Leland says:

Greenberg needs to have a little emotional distress in her own life. There’s nothing that excuses her actions in my book.

Leland says:

P.S.

I read the source for some of the quotes on this page:

http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/2552/cry-babies.html

So, she tormented these children cry to make a political point in a photo exhibition? Well now, that just takes a special kind of bitch!

Pandulph says:

So contact the LA Times, who praised the exhibition of this work…contact Child Protective Services to make sure that the children really are okay…Hell, contact the police.

Valerie says:

So what happens in say 20 or 30 years when they become socially deviant? They blame it on the abuse they endured at this woman’s hands? Only in America!

gnomic says:

It takes a truly evil bitch to inflict harm on children, who are not old enough to understand and control their emotions (precisely because they are children).

It talks an even sicker parent to allow someone to do this to their kids. Allowing the intentional infliction of harm to their child for no positive purpose is quite simply child abuse.

I’m not they type of person who thinks kids should be wrapped in bubble wrap and protected from the ills of the world. As a parent, allowing the kid to get scrapes ad bruises and helping learn to cope is part of the process. Sometimes you have to let them touch the stove - but you have it on low and have the ice standing by.

But a child’s pain not art when its intentionally inflicted - its cruelty.

If you agree, It she shows up in your town, call the police and social workers. If her books show up in the bookstore, talk to the manager and write corporate a letter. If the manager or store isn’t responsive, shop elsewhere. Its not the art that you should object to, its the means by which its created.

Of course if you don’t agree… well, I hope you don’t have kids. Someday, someone may want to talk pictures of unhappy old people and you might be offered up for the sake or art…and payback.

An says:

I just want to tell the following : when I saw the pictures of the children, it just remembered me of a picture that my father has taken of me when I was 5 :
My 2 younger sisters and I were sitting on a row of chairs, my younger sister and I left our chairs
I came back first and went sitting on my sister’s chair.
Then she came back, she was very angry at me and she pinched my leg very badly. I yelled : my father thought it was very funny and took a picture of it he didn’t console or confort me : once the picture was developed, he showed it very proudly to every one.
I think there must be other ways to express a political statement : I hope that the children whom haven taken pictures of, have been conforted afterwards and that they have talked about it.
Are those pictures art ? Yes I think so

banco de gaia says:

What upsets me are Palestinian children crying for their lost homes, parents, relatives… certainly not this

Michael says:

Child Abuse? No way. In bad taste? maybe. America is incredibly over sensitive. Soon we will need to put our children in plastic bubbles and prevent them from ever feeling anything because we cant bare the thought of our children ever being scared/upset or unhappy at all.

Andrew says:

I agree — we definitely “bubble” our kids too much. Some places are even removing playgrounds, lest their kids scrape their knees or bang their heads.

But it’s one thing to over-protect kids from life — to try to shield them from the world. But it’s quite another to deliberately inflict harm on them.

Rose says:

Yes, this is child abuse! The woman that took these pictures is on sick aminal. She needs to be in jail or a hospital for the insane. What is this world coming to, that people think tormiting a child is art?

5thTrumpHoney says:

Yeah, we’re oversensitive pussies in the USA, thanks to the politically correct crap that’s been shoved down our throats since the 90’s. Still, there’s something kind of fucked in the head about making a child cry for the sake of art. Fuck art. Art’s stupid. I have kids. They cry, and it doesn’t disturb me when they cry, because they cry over the normal little kid stuff. I just couldn’t see ripping something out of their hands for the sole purpose of making them cry, then adding insult to injury by photographing it. I just wonder what’s going to happen when they are grown up and have to look at those pictures. How freakin’ embarrassing. Oh, that’s right. These are the end times. I guess we don’t have to worry about that.

