A Thank You Note From Paul Kopeikin, Owner of Paul Kopeikin Gallery Where Jill Greenberg's Current Show is Being Held
I received a thank you note today in the form of part of a comment on my blog from Paul Kopeikin. Paul is the owner of the Paul Kopeikin Gallery on Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles where Jill Greenberg's "End Times" show is currently being shown. As those who read this blog are aware, I have objected to Jill's methods as a photographer and artist and feel that her series of emotionally wrenched children is unfortunate and abusive. Jill is the one who gets these little kids all worked up to the point of tears running down a naked chest in one case and then photographs these children and holds it up as some kind of protest against the Bush administration. There is an article in today's New York Times about the controversy.
Anyways, thought I'd pass Paul's note and sentiments along to everyone
"I sincerely thank you for the attention you have brought to the exhibition and my gallery. I have made several sales to people who you have introduced to the work and who understand and appreciate it.
Again, Thanks for your help."
Paul Kopeikin
Nice way you look at your business there Paul. Any interest in sharing with us all exactly how much money you've made off of the kids and all of this? You must be very proud of yourself.
Paul writes:
"Tom,
Post the entire comment I sent to you or remove what you have posted since what you are posting is purposely out of context. Are you a particularly dishonest blogger or is everyone this bad?"
Gladly, Paul.
"Thomas,
Why allow people to post annonomously when doing so keeps them unaccountable for their what they say. And is that why you don't use your real name on the site?
158 Comments on this site since April doesn't seem like many people care about this issue, and if people had to identify themselves, as I am happy to do, I think the number would go down significantly. You should list the days people write and not just the times, that way I think people would see what a non-isse this really is.
You must be thrilled that your friend(s) at Boing Boing (great site I had never heard of) helped you get so much attention, as did the shutterbug magazine and now the NY Times. You must love it. Good for you! I guess you can just ignore the damage you are doing by purposely confusing art and child abuse, which is a real problem. You should look into it and maybe you can blog about it.
Anyway, I sincerely thank you for the attention you have brought to the exhibition and my gallery. I have made several sales to people who you have introduced to the work and who understand and appreciate it.
Again, Thanks for your help."
Any interest in sharing how much you're profiting from all this Paul?
posted by Thomas Hawk at 3:38 PM
88 Comments:
Hey, amorality mixed with petty vindictiveness. He's got it all!
Wow this guy made you look stupid...
Tom,
Post the entire comment I sent to you or remove what you have posted since what you are posting is purposely out of context. Are you a particularly dishonest blogger or is everyone this bad?
I dunno, Paul, *you* chose to close with:
"Anyway, I sincerely thank you for the attention you have brought to the exhibition and my gallery. I have made several sales to people who you have introduced to the work and who understand and appreciate it. Again, Thanks for your help."
Which is completely the gist of your comment. I went back and read the whole thing... attacking anonymity is silly--since *your clients* demonstrated that they are bullies who purposefully hurt children, then when someone points it out, go running to that guys *boss*. We don't *all* want to have our employers contacted by your asshole clients... not because we're scared, but because we have better things to do at work than explain to our boss why they are getting called by *psychos* about a non-work related matter.
Hey, I completely understand you love the attention and making money off exploited children. You're a gallery owner, exploitation is your middle name!
Thomas, if you'd honestly like to help abused children, join casa http://www.sfcasa.org/.
If you join, you'll get to feel really important, fight child abuse, and help children who actually were abused.
Hi Thomas,
I'd really wonder if the buyers Paul Kopeikin mentioned are doing so for art or something else. It chills me to think of people getting off because of feeling power over little kids. He's probably right that you brought lots of attention to "End Times." But, if it was a sales, why should he and Jill Greenberg attack you so much?
By the way, you know she has a book of this photo shoot coming out, right? I wonder if the controversy might affect possible publishers, because it would explain another reason for Jill Greenberg's ferocious response.
Or maybe not. She's the self-described "Manipulator." It's how she lives.
Joe
I'm almost embarassed to ask.
Aside from Jill Greenberg's short appearance in the AmPhoto magazine is there anywhere that has the other side of the story? Or even someone trying for a non-biased view?
Most websites are just cutting and pasting Thomas' view which is good for Thomas but perhaps not so good for the truth.
Paul, most bloggers are even worse.
That was interesting. Mr. Kopeikin is upset at the "damage" Thomas caused, but glad that he is now selling that woman's porn? Sounds like a mixed message. Pimps are shameless. Glad you posted the entire "thank you" note so we can all see it in its glory.
