to be served… “I’ll be back Jill… With my lawyers.”

  114. Anonymous says:

    Funny comment, Ralphyboy
    but please donnot slander the poor little boy who lifts up his arm. He is a courageous boy trying to ward off the shooting.

  115. Anonymous says:

    i actually think calling your employer for disliking your opinion is a lot worse than taking a lollipop away and capture the tears.
    i think she is on the track of “he spoils my business, i spoil his”. if the revealing of her work methods is something she cannot stand up for to open public without having to harm the other party, leads to the presence of a bad conscience. And with that, enough said.

  116. Anonymous says:

    I’m going to say I openly support Greenberg, because I honestly believe she hasn’t done anything wrong as an artist. But that is not what I’m posting about.

    Greenberg has indeed put herself on a difficult position by talking to your boss. But has she ever had to deal with a torrent of abuse and accusations of child abuse about her art before? This mob attitude to Greenberg only started once bloggers started preaching how sick and immorral she is. No newspaper or official authority previously made a comment about Greenburg because she understood the role of an artist and her ethical limitations. Only the people who saw her out of context made complaints, blogs and now this. So, Greenberg reacted angrily, with out thinking and innappropriately. I’d feel pretty pissed off too.

    Misunderstanding is the sad thing I see here, not child abuse.

  117. Anonymous says:

    These photos are BEAUTIFUL.

    Its pretty pathetic how much time you’ve wasted hating her.

  118. henrik says:

    “Kid models aren’t very expensive—not as expensive as monkeys, for example.”

    Greenberg

  119. Anonymous says:

    Jill Greenberg is the best. You are sick. These photos are so great. Go get a life.

  120. Anonymous says:

    these photos are amazing!

  121. Callie says:

    I think Greenberg’s photographs are beautiful. It is absolutely hilarious how many people are so upset about this. Is is child abuse every time a parent tells a child that they can’t get a puppy at the pet store? Or take away a toy that they pick up in a store? Does anyone honestly think that these kids are going to be “emotionally scarred” by having a lollipop taken away from them? I’m sure they’d completely forgotten about it within 10 minutes. Relax, people, and admire the beautiful display of emotion in these children’s faces. It is hard to get a more honest response than that.

  122. cha says:

    In all fairness you did acuse her of being a roothless child abuser before you had any idea of her actual methoods. Ohhhh ya… and you called her a child pornographer…because they cried? or because we saw todler nipples (as if toddlers didn’t run around with out shirts half the time anyway.) I too, personally would want to defend myself and my reputation. I would be completely hurt if someone completely and utterly misinterpreted her. She is, in fact, a person and much like you has feelings.

    Did she overreact by calling your boss? Probably.

    Did she overreact by telling the press you were some insignificant who has no idea what is going on? I don’t think so.

    She may not have handled this perfectly well, but frankly, neither have you. It seams to me like you picked a fight, and now that you realize your emotions-though genuine- were founded on misconceptions YOU ARE TOO PROUD TO BACK OFF, admit you too overreacted.

    I’m sure at one point one of your children has taken something from one of there siblings, making them cry. Are they naughty? are they mean? yes, perhaps— but are they sick and disgusting and make you want to vomit? I hardly think so.

    Would it be so hard to swallow your pride and say. “Although I do not (even to this day) agree with taking away a lollipop to make a child cry, I apologize for calling you a sick child abusing pornographer.”

    While you made a point, you did take it way to far. I don’t mean to play psychologist with you, but this anger is obviously consuming you. Let it go, be the bigger man and admit you went overboard. -

  123. nic porter says:

    right first of all, how long have you spent arguing this?? you just dont ever shut up do you?!? i mean come on you only got one life and you want to spend yours writing blogs complaining day in day out…your just some guy with a grudge and a very obsessive disorder..jesus christ man get a life, lose the internet, try reading a book…you are clearly no artist in any shape or form otherwise you would understand the deep concepts to creating art and the extent that artists go to. but just for your information there is a line for every artist that they will not cross and no artist has ever crossed it, take it from me, unlike you i am an artist.

    look at andres serranos ‘piss christ’ from 1987. there are roughly 1.1 billion catholics, christians etc in the world and nothing…..i know it isnt child related but im pretty sure its offensive…as you say is Jill’s work…you are one man in 6.5 billion you are insignificant and nothing you say will ever make a difference so stop arguing an already lost battle.

    get on with your life, if you care so much about children why dont you try spending some time with yours, before they become mentally scarred at the fact their daddy didnt care about them cause he’d rather spend all his time on the internet writing silly blogs that make him look really stupid and obsessive.