5thTrumpHoney says:

Oh, one more thing. Is she making fun of the Christian version of the end times or is it what she believes in? I don’t get that. I saw the “Rapture Index” one and “Left Behind”. I’m a Christian (not a good one, as you can see), and The Rapture is a lump of doo-doo. The Rapture is non-existent in the Bible. It’s just a modern-day gospel, a new tool Satan is using to separate even “good” Christians from God. That’s the scariest, most haunting thing I could imagine. Even Christians solid in their faith are gonna go chasing after this false Messiah, thinking he is the Christ. I shudder thinking about. Enough of my rant. Just had to comment on her Rapture stuff.

wovig says:

Oh yeah, give a lollipop, take it away, give it back. OOOHHHH, that’s TORTURE, ABUSE, whatever is becoming of humanity!!! Please, give me a break. This is by no means child abuse. This incident is NOT going to affect them negatively in any sort of way or stick with them forever. I am so sick of people trying to make an issue out of nothing!!!!!

cunuck2boot says:

I can not beleive the attention Jill’s photos are receiving. I have never heard of this woman before now. For all those morons who say that her work is child abuse clearly have never been abused as a child. Seeing a child cry is not laughable but the attention this is receiving is. Come on people, focus on what truly is child abuse.

RalphyBoy says:

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 at least 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.

Michael says:

RaplphyBoy-,
Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you get to call them a Nazi. Dont try and equate ethnic cleansing with taking away a few lollipops. As for the lawyers clamering, should i be able to sue anyone who scares me? Should we all get on board for a class action lawsuit against The Exorcist?

Ralphyboy says:

Michael says: “As for the lawyers clamering, should i be able to sue anyone who scares me? Should we all get on board for a class action lawsuit against The Exorcist?”

As an example of how weak your comparative logic is…

First… Someone who stripped you to the waist as a small child (2 or 3). Wait let me say that again… for clarity. Someone who stripped you to the waist as a small child (2 or 3). and then intentionally “made you cry” (her words), then photographed you in such a powerless and potentially humiliating position, and then, sold said photos to the highest bidder. Well, yeah. That person you should definitely sue. From every angle that you can. For as long as you can. Until they cry.

What else? Oh yeah… The Exorcist. Did they twist your head and make you watch? And if so… Who did? And what age were you. Because you may have a case that is worth filing, with the person that twisted your head and made you watch at say… TWO or THREE.

Oh, and let’s not forget the nazi fra wannabe thing… Gee I don’t know, tormenting semi-naked children is really approaching that ballpark. Don’t you think?

But now that I have seen and heard from her own lips how far she is willing to go to get a negative emotional response from children, I’m wondering about those monkey photos… After all… Monkeys can’t say. Just wondering, that’s all.

wovig says:

It’s logic like Ralphyboy’s that makes life suck.

amy says:

Though it’s never pleasant to see children upset, I believe that these photos show the raw emotion only children can express. As adults, we tend to suppress our emotions when angry, distraught, or upset. Society teaches us to hide them. Perhaps these photos serve as reminders that if even the small things upset us, to “let it out”-don’t bottle everything up until the unavoidable explosion. Maybe that’s why children can recover so well, they act and express in the moment; then it’s “all over”. We can learn from these…..

Ralphyboy says:

wovig says:
“It’s logic like Ralphyboy’s that makes life suck.”

Yeah… more than allowing some ?artist? to make money and fame by teasing helpless little kids. How about the kids make the money and the bully gets to cry. Gee… I like that.

Okay, if you don’t like that, maybe the kids could start criminal complaints. That also works for me. When they are no longer just little whining, cry babies that is? They can let the courts sort it out.

Hey? I?m interested more than anything else in this line of ?artistry? ending HERE. By the defenders? logic; this is great art? So what if a few toddlers shed tears for Miss Artist? A far greater purpose is being served. Uh? Where is the line? Who sets the standard that cannot be exceeded?

Question… Where do you draw the line on this type of artistry? Let’s call it “Strip, tease, and click”.

Tell you what. New game? Put yourself in a situation where a bully is bound to come at you? Say a football game. You sit in the home team section wearing a visiting team jersey. Now do the same thing without pants on (you can keep your tighties). Which time would you feel more vulnerable? Be honest and forget defending this ?artist? (yuck).

I suggest that you find out what child abuse is. This is at best very close to it, and at worst just across the line and is it. I agree that it is not the worst thing ever, but I want to know what Miss Artist is planning for her next trick? Think progression. She at least needs to admit that this was wrong? And knock it off!

As important as her future plans might be, how about some weirdo that uses her work as a springboard for their own study? Without so much scrutiny but with far more intense photos. You don?t hurt 2 to 3 year olds (even emotionally) to get great art.

Would you feel different if she, was a he. And if the assistant was an ex-con?