I've also seen two blog posts on Mr. Jill Greenberg's blog that were some of the nastiest post I ever read. That's damage. Anyone who wants to defend such crap (both posts now deleted, how about that!) have a credibillity problem.
I will never, ever, buy from Paul Kopeikin. I do no longer believe the "artists" in his collection are serious or worthy artist. As long as he keeps Jill Greenberg in his stall, I'll mistrust his abillity to evaluate good photography.
I'm sure Paul will lose a lot of sleep over that, Elinesca.
Don't be silly Corin. Why don't you go play with your torture buddies instead of keeping up with this conversation..? I would think this is a bit too passive for someone like you...
I'm buying one of her prints because I dig the lighting. I'm building a home studio and will use it as an example of the type of lighting I want to do.
Nice letter by art dealer Paul Kopeikin.
And the fact that Thomas posted it.. just shows what a total fool he is, and what a total joke this blog has become.
Thomas, that is indeed sick. Funny thing, they accuse you of "purposely confusing art and child abuse" yet they haven't thought of the actual confusion they themselves have brought by proclaiming their act as legitimate art. Ultimately, everything is subject to interpretation but that doesn't stop us from having a contrary opinion especially for such questionable activities.
I guess this guy is just in it for the money, or at least he sounds like it.
What an ass thomas hawk is
Strange. It seems to me that most of the anonymous posters are the one's that side with Paul and the Greenbergs.
How much FM revenue have you made by attacking her Thomas?
How big a percentage in Zooomer did you receive for running this infantile blog? Makes it hard to believe that Kris is a genius if he thought he needed your tired ass.
Scott Clouthier,
That is because the people who agree are blog fags and already registered with this stupidity.
I am a professor of photography and have taught photography for over 20 years. I also have worked as a freelance editorial photographer for 15 years. I caught the story in the Times yesterday and checked out Greenberg's images and WOW.
These are very exploitive images, relying on the emotional manpiulation of young children who have no idea what is happening and no control over the manipulation. Greenberg is using a cheap trick and slick photography to make some BS statement about politics (IMHO).
One of the hardest concepts to teach to young photographers is ethics. They have grownup in a world that bombards them with all sorts of images from advertising to pornography but with no guidance on how to decode these images. I will not let my students do "Bum Photography". They think it is cool to take images of the homeless and marginalized and bring them to class. This leads to good discussion about the responsibility of the photographer to subject and audience as well as the power of images to make the subject exotic. Almost all of our students come to realize how problematic photography can be and develop a sensitivity towards the subject.
Applaud your position. Lately I have seen too much photography that is nothing more than pornography for the eyes. I will have to send you the link to a woman in Washington State that uses human brain tissues in her images and does not question the ethics of using someone else body parts to make images. I saw her work at the annual Society for Photographic Education conference a year ago.
Professor at a CC maybe.
Jill Greenberg will be on the cover of the August issue of wired and you and thomas will continue to be unimportant.
Nice letter by art dealer Paul Kopeikin.
And the fact that Thomas posted it.. just shows what a total fool he is, and what a total joke this blog has become.
Huh??
"Professor at a CC maybe.
Jill Greenberg will be on the cover of the August issue of wired and you and thomas will continue to be unimportant."
Yes I do teach at a CC. What is your problem with community colleges? They provide a good education at a good price for many people.
I did teach at a Big 10 school for 8 years. It was nice, the students were bright but I find teaching at CC is much more challenging and rewarding. Many of our students are just getting by financially and educationally and to be able to help them achieve their goals is great. I have always said that it is easy to teach the A students, it takes a good teacher to teach the C & D students.
Why am I no longer at the Big 10 school? My wife got a job opportunity so we moved and I took this job.
So whats your issue, have you been on the cover of Wired?
a) These children are completely defenseless
b) They're stripped of their clothes, terrified and then photographed
c) People are making a significant amount of money off of this
At the very least this is unethical.
But it's saddening and a bit scary that someone like Paul Kopeikin can so casually and so conveniently just claim this as "art" without so much as an explaination..... all while pocketing the money.
I suppose it's a slippery slope as an art dealer. You need to balance questions of ethics and morality with revenue. I would imagine this is not the first, nor the last, series of offensive photographs that Paul sells with little regard for ethics. In fact, I'd wager that he can't define "art" and as illustrated above he hides behind the term at every crossroad. It would be interesting to know where the "line" is for him, if it even exists, and how it moves as revenue potential increases.
Well said Aaron!
