Jeremiah McNichols on Jill Greenberg’s “End Times” Show
Well I’m beginning to sound like I’m beating a dead horse here, so this may be my last post on Jill Greenberg and her “End Times” series at the Paul Kopeikin Gallery — pending any future harassment or asinine comments from Greenberg, Green and Paul Kopeikin of course. I had actually planned to stop blogging it earlier but then Paul Kopeikin wanted to brag about the sales he was making off of the emotional turmoil of the kids.
Congratulations by the way Paul. Now anyone searching for your gallery with Google will be able to see what a successful businessman you are. You must be proud. I’m sure this will only drive more business to your gallery in the future as most people probably think it’s cool to pick on kids.
But there were two final things I wanted to say before most likely closing my blogging on this conversation here at my blog for a while.
First off, there was a comment on my blog (and I’m assuming it was meant to be sarcastic) about physically assaulting Paul personally, about assaulting him and then taking his photo and calling it art. I’ve deleted the comment and it is the only comment that I’ve deleted in this entire debate (other than one piece of clear comment spam). While I can get the point in the sarcasm, I think that the comment is in poor taste. While Greenberg’s methods and Paul’s enthusiasm for the profit side of all this might be very upsetting, I think it’s still quite inappropriate for someone to suggest that violence is the answer here — even in jest. I feel pretty strongly about this — and while I’m all for people expressing their opinion in legal ways, I feel that to suggest violence to make a point in this debate takes this conversation to a place that I don’t want it to go. I hope that people will see that by deleting this comment even when I’ve left comments that are very insulting to me personally that I feel strongly about this. It will only undermine the legitimacy of the criticism if someone decides to take it to a place that it shouldn’t go.
Secondly, today I read what is perhaps the best analysis on the controversy to date. It was written by a new blogger Jeremiah McNichols and is a well articulated and thought out case on why what Jill Greenberg did in creating her “End Times” show was wrong. I wanted to share that link with people because I think it is the most rational and well written thing I’ve seen about the situation yet. Jeremiah also wrote another piece more specifically dealing with Paul Kopeikin using satire as a perspective.
With that, I’m going to say that I’m pretty much done blogging this thing for now. I think that the blogging has brought a fair level of attention to the importance of protecting kids — even when it had to go against something that I also feel very strongly about and that is an artist’s right to not be censored and to create their art and exercise their rights of free speech.
The point is still well made; somehow, distressing a child with what they perceive to be a threat or intimidating behaviour is no different from illiciting the same response from an adult by any other means.
Most adults would shrug off having a lollipop withdrawn; few would shrug off being physically threatened.
The same argument applies to the issue of striking a child in the interests of discipline; might does not make right.
Hitting a child in order to make them comply with your will is no different from striking an adult in order to acheive the same result.
Strike a child and call it discipline, but it’s still a physical assault.
Threaten an adult with physical violence, and you are one step away from breaking the law; emotionally mistreat a child, and it’s somehow art.
More FM money for Andrew. Oh how badly he wants to stop, but he just can’t
You could get children to cry by having a parent leave the room or any number of other benign methods.
Thomas Hawk knows very little about art or photography or investing from what I can tell
I just took another look at the photos. I would never buy any of those, nor would I want them hanging in my home.
forcing a child to cry for the sake of picture is just plain sick. whether it’s a lolipop being pulled out of his/her hands or forcing a severe seperation anxity reaction is wrong.
one more thing— I don’t know a damn thing about art or photography, but i’m not morally banktupt either. forcing an emotional reaction from a non-consenting participant is twisted.
I wonder if RocketBoob sends letters to newspapers with similar comments: “More advertising money for the newspaper. Oh how badly they want to stop, but they just can’t!”
What kind of relevence RocketBoob’s comment holds to the issue at hand is anyone’s best guess. More than likely it’s a just a (really pathetic) attempt at discrediting Thomas.
I left a comment on Jeremiah McNichols site to this effect …
“Thank you for your well thought out and considered discussion on this topic. I’ve been following “Thomas Hawk’s” discussion on this for a while. Jill Greenburg’s rationale reeks of mental masturbation, well knowing what she is doing is morally reprehensive. I ‘ve seen th epictures and it does strike a chord deep inside me. I’m normally quite an equinanimous person, and I think, quite tolerant of a wide variety of opinions and views of the world, but I feel nothing but utter disgust and anger towards her. Children are fairly adaptable and robust beings, but traumatic things can leave deep scars, especially when they don’t understand what is happening. “
Jill Greenberg should be prosecuted for assault, and parents who allow their children to be treated this way should be prosecuted for neglect. And when the photographic subjects grow up, they are going to be very, very, very, very pissed. Where is the love?
We’ve had a good laugh at how easy it was to get you to post something as obviously false as how much you have helped the gallery with sales. Of course you took the bait because you are such an egotistical fool.
Paul, you’re an ass. Anyone who has sent you an email knows that. A bloated, egotistical, tick-like ass sucking who makes a living off of the works of others.
Tell us exactly how you contribute to this conversation…or even society as a whole?
Did somone steal your candy when you were a child? With such horrible abuse I wonder how you managed to reach adulthood.
=This is sick. I don’t care what you call it nor how you made these children cry. You may not have hurt them, but by you putting these images in sick peoples heads you will do harm to children when sick people view these photos. We already have child abused in our society. I can just see sick folks enjoying these photos. They are disturbing to a normal person. My first reaction when viewing one was “this may have been some child abused in a news story” I almost didn’t read about it because it is very distrubing to see a child hurting. I feel that there are many adults that prey on children, sick individuals who are enjoying these pictures.