Greenberg has crossed a line that did not need crossing, and it is disgusting that people are defending her.

alexis says:

please get over it. she is not abusing them if you want to blame anybody blame the parents, they are the ones that are bring their children to the photo shoot and allowing her to give the candy and take it away for a moment. and if you classify her as a “child abuser” what about these parents that make their child get dressed up, where make-up, have fake eyelashes, and have plastic wrap tummy tucks! if anything they are the child abusers and the ones that are hurting their childern. give her a break, she isn’t scaring them for life. and if you have ever had a child that you gave a lollypop to and they start to make a mess so you take it away from them to clean them up and they start screaming and crying……that’s the same thing and if that is the case then i guess i am a “child abuser” and i guess i am wrong.

Leland says:

Alexis wrote, “she is not abusing them if you want to blame anybody blame the parents, they are the ones that are bring their children to the photo shoot and allowing her to give the candy and take it away for a moment.”

Rest assured that I do lay equal blame at the feet of the parents.

Then Alexis wrote, “and if you classify her as a “child abuser” what about these parents that make their child get dressed up, where make-up, have fake eyelashes, and have plastic wrap tummy tucks!”

They are almost as low a life form as Greenburg, but not quite. In their own twisted sense of right and wrong most pageant parents believe they are teaching their children skills that will be useful later in life.

This special kind of bitch tormented children so she could show the world how unhappy those children are with the current administration. She wasn’t cleaning up a soiled shirt. She wasn’t taking away a soiled piece of candy. Nor was she wiping a dirty face.

She did it because she thinks children’s tears are art.

Hey Alexis, Do you think your children’s tears are art?

Allen says:

You people must not watch movies or television, or at least not approve of the techniques used by Hollywood to make children cry on cue. This is how it’s done. This artist used the same legal techniques. It’s not child abuse there are no long, or even short term emotional scaring to the children. There is just a talented photographer capturing the emotions of the model and the viewer. It is impressive to see that art can be so powerful as to upset so many. Perhaps you are responding the the treatment of these children just as the artist had predicted. Art that entertains is one thing, but art the stirs thought and controversy is powerful stuff.

doug says:

If you think this is child abuse then you had better start building extreamly massive prisons to hold everyone that will be there. C’mon people get a life and start giving a damn about the things in this world that really need your attention.

natalie says:

wow guys — relax it’s awesome photography — these kids wont even remember what happened… big deal they got a lollypop taken away from them… they’ll experience WAY worse than that when they become adults….

Germanfather says:

Frau Greenberg muß krank sein. Sie sollte sich von einem Psychiater untersuchen lassen. Wer mit Kindern so umgeht muß eine Rabenmutter sein. Ihre Perversion unter dem Deckmantel der Kunst zu veröffentlichen ist eine Schande für jeden Künstler. Der Galerist, der diesen Schmutz ausstellte stellte
sich auf die gleiche Stufe wie ein PEDE(frz.).

Leland says:

Mrs. Greenberg mu�? ill its. It should be able to be examined from a psychiatrist. Who with children goes around in such a way mu�? a Rabenmutter its. Their Perversion under the cover of the art to veröffentlichen is a dishonor für each Künstler. The Galerist, this dirt issued placed itself on the same stage as a PEDE(frz.).

Leland says:

The previous post is the translation (sort of) of Germanfather’s post courtesy of Alta VIsta - Babel Fish.

SI says:

You want to see real tears and abuse, go look at pictures of children in Darfur, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Lebanon, or North Korea, or Isreal who’ve lost whole families and homes and the chance at having a life NOT in a war zone.

try paying attention to the bigger picture. a lolly pop scarring a kid for life… right.

Ralphyboy says:

�You want to see real tears and abuse, go look at pictures of children in Darfur, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Lebanon, or North Korea, or Isreal who’ve lost whole families and homes and the chance at having a life NOT in a war zone.
try paying attention to the bigger picture. a lolly pop scarring a kid for life… Right.�

Here, here� I think that because there are children in the world who have more pain and misery than anyone should have to, Jill playing little games of strip and tease with these kids is nothing. Is that your logic?

So, anytime there is a worse situation that can be pointed to, that can be used to justify something like this? How about, this is one woman making what is at best a bad decision and unnecessarily making some kids cry for her �art�, and at worst is seems like abuse to many and should be very simply stopped.