What about movies or commercials where children cry, is that child abuse?
Can you name a movie featuring a crying child as young as those in Greenberg's pictures? I can't think of a one. Most movies either show a sleeping or content baby with a fake crying baby sound effect piped in, or they feature much older actors.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a paid child actor crying in a movie. I have a real problem with very young children being tormented until they cry just so Greenberg can take pictures.
I don't even think they are all that good. They remind me of Thomas Kincaid. But, hey, he made lots of money, so he must be good.
Anonymous, just to annoy paul.
Every band-aid ad ever made, band-aids are made for a profit too
The subject were paid correct? How do you think they get kids to cry in movies an commercials?
Child abuse? Calling these pictures child abuse is offensive to people who have been real victims of child abuse, not paid actors.
Having viewed the collection online, I exchanged the correspondence below with the gallery owner - normally I would encourage you to form your own opinion on it, but I think he'd consider you a loser if you express an opinion contrary to his.
------
Sir
Having just looked through the above "artist's" collection entitled End Times, I felt enraged enought to contact you to express my disgust for the anguish that these children have clearly been put through in the name of commercial gain for the artist. Whilst art may be intended to provoke emotion and different people have different reactions, it is hard to contemplate the mindset of an audience that would be impressed with such cruelty, let alone prompt someone to stage such scenes.
Whilst you may not endorse or censor the artists your represent, I suspect that your own decency prompts a sub-conscious editorial decision on whether to display a particularly collection, given that certain subjects may cause reputational harm to your own business. If so, may I respectively suggest that this collection may represent a lapse in judgement, given the offence that it causes to reasonable minded people.
As a parent of two young children, I am both horrified that any parent would have allowed this to happen to their child and astonished that such actions have not resulted in any form of criminal proceedings. There is sufficient cruelty in the world already which an artist could capture to bring attention their agenda, without needing to stage such scenes.
I appreciate that my opinion may count for little in the matter, but I do hope you will take a moment to reflect on the impact participation in those photos would have had on children dear to yourself - oddly, I rather suspect had the subjects been animals being seen to suffer then the pictures would not have not been published for fear of the repercussions.
John Wilson
--------
John,
I think you should share your opinion with someone who would value it or at least read it.
Paul
Paul Kopeikin Gallery
6150 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Ph 323.937.0765
Fax 323.937.5974
paul@paulkopeikingallery.com
------
Paul
I'm sorry to have troubled you. Please allow me to pop into the gallery soon and share my opinion with fellow members of the public - after all, discussing the art is encouraged I hear...
-------
John,
Do you know how many of you losers I’ve had email me? Why should I care about your opinion? Who do you think you are?
Share your “important” opinion with whoever you’d like, but if you attempt to disrupt my business understand that I will immediately call the police and/or defend myself and my property should you become violent.
Paul
Paul Kopeikin Gallery
6150 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Ph 323.937.0765
Fax 323.937.5974
paul@paulkopeikingallery.com
-------
Paul
What "movie set" are you living on? I simply sent you an email expressing an opinion on art in your gallery - this apparently makes me a loser. Why should you care about my opinion - call me an old fashioned traditionalist but I might be (i) a potential customer (ii) an influencer ; you've simply no idea so why be so offensive.
Where on earth does violence come into it - have you been watching too many Arnie movies.
Anyway, as our correspondence isn't subject to lawyer-client privilege, I hope you will allow me to use snippets of it.
Thanks and good luck with the public relations.
Kind regards
John
I just looked over the Jill Greenberg website, and all you flickr wanabees should look at the depth of work that she has done, commercial, art, all sorts of different subjects and styles. For people who have taken a few mediocre shots with their digicam, there is a lot more that could be learned about photography there then here.
John is a loser.
John is not an influencer.
John can not afford expensive art.
John can write emails and has just learned that is pretty useless too.
http://chris.pirillo.com/wp-photos/20060623-160005-1.jpg
All dorks please raise their hand!!
Great work exposing these child molesters.
And receiving their hatemail/flames, full of foulmouthed defensive words you'd only learn working the streets, must be something that makes your determination even stronger.
Paul - You're the loser! The mention in the New York Times proves blogs matter. Though a small percentage of the people who have seen the post comment on it, the thousands (Tom maybe you could provide a number of views) who have read it will forever associate, if even subconsciously, Jill Greenbergs' work with child abuse.
Your weak attempts of defending your client and gross attacks on TH are an acknowledgement of your understanding of this fact.
Also it doesn’t surprise me that your sales have increased in light of this controversy, the porn industry is far larger than the art photography universe, you're attracting a new clientele.
