Jill Greenberg’s Husband Robert Green is a Bald Faced Liar
So I said a few days ago that I was done posting about Jill Greenberg and her “End Times” show pending any asinine comments by Jill Greenberg, her husband Robert Green or her gallery owner Paul Kopeikin and here I am back blogging about them again. Unfortunately.
You remember Jill Greenberg of course. The one who makes little toddlers cry, somewhere around 35 of them, and then photographers them in angst as some kind of a protest thing against the Bush administration.
So what makes me feel the need to continue blogging about this?
Well Robert Green has thought it appropriate to spew outright lies about me on another website that I have just discovered. He has accused me of 1. posting “crap” on his blog. 2. threatening his children. And 3. linking to his children’s blog urls forcing him to take their blogs offline.
It’s ironic that Robert Green, who has suggested that I have libeled his wife with my criticism of her methods, would make these public statements that are not even labeled as opinion but reported by him as fact.
For the record, I have never published anything to Robert Green’s website. I have never threatened his children and I have never published the addresses to his children’s website. And he has no evidence whatsoever that I have.
I did save a copy of Robert Green’s deleted post prior to his deleting it and there is nothing in there written by or from me.
This strategy of outright lies reeks of desperation on their part. They would be better off attempting to defend their position that creating Jill’s art was in fact a morally responsible thing to do rather than to try to make up outright lies to attack their critic.
While I can understand that Robert Green and Jill Greenberg would be upset with my characterizing Jill’s work as child abuse (an opinion that I believe still is valid), resorting to a “smear your critic with lies” campaign is not a legitimate or responsible way to deal with this criticism.
The Green/Greenbergs have tried very hard to discredit me and pressure me. They have tried to pressure me by calling my employer, they have tried to discredit me as an insane person with personal problems who doesn’t even have kids in a national magazine (when in the post criticizing them I state I’m a father of four). And Robert Green has thought it appropriate now to accuse me of harassing and threatening his children when this has *never* happened.
It is sad that Mr. Green would try to use his children, drawing unnecessary attention to them, in this whole debate as some kind of a shield from the criticism that he and his wife are justly receiving. But why should that surprise me coming from people like the Green/Greenbergs. Shame on you for bringing your own kids further into this mess that you’ve created.
Robert Green, I would ask that you apologize and retract the statements about me that you know are lies that I threatened your children, that I published their website addresses and that I posted on your blog. You know that these are false statements and you know that you have no evidence whatsoever to support them.
And let me remind you that you have threatened me and suggested that I talk to a lawyer before publishing more on your and your wife. While my previous statements with regard to your wife have clearly been my opinion and protected as such, I have just stated here on my blog as fact that you sir are a bald faced liar to the extent that you have published lies about me on the Modern Art Obsession blog (which I have also downloaded a copy of in case you would try and have your comments there deleted). If you really have evidence that I’ve done what you said I did you now would have a clear cut libel case. Of course you don’t have evidence of this and so there will be no libel case forthcoming.
And so I would challenge you to present the evidence that you have that I’ve done what you’ve claimed or offer a retraction and apology for stating as fact that I’ve done this.
Short of addressing these lies directly I think people will read the ad hominem attacks directed at me, that I’m sure will follow this post in my comments, for what they are, hollow and desperate attempts to silence a critic. Why sir is it so hard for you to see that people might be offended by your wife’s art? Why is it hard for you to see that people might object to your threats of libel and harassment of a blogger over his 1st Ammendment protected free speech and opinion rights? Rather than deal with this criticism directly you instead resort to ad hominem attacks calling me a “gutless fuckbag” a “wanker” and a “gutless piece of shit.” You refer to Boing Boing who suggested that your harassment of me at my work and libel threats might be out of line as “self important Boing Boing.”
Perhaps rather than threats, harassment, ad hominem attacks, and outright lies you ought to just address the issues at hand responsibly. Think about it. These tactics only serve to make you look bad in all this.
On another level I also find it personally distasteful that you would choose to close a post spewing lies about me with, “and it’s nice to see so many pieces selling–papa needs new shoes.” This is an insensitive position to take, to brag about the money that you and Jill are making off of this art publicly. Even I am beginning to wonder if your strong and hated objection over people’s offense of this work isn’t just some cheap ploy for publicity on your part.