The war zones, international conflicts, and communist dictatorships that you refer to are infinitely more complex and not easily solved. There are blogs, PACs, political parties, multi-unilateral commissions, disagreements about racial, religious, tribal and cultural differences. Thousands of years of tit-for-tat aggression histories� Deep underlying issues that neither you nor I have the answers to. The complications of the deflection that you offer are endless, and may never be fully and forever resolved.

But this case is simple and straight forward; Jill Greenberg has used disturbing methods and manipulation of babies as a way of reaching for fame and fortune. She has crossed a line that she will one day pay for. Her victims will be allowed access to the courts, and she will be stripped of her worldly possessions (and made to cry).

If you wish to pursue resolutions to the conflicts and child suffering that you mentioned above, please do! I do my part every day that I go to work. And by being as cheerful and nice as I can to the people that I meet, especially the children, I hope to see the world around me improve and be at least one drop of kindness better with each human encounter.

Jill Greenberg making little kids cry adds nothing positive to the world. Just more needless suffering. She is part of the problem, and needs to be confronted about that.

R. says:

First, I very strongly disagree with Greenberg did. On the other hand I wonder how many beer swilling, umpire baiting conservatives rushed home from berating their 10-year-olds for missing the fly ball or (probably in Texas) the pass to condemn her. I read that one of the things Greenberg did to get kids to cry was to ask their parents to step out of the room. Now, children have to learn be without mom and dad. We can’t spoil them by making them think mom and dad should be at their beck and call. So, I suggest the next time Greenberg ask the parents to come in and hit them with a small switch, which should get her even better pictures. That’s what John Rosemond advised the parents of a 3-year-old who would stop getting out of be to do. Rosemond said the child was kept getting out of bed because he was lonely, and that was his solution. Then, the next morning explain the children need their sleep; therefore, you hit him because you love him. (Nothing is as relaxing as a stinging pain in the behind.) Yes, sir, conservatives this nurturing and sensitive attitude toward children is typical of the right. They are the greatest allies of the child protective services, provied that bunch of meddlesome, do-gooder liberals isn’t going after some red-neck teacher who has paddled an 8-year-old’s behind black and blue for saying two words out of turn in class. It’s funny to watch conservaitves “rob banks” and then vehemently denounce those who “pick pockets.”

BTW, I don’t have children; and I don’t know how important it is to keep a lonely 3-year-old in bed alone. But, from the nanny TV shows, I know that can be done without beating their behinds, with a small switch or anything else.

Ralphy says:

I guess that R had to post his bigoted anti-conservative rant 4 times to drive home the point that he is a complete left-wing idiot. And I say that with total confidence that his limited intellect was stretched to it�s utmost just to get those words of condemnation to move from his skull, to his fingers, and then through the keyboard to the screen. Amazing.
R, since you don�t have children already, please wait until you would sacrifice yourself to protect them before you do have some. They are not toys, or pets, or� Monkeys. They are the future of human kind, and the respect that they receive, is the respect that they will most times give.
August 6th, 2006 at 11:31 PM

Maddog says:

Hey maybe I should have done that to display my outrage for Clinton’s second term! Or maybe for Gore’s cry-baby tantrem for losing!

Breezy says:

Let’s see…if a stranger walks up to a kid, give him or her lollipop, and then takes it away just to make the kid cry, most NORMAL people would be outraged at the treatment of the child! And we say it’s different just because there’s a camera involved?? Oh yeah, and money - their parents are getting paid for letting their kids get treated like this. And yes, if Hollywood producers use the same tactics, they should be ashamed, too. Maybe the word �abuse� is too strong � although there is such a thing as emotional abuse � and it doesn�t have to be repeated or long term to be �abuse� - but just for the heck of it, let�s say �abuse� is not the correct word. Maybe the term “exploit” is more fitting. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, exploit means �to make use of meanly or unfairly for one’s own advantage.� No one can argue with the fact that the children were treated meanly and unfairly just for Greenberg’s own advantage!

Andrew says:

Note: Comments replaced.

I had a little problem with the last three comments here; I accidentally deleted them. Luckily I had a backup so I was able to reinstate them, although the posting date changed.

Rachel Anderson says:

I am genuinely disgusted by the reaction to these images - It is ridiculous! This is NOT child abuse - any genuine abusee would be disgusted at the suggestion that removing a lollipop from a child for a few minutes constitutes abuse! This poor photographer has been labelled in the same category as people who scar children for life when within a few hours the kid will have forgotten the lollipop even existed! I think its saddening that people have become so thoughtlessly reactionary, seemingly just for the point of being reactionary.