Blogs don’t matter like local newspapers or radio stations don’t matter.
Rob.
What makes you think blogs matter?
How totally ridiculous. Have you ever had kids? Toddlers will burst into tears over the smallest of things, and never seem to mind being naked.
In my experience as both a parent and photographer I've no idea how you could confuse Jill's work with child abuse. (and why you continue to harp on about it after you've been corrected in your assumptions by so many people is beyond me)
This blog is all about $
Looks like the monkeys were treated better than the kids.
The press release for her exhibit has some twisted logic: Christians voted for Bush to continue the war in Iraq, hopefully bringing the world closer to the rapture. Ms. Greenberg feels anger and helplessness over the situation. Therefore, she should taunt small children to make them feel the pain of what is to come.
Re: children crying in movies, commercials, whatever, a passable fake can be made without pushing a child to genuinely cry.
But it's obvious if looked at closely and compared with the real thing. Look at Greenberg's work, then search for "child crying" on Getty or Corbis. Some of the infants look rael, but by the age Greenberg is working with they pretty much all look like bad acting.
I'm still not terribly upset about the pictures themselves, but the vitriol, first from the Greenbergs and then from Mr. Kopeikin, is truly shameful.
What I can't understand is why Mr. Kopeikin would want to committ business suicide this way. A lot of the people who have both the money and desire for $5k prints are liberal, especially in L.A. Even 20-30% being outraged--and I think that's a VERY low estimate--is a massive hit to the bottom line. He may sell a few extra prints now, but what effect is this having on his other artists? I'll bet we'll see a few folks change representation before this is through.
From American Photo Magazine...
How many kids did you shoot altogether?
Around 35. Some were the children of friends, plus my own daughter; others came from the Ford or Jet Set model agencies. Kid models aren't very expensive—not as expensive as monkeys, for example.
http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/2552/cry-babies.html
From anonymous who is asking about how much money *I* make off my blog. The answer is not much. The net net result has been that I've lose money blogging. It's been more of a hobby for me than anything.
Although recently (well before my post on Greenberg) I joined FM Publishing and have been receiving money for advertisements on my blog, these advertisements barely cover my hosting cost and other costs associated with my blogging and the what not.
Zooomr is completely unrelated to any of this.
It's a cheap shot and one that could be taken at any blogger to insinuate that they are blogging whatever they are for the money. Truth of the matter is that the money just isnt' there yet for 99.9% of individual bloggers to make anything significant from any blog post that they choose to write.
For all those (including Jill's husaband) who keep regurgitating the "facts" that Hollywood's acting children are provoked to tears using similar methods, I ask in earnest, "Who the hell has said those activities are any better?" If this is done in Hollywood, I condemn it equally. It's absurd to insist that because one group has been doing something despicable that someone else should be allowed to do the same thing. Is Jill "grandfathered" in to the league of child tormentors?
Just because the hurt resulting from Greenberg's form of child abuse seems (and I say "seems" because there's no proof that it doesn't stay imprinted on their psyche) to pass quickly doesn't mean it wasn't ever a hurt.
For the others who insist that because children throw temper tantrums all the time, it's okay to provoke one purposely, will you please look at what you're saying? It's okay to intentionally torment children because they're bound to be tormented by something, sometime? Does this excuse any kind of cruel, intentional behavior perpetrated upon people who are likely to experience that kind of behavior on their own? "Let's spike Mom's coffee before work 'cos she's frequently getting drunk on her own." "Let's mess with the mentally challenged person's head because they're always getting confused by things on their own."
C'mon already.
How To Con Your Kid
You are challenging the ethics of an accomplished artist, and you claim blogs are the new form of journalism. Zooomer has everything to do with your lack of ethics. No respected journalist has ever taken a percentage interest in a company that they were responsible for hyping. Only scumbag bloggers do that.
Anonymous, Many, many bloggers work for companies and even blog about those companies directly. Robert Scoble, one of the most respected bloggers I know blogged about Microsoft all the time while he worked there. The difference is that it was disclosed that he worked there and people knew this. Like they know that I'm working with Zooomr. Am I biased when I write about Zooomr? Probably. Which is why I disclose that I work with them.
The vast majority of bloggers are not working full time as bloggers. Nor am I. To follow your line of reasoning only journalists ought to be allowed to blog. Sorry, I don't buy it. Should Mark Cuban be precluded from blogging because he has a financial interest in owning the Dallas Mavericks. God forbid. He even titled his blog, blog Maverick. Should Chris Anderson be precluded from blogging about the Long Tail because he wrote a book about it and will profit from sales of his book. Go down the Technorati 100 list and you will find that most bloggers also do something else. This doesn't preclude them from offering their opinions on a blog.