I really do hope that this is the last post I have to write about Jill Greenberg and Robert Green pending Green’s apology for the lies.
Thomas Hawk may be a mindless liberal on most issues, but he’s got it right about Jill Greenberg. Would some brave D.A. finally indict her so a jury of normal people can find her guilty already!?
Jeez…
Do I see a Daytime Soap or Reality TV series coming from this whole sordid affair?
Thomas you “should” receive an apology but your not dealing with mature people here…your going to have to deal with it.
I think enough already!
You do post crap, he was right!
What she is doing is very disturbing and I wish there is something I can do to support you. It’s one thing to capture someone’s aguish but to purposefully evoke it is just wrong.
Some people have a poor set of values and no character.
I agree with mikea, someone please indict her.
No wonder the Greenies are obsessed with crying children. They ARE crying children.
And so it continues…
I’ve followed this from the start, agree with all the comments about it being disturbing and note with interest that there are obvious inaccuracies in how Jill tells the story of the photoshoot.
However the moment people such as Jill and her husband resort to personal attacks rather than defending their position they’ve already lost.
Thomas Hawk is a Sick man Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse
How strange…anonymous people posting slanderous attacks on Thomas Hawk. Wonder who they could be?
Deliberately stating information that you know to be harmful and false is exactly the definition of slander, and it is actionable.
Wonder if these anonymous people know how easy it is to get their IP and trace them right back to the Green/Greenberg residence…
thomas,
this is djp72 from down under in australia…
pro photographer, husband, father…
can i make a few points here man?
thanks.
>thanks for your blog and flickrnation.
>i would never have found jill greenberg’s work if it wasn’t for you. i seriously like her work. thanks.
>the more i see her “end times” series, the more i really dig it. thanks
>the more you post about jill, the more money she makes from her work.
I am still trying to decide who is worse: the manipulators (Robert Green and Jill Greenberg) or PriceRightPhoto.
I can at least understand what PriceRightPhoto was up to.
I find it particularly ironic that Green is hiding behind his own children in order to add some sort of nobility to his counter-attack against accusations of his wife’s child abuse. Not even hipsters get that ironic.
I think I’ve got the best last-word on the subject…
Thanks Wirehead. Well said.
I would say that this is your art statement: to make everyone think about Jill Greenberg’s work …
Really this is a nice forray into the murky ethics of an art statement.
I agree that Jill G. is a bit too quick to take advantage and then assume your args as somehow anti-liberal or anti-freethinker, but thats just the point: think about it and it gets a bit ugly.
Whats next? spanking animals for the violent reaction they give u in film? saying nasty things to religious peeps so their face cringes then snap the photo? Lets get JillG.’s photo right after she first read your nice tax on her work …
Interesting…
I take it there will be a concerted attempt to rid movies of children where their emotions are provoked and a profit made from them… and the endless beauty competitions too…
The gaols will be overflowing, no?
Interesting…
I take it there will be a concerted attempt to rid movies of children where their emotions are provoked and a profit made from them… and the endless beauty competitions too…
The gaols will be overflowing, no?
http://media.thechrispirilloshow.com/mp3/yourepitiful.mp3
While the message attached to the show is kind of inappropriate, I would hope that Mr. Hawk could understand that toddlers routinely react in such fashions. For those that feel the photos are shocking in any real way, I urge you to go to daycare with toddlers some day. It might prove shocking, I guess is the word I would want to use here.
You’re an idiot.
Come on!
If you want to do something for children go to the White House and tell your president to stop bullying the world! Iraqi children are dying, not crying over a lollipop… Or do you think like Bush that these are just little terrorists who deserve to die for your oil?
Alessandra, Rome
For those of you interested in Jill Greenberg’s work, I am selling one of her Monkey Portraits on eBay. You can view it here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Worried-from-Jill-Greenbergs-Monkey-Series_W0QQitemZ160013039742QQihZ006QQcategoryZ66465QQtcZphotoQQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I think her photos are wonderful. Perhaps they’re too good. They’ve evoked emotion like a good photograph should.