Rachel Anderson says:

and in response to the comment about a stranger walking up to a child and removing a lollipop - that is completely out of context - the parents had repeatedly met and consented to the situation! It is a completely different! Logic is being drastically forsaken over blind emotion here.

Shiraz says:

enough! what this woman is doing is not “child abuse”. she’s making a political statement about how children would react if they really knew what was going on in the world. i think we can all agree that children blow things way out of proportion through no fault of their own. All Greenberg did to make them cry was give them a lollipop, have THEIR MOTHERS take it away or leave the room and they’d cry, she’d shoot the pictures and they got the lollipop back! the mothers were there through the whole thing and they were told what was going to happen. The mothers and their children who were in the photos went to see the exhibition and loved it.

i read an article in the Sunday Times just today and i believe that her intentions were good, and she did not do it to purposefully harm those children. i doubt any of those kids will be in therapy 20 years from now telling their phychiatrists “oh yes, i think i’m like this because i had a lollipop taken away from me when i was two and it’s scarred me for life.” No.

these children will be proud they were part of a political message and i think the photos are beautiful. Greenberg did something different and people automatically freak out because it’s children we’re talking about. They’re more robust than we give them credit for.

Ginzy says:

These photos are really distressing for the viewer. It’s a short step from this to physical injury so that it can be photographed. Whatever were the parents thinking about - your child stripped and made to cry????? Who in their right mind would allow that. Yes this is child abuse and certainly NOT art. It’s like someone with a camera seeing a person attacked and just filming it rather than going to help. A disgrace!

Andrew says:

Rachel, it certainly is child abuse. Just because it isn’t as bad as what we usually think of — beatings, for instance — doesn’t mean it’s not abuse. If I stole $10 from you, it’s still theft, even if it’s not as bad as the guy who steals $20 or $500 or $10,000.

For the same reason, Jill Greenberg can’t say, “There are much worse abusers, so mine doesn’t count.” If you want to say it’s mild compared to the father who beats his kid, you’re absolutely right. But that only makes it a milder category of abuse.

As for calling people “thoughtlessly reactionary,” if anyone is being thoughtless here it’s Greenberg. She obviously discounted these children’s pain because she wanted to force them to make some sort of point.

I am astounded by the logic I see here: “There is much worse abuse in the world, so what she did is all right.” I wonder how long that argument would hold up if you only stole $20 from someone (”There are people stealing millions, your honor, how dare you condemn me!”) or if you punched someone in the face (”People are knifing and shooting each other, how dare you complain about a punch.”)

Just because this is a milder form of abuse than a lot of what goes on in this world doesn’t give Greenberg a free ride. The fact — the undeniable fact — is that she caused those children pain (even if it seems silly to us adults) so she could photograph them. That’s abuse.

Elyssa says:

This is certaitly art! Every family picture artist just wants a kid to smile…well Jill (the genius) took the initiative to be original! Have you ever seen a picture of a child crying that is taken so beautifully? Didn’t think so, and that’s why it is art! If the parents were there I am 99% sure the child was comforted and maybe got a treat out of it or a new toy they wanted. It’s all about being original and she sure as hell did it better than anyone else could.

If your an artist you would understand what real ART is! ORIGINALITY!!!!!

Andrew says:

Maybe it’s art, maybe it’s not. But it’s mean, uncalled for, cruel.

Hey, you don’t see a lot of photos of puppies in pain. Maybe I’ll go kick some, shoot them in mid-air, and claim that’s art, too.

jimbo says:

from a purely legal perspective, this was and is not child abuse. rest assured that the idiots from thomas peterson’s site who called child protective services were laughed at and told to get a life.

of the criticism on line that comes for this, one finds a) lots of angry right-wing men (due to a link from the odious michelle malkin) who make statements of fact (”that’s abuse” “this is child abuse”) when what they mean is they think it’s child abuse, not having any clue what the law actually says, and b) lots of sane people who just don’t get why anyone gets so passionate.

the anger and rage of the (again, about 90% percent) men who comment on these things is perfectly captured in andrew peterson aka thomas hawk’s piece. he makes a legal assertion that he cannot back up, a claim that has legal weight and bearing, but never manages to change it in light of the facts. andrew kantor here links approvingly to this post while not himself making that claim (”mean, uncalled for” is a long way from “child abuse”), the usual instapundit-style weasel move. the usual gutlessness of online punditry is here on display.

last of course comes the question of art. galleries, museums and secondary auction houses seem to be unanimous in both seeing this as art and celebrating it as such.

ps this conversation has been had over and over and better elsewhere 2 years ago. why the sudden interest?