Just because someone is working for a disclosed company doesn't render their opinions on their personal weblog somehow unethical.
None of this of course speaks to the Jill Greenberg issue though and is more an attempt to discredit bloggers in general. And yet blogs and bloggers are here and will be here to stay. The best will disclose their financial interests when relevant. As I have disclosed that I'm working with Zooomr and that I'm part of FM Publishing.
Thomas Hawk is a sick man who takes money from and molests teenage boys
The kids are not only cheaper than the monkeys but their parents also allow them to be taunted.
I would bet the monkeys' owners would not allow Ms. Greenberg to taunt the the monkeys in a similar manner.
Reading this, and the state to which this has devolved makes me confused, should I laugh at the idiocy or maybe I should vomit in disgust.
In any case, Obviously Thomas feels that the work constitutes child abuse, just as there are people who feel that doctors who provide abortions are "baby murderers".
And again obviously Jill Greenberg and her associates have a different point of view, just like the doctors do about their own work.
To claim that these people are intentionally profiting from the abuse of children assumes that they also believe it to be abuse, which is a pretty ridiculous assumption.
Also, what's with all the SPAM in here?
There is a big difference between being a "company blogger" who disclosed their interests from the start and being a photo blogger who hypes Zooomer and then gets and interest in the company.
You are no journalist and to claim you are is an insult to journalists.
Blogs are read by a very small group of people, don't think you are too important, or much of a fixture.
You my friend are no Robert Scoble.
Anonymous. My early writings on Zooomr were before I had received or been offered a financial incentive to work for them. I was presented by Zooomr with an offer to become their Chief Evangalist. I thought about that offer for a few days and then accepted it and disclosed it when I did.
There is nothing wrong with this. Simply having blogged about a company before doesn't preclude you from working for them in the future.
This of course has nothing to do with Greenberg by the way.
Knowing that the children were given a lollypop and then it was taken away, do you really stand by your headline?
Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse
Sure it does, you are challenging her ethics as a photographer, I challenge your lack of ethics as a blogger.
Sorry, but it is not normal for a journalist to take a paid / stake position with a company after they talked the company up ahead of time.
So you will be joining payperpost since that is what you do already right?
Stuart Butterfield has you figured out.
$$$$$
Why is it that bullies have such a hard time seeing that the more they won't let it go, the more obvious their true nature becomes to everyone else.
Thomas, there is a fine line between drawing people's attention to issues, such as this alleged "art", and becoming an attention whore yourself. I have no idea were that line is but I hope you have the wisdom, and luck, to manage not to cross it.
I support you sticking up for yourself but please be careful not to help her sell her alleged "book".
To the anonymous coward above who claims it is unethical for a blogger to take a position with a company after "talking them up", I could point you to posts where Scoble spoke favorably of podtech.net before going to work there. Having written good things about a company does not mean you can never go work there in the future. To suggest so is not only foolish, but completely irrelevant to the matter of whether or not it is unethical to use these children for the photos.
Aaron is equally an anonymous coward as all his profile says is Aaron.
It is fascinating to read the number of empty attacks on the blogger for blogging, by people who are defending bullying small children. I've spoken to several artists (since I myself am not one) and they have all been repelled by what they see as exploitation of small children and a complete lack of ethics.
Interestingly enough, one of those artists WAS abused as a child and agreed with Thomas Hawk's post title.
I guess it comes down to the fact that the internet allows more creepy people get their rocks off by hurting children since anytime in history.
I've stepped up to the plate. Let's see if you'll do the same.
Perhaps the most important thing being overlooked here is that the pictures are mediocre and the "message" behind them is trite.
Bad art is worse than child abuse.
Is this child abuse? No, I think that's an overstatement. Calling it abuse is giving those who support Ms. Greenberg grounds to dimiss their entire objection as an overreaction.
I would call this teasing. However, in my opinion, a grown adult who deliberately teases a small child to tears, tantrum, or hysteria is at best immature and at worst sadistic and disturbed.
To those who argue that all she did was take away a lollipop and that's okay because lollipops aren't good for children...I remind you, it was Ms. Greenberg who gave them the lollipop in the first place.
To those who argue that children cry all the time...children also fall down a lot. Would you support Ms. Greenberg if she started pushing children so she could take pictures of skinned knees to make a political statement involving blood?
