Comments on: Jill Greenberg’s Husband Robert Green is a Bald Faced Liar http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html Sat, 26 May 2012 02:31:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: torbak http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-255673 torbak Thu, 06 May 2010 17:17:14 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-255673 the insidious part of this project is still to sink in. for instance, in PEOPLE magazine, they used one of her shots as stock imagery. they didn't even credit her. this was an april 2010 issue, i believe. so here's the clincher: what she did will live on. that's the horror/beauty in art. in this case, any of you who think showing this stuff is okay are just weird. you are. and that you don't "get it" is sad. but as it "lives on", inspiring others to test this same edge (many will do it in private and they will not use volunteers), all i can say is "what intrinsic good or worth" exists in this kind of project? and i know that many who read this are not artists or photographers, but rather, slavishly needy people who seek adoration and approval in their "art/photo" work. and that's all this is. it is slavish abandon in a slough of decadence. and, after writing all of this, it's all cool. everything will be fine. we need people who don't mind blurring the lines of abuse and mental torture. we need new reality shows on tv where people do progressively riskier and more mortally threatening activities in order to gain attention. that's who we are. BUT, some of us aren't all like that. and we have a place, too. the insidious part of this project is still to sink in.

for instance, in PEOPLE magazine, they used one of her shots as stock imagery. they didn’t even credit her. this was an april 2010 issue, i believe.

so here’s the clincher: what she did will live on. that’s the horror/beauty in art. in this case, any of you who think showing this stuff is okay are just weird. you are. and that you don’t “get it” is sad.

but as it “lives on”, inspiring others to test this same edge (many will do it in private and they will not use volunteers), all i can say is “what intrinsic good or worth” exists in this kind of project?

and i know that many who read this are not artists or photographers, but rather, slavishly needy people who seek adoration and approval in their “art/photo” work.

and that’s all this is. it is slavish abandon in a slough of decadence.

and, after writing all of this, it’s all cool. everything will be fine. we need people who don’t mind blurring the lines of abuse and mental torture. we need new reality shows on tv where people do progressively riskier and more mortally threatening activities in order to gain attention.

that’s who we are. BUT, some of us aren’t all like that. and we have a place, too.

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13201 Anonymous Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:59:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13201 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.<br />The face of a crying child is a feature of normal childhood to me, and doesn't immediately conjure thoughts of abuse!<br />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.<br />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!<br />As for the "nudity", I apologise for being forthright but I can find nothing offensive about it whatsoever. Sorry.<br />Does he think, I wonder, that Michelangelo's naked cherubim should be painted over with appropriately dated attire?<br />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.<br />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.<br />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. <br />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.<br />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!<br />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.<br />A very significant point in this whole story is the politics behind it.<br />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!"<br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />- A kindergarten teacher. 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.

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13202 Anonymous Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:54:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13202 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! 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!

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13203 Anonymous Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:35:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13203 You're the same people who tried to indict Elvis Presley for his salacious hip thrusting. <br /><br />Art is controversial, and people like you always end up looking stupid in retrospect. 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.

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13204 Anonymous Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:58:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13204 I think her photos are wonderful. Perhaps they're too good. They've evoked emotion like a good photograph should. <br />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. <br />People, get a serious cause. 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.

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13205 Anonymous Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13205 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:<br /><br />http://cgi.ebay.com/Worried-from-Jill-Greenbergs-Monkey-Series_W0QQitemZ160013039742QQihZ006QQcategoryZ66465QQtcZphotoQQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem 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

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13206 Anonymous Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:39:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13206 Come on!<br />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?<br />Alessandra, Rome 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

]]> By: Michael Clark http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13207 Michael Clark Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:19:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13207 You're an idiot. You’re an idiot.

]]> By: JournalismStudent http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13208 JournalismStudent Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:44:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13208 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. 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.

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2006/07/jill-greenbergs-husband-robert-green.html/comment-page-1#comment-13209 Anonymous Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:40:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=1978#comment-13209 http://media.thechrispirilloshow.com/mp3/yourepitiful.mp3 http://media.thechrispirilloshow.com/mp3/yourepitiful.mp3

]]>