    You have a problem with what i said my email address is

    naap_rap@hotmail.com

    im sick to death of stumbling across this god damned blog…

    Jill greenberg fucking rocks!!!

  124. Adriana says:

    Oh wow. Am I the only sane person left on the planet?

    OMG!! That evil lady took away the lollypop!!!! ABUSE!

    Um… it’s a lollypop. And they aren’t naked, they are shirtless. My toddler spends 99% of his life shirtless.

    Wow people really need to read the news and learn what actual abuse is. If you must poke your ass into other people’s businesses, at least pick a worthwile cause.

  125. sicoactiva says:

    I agree that you have the right to speak your mind. I support you for that.

    On the other hand, I think her work is beautiful, she had a great idea to speak her mind and she just proceeded with it. I can’t think of a softer way to make a child cry than to give them a lollipop and then take it back.

    I think you’re wrong when you say the photos will haunt them down: Do you remember the reasons for every single time you cried when you were a little kid?

    I think you’re overrreacting.

  126. Richard says:

    OK, I didn’t read through every single comment, but almost all of the “anonymous” ones sure seem to be in support of Jill “nutty” Greenberg…and coincidentally written in the same voice. Could it be Jill again on the attack? Sounds like something a person of her caliber would stoop to.

  127. Anonymous says:

    what’s worse:

    a) jill greenberg making 35 children cry and photographing them

    b) jill greenberg making a bunch of adults cry

    children cry. that she manipulated them into doing so is, to me, less important. the photographs are remarkable, and i’d venture as far as to say that no harm was done.

    sure, her rationale is fairly shallow, but to me it’s not about the politics; the images are arresting.

    so, do what you like. don’t have kids! have kids, but hide them indoors! have kids, but teach them that things you don’t agree with are ‘terrorism’! or, just post on a blog about how ‘sick’ this person is. the world is your oyster.

  128. jessica says:

    I am a current year twelve student about to sit my photography exam and i have chosen Jill Greenberg as one of my artist for discussion, throughout the year i used her as inspiration as in the class of “studio art” my theme for my personal folio was expression. These photos of hers i found fascinating and thought provoking until now. After reading Hawk’s battle with not only Greenberg herself but her petty husband also, i am disgusted to think a person of her status could actually be dumb enough to think she can threaten to sue over personal opinions!Her photos prove similar to the ever continuous debate with Bill Hensons work. Both artists Henson and Greenberg display photos of naked children Hensons more forth coming than Greenbergs however both are unacceptable. I believe personally what happened to Henson should happen to Greenberg! Her photos should be seized and the parents of the children photographed should face real punishment for the neglect to understanding the capacity in which children are able to remember such distressing times as these!

    I would also just like to thank Hawk for expressing his opinions so strongly and making me see the true ‘manpulator’ Jill Greenberg is. And to the rest of you that believe making a child cry is OK if its for art are PATHETIC! and i hope you never have children of your own as i fear the hurt they may be subjected to!

    With thanks Jess from Australia

  129. james bright says:

    Oh jesus….oh lord, oh heaven’s to betsy, oh lord have mercy on me and you….sheeesshh….
    I have read the articles and the reviews and the shameless attach of a gifted visionary by yourself and shrew of a man who is totally talentless and even more so…hates it when a women does oh so much much better than yourself….I bet the whole story is not here…she blew you off in a bar sometime ago in your past…and you in your self important whiny foaming at the mouth sneer…said….why that bitch…who does she think she is to ….omg…I mean really….dismiss me…..after all “I AM THE ARTIST HERE!”….
    Yeah well get over it….This is so like Art School all over it…I could never understand those pityful souls…who felt it their stupid right to feel that those who work ten times harder than themselves, who get the sales while in art school, who get the grants and commissions, those who get the all paid tickets to Italy to stay at the sponsors art filled house, at their expense, who buy every single art piece of paper or canvas, and who are now wealthy…because they are constantly working…while the pity little ones…are artists in pose only…and whose hands have never seen graphite dust or oil paint, or who would never dare have their new fashionable clothes get dirty…..
    Yeah…you go and hide your face behind your camera…good thing too.
    shame on you….SHAME SHAME SHAME on you.

  130. james bright says:

    HEY…WHO PISSED IN YOUR DEVELOPER TRAY…

  131. Oh my goodness! a tremendous article dude.Long time reader / 1st time poster. Really enjoying reading the blog, keep up the excellent work. Will most definitely start posting more oftenin the future.