Yes children cry. My child cries, sometimes even as the result of my actions. However, it is never my deliberate intention to cause her pain. I do it to protect her from a greater threat, or to educate her, or simply because I must (I can't hold her all day, as much as I'd like to). However, to cause a child pain (physical or emotional) for political and/or financial gain is reprehensible.
For those who justify this as art...if someone came to your house, teased your child and made them cry, would you not be angry? Why does the fact that Ms. Greenberg has a camera and a political agenda make it okay?
I have a small child and these photos made me want to hold them to stop the cyring. As a mother I could not stand by and watch my child cry like that and not console him/her.
That in itself makes no since to me how you could use this in the name of art. But I have seen lots of art that I would consider fulgar or inappropriate.
People will put almost anything on canvase and call it art.
I'm nobody important to public opinion, but I am an american with a voice. When enough of us voice that opinion it will be heard and people that profit from their lack of ethics will pay one way or another.
You know, I don't really fault this sick bastard for what his doing. The true sick and demented people are the parents. And I use that term loosely. What parent, in their right mind would ever want a picture of their child crying their little eyes out. Only a sick freak would be able to sleep at night with the reactions they're getting from a child.
i just signed on to your website and you are running an ad with a crying baby...you are a hypocrite.
This controversy crossed the Atlantic now, that's how I got this blog's adress & the gallery's one too.
I'm an Art & book dealer and, in my own taste, I like those photos.
You don't ? Well, that's your right but why talk about 'child abuse' (exagarated maybe ?).
Too, you gave a maximum exposure to those photos, what a paradox !
Another paradox noted before : the ad for PSP X running on the right part (a crying baby). Lol, now that's funny.
As for Mr McNichols comments : talking about 'moral' and 'ethics' are two very different things (personally, I have very strong ethics but no moral... but that's another point).
There are worst things to worry about : 3000 Africans dying of aids everyday (is it 'moral' not to do everything that can be done ?), 100 Iraqi civilians dying everyday so that the gallon is a few dimes cheaper in the US, ...).
The artist & the gallery can, in fact, be thankful to you !
Thank you for bringing the images under my attention! I love the work! "Child abuse"? Ever seen child abuse? You don't know what you are talking about. America, land of the free! LOL
Thomas Hawk = pwn3d.
Thomas: Never mind what all these shit-talking tools say. They are just identifying themselves with the losers that perpetrated this "art" (yeah, right) in the first place. I scoff at people like this- just a bunch of malcontent misfits. Keep doing what you're doing, man.
I to wrote a comment to Paul Kopeikin's gallery. I received a sarcastic remark to my comments, which shouldn't be unexpected, I guess in this case. I have attached my comments and his reply.
His reply is on top of my comments.
Tim,
I am praying for you for I fear you are going to hell. Please stop what you are doing and pray with me now.
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------
The outrage over the lollipop being taken away reminds me of a song "Cry Me a River." BFD, so she took the sucker away from them. It is only a shame that she gave it back. The people whining that this is child abuse probably are against any form of corporal punishment as well, even if by parents. Children need not be coddled every second of their lives. I say take a thousand more suckers away...AND DON'T GIVE THEM BACK! In fact, take the child throwing a tantrum in the store or at the movie theater and spank the hell out of him/her.
Wow! The lady is stripping the clothes off of kids she doesn't even know and willfully causing them discomfort, and the commenter above me thinks the story is about a lollypop?
This Gallery owner seems to think he is beyond reach. In this day and time, no one is beyond reach. The "outraged" seem to think they are powerless, but in fact they are not. If you read the laws regarding "Child Abuse" in any state, you will see they differ, and a lot of them are open to how the reader looks at it. Flood the Social Services offices, write your Congressman, and anyone else you can think of. The photograper says parent where there? Where they? Make them provide the information to Social Services. These agencies are full of people who would like nothing better than to investigate this. Was taking "candy" away, the only reason they cried? You have "Agonized" young naked children crying here. Keep after the right Agencies till you hit a "Gung-Ho" employee, that can and be willing, to make the Gallery and the Photographer "Prove" its as innocent as they make out. The people have the power, just do it. Its always "Election" time, and "Moms" are voters. Remind them.
I am sure they will sell a lot of these. There are a lot of people who like pictures of naked kids, and a lot of
Holes in the Wall" where they can be purchased. Maybe the Gallery will be giving out free toys also.