You critics look at them and get all upset as though they were crying over something devastating. (See how effective they are?) Kids cry, they laugh, they anger and they sook, ….so what.
People, get a serious cause.
You’re the same people who tried to indict Elvis Presley for his salacious hip thrusting.
Art is controversial, and people like you always end up looking stupid in retrospect.
Why can’t certain people see the deeper meaning of these portraits??? Take a look around at the world our children are going to grow up in!!! I know that if i could understand such complex concepts at that age i would be just as devistated!! Yes, it is a shocking way to send this message out to the world but, what other way is there? People are so self absorbed thesedays, using the image of a defensless child in such dispare may be the only way to change perceptions. Good on you jill for actually giving a sh*t about the world we live in!
It strikes me as surprising that Mr Peterson (Hawks?) is the father of four children, and leads me to wonder how much time he actually spends in their presence on a daily basis. I myself am only the father of one child so far, but I teach in a preschool and I know enough that A) young children cry a lot B) they can start crying very easily, and C) they can stop just as suddenly.
The face of a crying child is a feature of normal childhood to me, and doesn’t immediately conjure thoughts of abuse!
As a photographer, Jill Greenberg intended to capture this very human expression and to my mind did it in the most humane and gentlest way she could think of – give them candy, have their mother take it away for a brief moment and then return it – tears over.
Does Mr Peterson seriously expect us to believe any of those kids might have become traumatised for life from this “ordeal”? Please! That this is the worst and most memorable experience they will suffer, far surpassing the countless painful bumps on the head all kids get as they topple over while struggling to gain the ability to walk and gain control of their bodies? You may not remember it, but it happened to every one of us!
As for the “nudity”, I apologise for being forthright but I can find nothing offensive about it whatsoever. Sorry.
Does he think, I wonder, that Michelangelo’s naked cherubim should be painted over with appropriately dated attire?
I will admit Greenberg could have still made a powerful impact if she had dressed all the kids in identical white T-shirts or something (so differing fashions wouldn’t distract from the true subjects: the children), but in an aesthetic way this might detract from the natural and timeless quality of the images. Anyway, it’s a moot point, and hardly a big deal.
As she said herself, the whole paedophilia angle never even crossed her mind and she was shocked when it came up. Any such notions apparently arose first in the eye of the beholder.
It baffles me that the image of a naked child could ever be offensive or disturbing, and does raise serious questions about whether the problem lies in front of or behind those beholders’ eyes.
The way she put it was that perhaps the critics (mostly men, who – coincidentally – spend less time with small kids than women on average) may have been projecting uncomfortable feelings they had when they saw the images and blaming her. Freud would have a field day.
It’s interesting that Peterson described her “stripping them of their clothes” when in the pictures we only see them from above the midriff. How could he know whether they had been stripped completely? Did he just imagine this? If so, why?… But enough!
All said, there may be no need for any “who’s the real pervert” finger-pointing. Perhaps most of the talk of being offended is actually irrelevant.
A very significant point in this whole story is the politics behind it.
She conceived of this project initially as a criticism of the Bush administration by showing kids in despair with topical/satirical titles, and the massive backlash ‘flip-flopped’ her idea to show her as the demon since she put those kids through “despair” herself. The entire episode smacks of the typical immediate knee-jerk reactions either political side always have over any kind of criticism. It seemed so obvious to me even before I checked out the comments from objectors and confirmed my suspicions that a huge majority of the objectors are Bush supporters. It was then easy to picture them reading about the photo exhibition on perhaps some pro-Bush or right-wing website or getting a multiple-recipient e-mail from one of their buddies, all about this “evil, unpatriotic Democrat woman who tortures innocent kids – write now and complain!”
One has to wonder honestly, if the photographer had actually been a Bush supporter and her exact same exhibition was put out, but as a criticism of the Democratic Party, liberals, or whatever, would those same people have still written to complain? In all probability, no: they’d have said nothing (or maybe a load of Democrats would have complained instead). Just another example of the despicable hypocrisy all too present in bipartisan politics.
Which, when all is said and done, is more damaging in the long term and ought to be a lot more offensive to decent people than temporary lollipop confiscation.
- A kindergarten teacher.