We need to help sexually and physically abused children not paint a picture in our minds of their suffering, no one knows you only took the lollipops away. There are perverts every where, these images adds fuel to their sick heads. Just think about it your images, naked and in pain…How sick are you.
I do not like your art….I believe what “Zuri wrote” you are twisted.
I cannot get over the hoo-hah that people are making over Jill’s work in “End Times”!
DUDES – a bunch of kids didnt have a lollypop for about 30secs, so they cried a bit! im pretty damn certain they would have gotten the lolly back when the shoot was done!…maybe even two!
…and even if they didnt get their lollypop, whoooopdidoo! thats not child abuse! So many people are screaming about how its “severe seperation anxiety” or “gross emotional cruelty”……is it? no, no its not – Physically hurting a child, sexually abusing them, hitting them, abandoning them into foster homes, exposing them to drug abuse – these are examples of child abuse!! i have friends who were victims of child abuse – the idea that taking a lollypop away from a kid is on the same level as what some of my friends have been through is mindblowingly offensive and ridiculous!
I also have sisters around the same age who can pull these sorts of faces (and worse) when something doesnt go their way, like for example not giving them desert because they havnt eaten their vegetables – does this make me a child abuser? does this mean that i need to go above and beyond to make sure that there is never even a frown on that childs face otherwise im abusing them? no, im sorry, thats not abuse!
to everyone who has taken such a strong stance against this work (especially you Thomas Hawk and Jeremiah McNichols), pull that middle class, white american wank stick out of yr arse and wake up to yourselves! Stop being so precious and damn melodramatic, and why not try talking to a victim of child abuse and see if they would have prefered to be put in the situation Jill put them in, or if they would have still prefered to have had their parents beat them and their relatives sexually assult them (because the lolly situation is just too cruel…pffft, grow up you tossers!)
feel free to go wild on my myspace, i plan on hosting as many photos of the exhibition up there for as long as possible
these days art has lost all true meaning, artists, are trying to provoke a reaction, they’re trying to push the boundairies. Greenbergs images are indeed dramatic and breath taking, but the child hasn’t had a chioice in the matter, i wouldn’t go as far to say this is child abuse, but it still seems morally incorrect. it seems to me artists are breaking ethical boudaries to nake a name for themselves.
After reading a number of reactions to this both for and against I note one thing. The people against this are reacting due to the glorification of childrens distress over why they have had a treat taken from them without good cause, that amounts to being bullied, bullying is a form of abuse, now, my point here is this, that all the arguements for the photos are ALL taking the lesser of two evils.
Those “for” are saying, “hey look, its just a kid crying over a lollipop, take a look at abuse where children are beaten or starved, neglected, etc.” Well for them I can only say this, how DARE you put a standard or level on what is abuse. The role of any parent or adult is ensure that a their child of whatever age is kept within a safe, calm, happy and loving environment at all times within human ability.
Jill Greenberg failed to do this, those parents who submitted their children failed to do this, those people defending this outrage, are failing to do this.
There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to make a child cry deliberately, it is the most disgusting manner to which parents can make a quick buck and for an artist to make herself known.
If a parent/guardian fails to do their duty to ensure the safe, caring and happy environment for their child to which they are entrusted, they are failures in their duty.
All those who argued “for” this disgusting exhibition have also failed. Even if some of these people are not yet parents, they have failed before they even got started.
The exhibition is tasteless, desperate and glorifies a child’s distress, how on earth can anyone defend that?
Some of those arguing for are saying that the pictures are, and I quote “beauitful”
“Here look a photo of a child crying their eyes out because a photographer took their treat away without good cause causing the child momentary distress, to an extent that some suffered uncontrollable salivation isnt that just beautiful?”
Err what? Pardon? Sorry?
Beautiful? Please seek help!
On another note, all these children if you notice are disrobed, disrobed and crying, as anyone with any knowledge of child abuse, peadophiles have had images found on their computers of children, disrobed and crying.
So what exactly is this exhibition about then? Politics? Please do not bullshit me.
Jill Greenberg is sick, the people defending this are sick, the parents who submitted their children to this are sick.
My daughter started school today, she is 4, 5 next month, anytime she is distressed or upset I am there for her, anytime she is crying about something I am there to put it right, even if she be needing of just a hug, hence when she went through those school gates for the first time today, she was a happy smilling confident child, she was this way because she knows that when she isnt I am there, cant say the same for anyone involved the creation and defence for this exhibition.
The unfortunate sad thing is, is that with everyone reacting to this, its given Jill Greenberg exactly what she wanted, money and exposure.
She should be blacklisted!!
Jill Greenberg never abused any of the children she worked with. How often do you go to a supermarket and tell your child “no you cant have that” and they burst into tears. Jill is a mother and used her own daughter in the photo’s aswell as other people’s children. The parents consented to have their child in the photo and were in the room when Jill was working with them. Jill used the same process as what advertisements on the TV use. how often do you see an add on the TV where a child is crying, then they get what they want and they’re all happy? It’s a standard procedure used in the media to get children to cry. Yes these images are disturbing, but you only see the children crying. You don’t see them 30 seconds after when they get the lollipop back and they’re all happy again. So maybe you should take a look at what you’re all writing and think to yourselves about what the photo’s make you really think. Jill did not harm the children in any way what so ever. think about that.