So... how many times a day or hour can she do this stunt to a kid before you would call it abuse? I mean, if it's not mildly abusive to do it once, or twice or so in a ten minute session... What is the limit on a stranger teasing a half naked kid and MAKING them cry? I assume here that the shirt being off (she admits herself that that in and of itself makes the kids uncomfortable) is a tactic she uses to increase the child’s vulnerability.
She, in my mind, is a beast and a brute plain and simple. The only real thing that will be done to force justice on this wantnabe nazi fra, is that when these children reach the correct age, their lawyers will strip little miss artist of all her worldly possessions in a beautiful class action lawsuit.
I have no doubt that there is a lawyer reading about this case and gathering evidence as I write this. Timing will be crucial... She must be worth millions, and they must take it all to make sure that it really hurts...and that she cries.
I put this up elsewhere but must now add... Mr. Paul Kopeikin might just find his name on said lawsuit, as a co-defendant. These kids are going to grow up one day sir. And they WILL come looking for you. $$$$$
I see big losses in your future Paul, and lots of crying.
Maybe its also time to turn up the heat a bit on the parents too, as well as the Photographer. Parent giving up their children for abuse by a stranger, to be stripped down, and traumatized? How long is imposing trauma on a child fair? A minute? An Hour? Are the parents paid? Yes, e-mail everyone you think has any power over child abuse. You may not succeed in doing a lot, but you sure can annoy the people that have to answer all the questions.
To all of those who don't think that this is child abuse, go to your local park and take the shirt off of some child playing and torment them until they cry. See how that works out.
Send an e-mail after you post bail !
Richard
Is not this Gallery in California? Its no secret Arnold needs votes. Mothers, e-mail him, and demand he ask for an investigation, by Social Services, and the States Attorney Office. This is beyond a doubt, child abuse, and the only thing in question by law, is to what degree. Its against the law to exploit children for gain, what ever it may be, by anyone, including parents. They take kids away for that. Pressure the public officials, send e-mails to loacal news agencies, telling them you have asked for an investigation. Like the man said, turn up the heat. Then we will see how funny "Paul" thinks his sarcastic "can't touch me" remarks are. Don't get mad, get mad and even. Beuracrats are your best weapon. They can crawl right up his back and ride him like a cheap horse. It only takes a minute or two to send a "concerned citizen" or "potential voter" e-mail. Use the minute to help a child. If the parents did this once, whats next? Peep shows?
Wow, Paul. For someone in the art field which, I believe, is about expression, you sure have a problem with speech.
I am not comfortable calling this "abuse" because the act itself is so small and of no lasting harm. But profitting off it? That is exploitation.
"Child abuse? Calling these pictures child abuse is offensive to people who have been real victims of child abuse, not paid actors."
I was a victim of abuse, and I am extremely offended by these pictures. Deliberately and un-necessarily making a child cry for whatever reason is abuse, imo.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ethics of Ms. Greenberg's pictures. They are disturbing images on many levels, but I do find it ironic that (at least at 2:15 pm EDT on 08/01/2006) there's an advertisement for Photoshop in the sidebar of Mr. Hawk's blog in which a screaming toddler's head has been pasted on an adult's body. Does the lighthearted tone of the ad make it OK that they had to make a child cry to produce it?
If you click on the ad, Mr. Hawk gets paid. As he reminded us, ad revenues are insufficient to cover his costs, so the issue of his income is marginal. Can we conclude that Ms. Greenberg would have an argument if she didn't turn a profit?
There's too much inconsistency here for anyone to feign such righteous indignation.
Sorry, it was Corel PaintShop Pro X, not photoshop. Apologies to Adobe labs.
Yes, the Corel add in the upper right corner of this very site is a fitting comment on this whole farce. Where is the rage people? It's great that art can elicit a response in this media blitz we are living in. As a parent of young children I found the images by Ms. Greenberg amusing. They are obviously over the top, hyperreal images. So what if some of the children had to be coaxed (barely) into crying? Believe me, it takes very little at that age and it's no child abuse. The only abuse I see is the poor idea by Ms. Greenburg to connect these to some political statement. The work fails in that respect. The images are much more powerful as raw emotion on display. I guess all you child abuse fanatics will be shutting down the stock photo houses, movie theatres, daycares, etc. etc. Kids cry and whine all the time, looks like some of the adults on this blog do as well.
Calling these pictures child abuse is offensive to people who have been real victims of child abuse, not paid actors.
i heartily agree
Oh shush, seriously. If you are going to go after this woman, then you need to go after EVERY movie producer, and TV producer, Every writer for tv and movies, and commercials too while we're at it. THEY make children cry for their purposes. To create EFFECT. Parents have CONSENTED to it. Who are YOU to decide that it's child abuse? Have you ever been abused? Do you even know what the heck you're talking about? These pictures are NOT pornography. They are really quite beautiful and honest. Children are 100x more honest in what they feel and what they say than any adult presently on Earth. Why do pictures always have to be of children smiling? My uncle is a photographer, and he took pictures of me crying when I was a baby up to a young child. They are some of my favorite pictures because I was feeling what I was feeling, and EVERYONE should be allowed that RIGHT. In this time and age we are all taught to suck it up and put on a happy face. Like we're supposed to pretend that all the crap that is happening in the world isn't really there. Well guess what?! It IS. And it's only going to get worse. And the sooner we accept that and learn to be real, the better. God gave us emotions and who are we to deny that? If she was saying horrible things to make these kids cry. THAT would be abuse. If she was hitting them, or hurting them, then THAT would be abuse. But to say that taking away a lollipop, WHILE their mothers are standing right there is abuse? Is rediculous. I think it's great that you are looking out for kids but you have to look at helping kids who are TRULY abused. I think you chose this just to get yourself some attention. And all you are doing is gathering together on the internet, all the angry misguided people of the world. I pray that you find a real cause.
Which is more sickening- the "artist" who uses a child's tears to earn money, or the person who buys that crying child's picture?
With so many crying children in the world, crying from actual tragedy, did she need to create more tears? Or is it more convenient to photograph children crying according to the photographer's whims and schedule at a home studio?
Perhaps Mr. Hawk is gaining attention from this controversary as well- but does that make one side "right" and the other "wrong"?
i've had the misfortune of knowing jill greenberg and i can tell you honestly that her brain is a cluster fuck of confusion between right and wrong. she has zero self awareness. it's sad because she's a miserable person and she will never change.
What a paradox Jill Greenberg's art has inspired: on one hand there is the beautiful quality of the photos--amazingly clear to the point of needing to look at something less defined. On the other hand, the actual subject has drummed up conversation and news and passion. Believe it or not, I think her photos have served a definite purpose. Regardless if we like them or not--it has us thinking and questioning her "art" or perhaps in defense of art. Having been raised in a generation of truly lazy people (Generation X) who are now entering their 30's and realizing (or not) that we were the guinea pigs of MTV and redefining celebrity, it's so fuck*ng refreshing to see art take hold again--even on a small scale. We X'ers had no Warhol or Khalo. Whereas we tried to make our mark with graffiti art, alas, we let it slip away into obscurity. My point, folks, is that although this woman produced a series of photos that has raised eyebrows--take a moment to consider how empty museums would be if someone had actually pulled Van Gogh off the hallucinogens he was on. Sure, he would still have an ear but would we still find him fascinating? I mean, it takes cajones to cut your ear off and then glorify the self-mutilation on canvas. Not to mention scholars call that kind of twisted action "art". You gotta ask yourself who the "abuser" is--The artists or the enablers? Or maybe that's the point--as long as we are asking questions, art is serving its purpose.
Your photos are below amateur. Keep thumpin your chest and looking dumb, tough guy. The real talents are making art while you -blog- about it. Your an internet blog photographer, know your roll and go write a photoshop tut on how to "properly" edit a RAW capture. Mr. Kopeikin should have pointed out that the untalented wanabe(read "flikr photographers and tech/photoshop gurus and their ilk) should not comment on the big boys (read "real photographers"). You look like a chawawa barking at a pit bull. Find "real" credibility with your own work, then your cretiques will have more strength. As it is now, from what I can gather your a tech geeks photographer. Popular with teenagers and other wanabe photogs. If you want your challenges the arts community to be taken seriously produce photo work that would lend credence to your opinions. As it stands you have no observed skills to give your comments merrit.
haha paul i love your come back, i for one am a massive fan of jill greenberg and to be honest i love the photos she did of the children...and why you negative and naive lot might ask?
because they are technically awesome and the emotion is so over powering my girlfriend was nearly crying purely because of the emotion, they cry so what all children cry,
tell me tom your toddler is playing with his or her favourite toys...you take them away and tell them to gete to bed...what will they do? CRY!!! causing emotion distress, anger, etc etc.
hey paul if i ever had the amount of money to pay for a jill greenberg print id sure as hell come to you to buy after those comments to tom.
Nic Porter
(naap_rap@hotmail.com)
Just think the abuse issue is true - not because the children are made to cry, but because they are naked and crying....