Natalia says:

I just want to say that this is definetly is being taken way our of proportion. We should be consentrating on much greater issues than crying children. Jill Greenberg is not abusing children she is simply creating art. Child abusement requires a lot more than just taking their lollipos away. Everyone is entiteled to their own opinions and hence this is The U.S we have certain freedoms and it is not illegal to take away a lollipop from a child and take a picture of their tears. Nothing psychologically wrong is going to happen to these children when they grow up. They will pobably think that it was cool to be part of so big. Let the kids breath a little bit people!

Natalia says:

I just want to say that this is definetly is being taken way out of proportion. We should be consentrating on much greater issues than crying children. Jill Greenberg is not abusing children she is simply creating art. Child abusement requires a lot more than just taking their lollipos away. Everyone is entiteled to their own opinions and hence this is The U.S we have certain freedoms and it is not illegal to take away a lollipop from a child and take a picture of their tears. Nothing psychologically wrong is going to happen to these children when they grow up. They will pobably think that it was cool to be part of sucha big event. Let the kids breath a little bit people!

Elyssa says:

I agree 100% with what Natalie posted. Nothing is going to happen to these children in regard to the art Jill Greenberg produced. She is an amazing artist and did not do anything that was illegal. The people that do think so are just jealous that they didn’t think of the brilliant idea themselves.

Props to Natalie!

Andrew says:

Elyssa, that’s so pathetic it’s almost funny.

Sorry, I’m not jealous of Greenberg’s ability to make kids cry and take photos of it. Unnecessary cruelty isn’t in my playbook.

I think it would be funny, though, to go to Greenberg’s house and tell her that her best friend (or husband, or parents) had just been killed, then photograph her reaction.

That would be priceless! The wailing, the weeping, the tears….

It wouldn’t be illegal, and no permanent harm would be done, so by your logic that would be a fine thing to do.

Maybe we could lock a mother dog away from her puppies and take pictures of that — or better yet, video! Again, perfectly legal and no permanent harm.

That’s art, right?

Elyssa says:

Matter of fact it is, but you have a fucked up mind!

Andrew says:

So I think of doing it to adults or animals and thus “have a fucked up mind,” but Greenberg actually does it to children and that makes her an artist.

All right, at least we’re clear on the logic at work here.

Karyn says:

As far as all of the comparisons between what Greenburg did and child abuse…

I don’t think the people here are trying to say that just because some children are being horribly abused and beaten, etc., that what Greenburg did should be ignored, I think they’re trying to draw a line between what is abuse and what isn’t, because certainly there has to be some lower limit to what constitutes abuse.

If I said, “There is real abuse out there. All she did was take away candy, which made them cry, and then take a picture,” I am not saying that she performed a mild act of abuse that should then be considered minor compared to “hard-core” abuse, I am saying that what she was SO minor that it did not even constitute abuse at all! Abuse causes lasting harm.

There is a difference between hurting and harming. For instance, just because you scrape your knee and it hurts does not mean you are psychologically damaged and harmed by having done so. Now, even if someone would have come up to you and scraped your knee, had you been old enough to figure it out you may think, “Well, that hurt. And that was mean.” But still, no lasting psychological damage, right? This knee-analogy is even a far stretch from being denied unnecessary sweets for a few minutes. Ugh.

These children are not being caused lasting harm. Greenburg’s methods may have been unconventional and different, but that is all. I agree with whomever said that these children should grow up to be proud of having been part of a project that has such a larger meaning.

Anonymous says:

Elyssa, thanks for your support and as far as what Andrew says makes no rational sense at all. The fact that Andrew thinks that it would be funny to take pictures of Greenberg after telling her that she just lost a loved one, is sick in itself, so maybe you should revaluate your own mind Andrew. It sounds like you are a sick puppy yourself.

Natalia says:

Sorry, I forgot to put my name. And I also would like to add that there is a big difference between humans and dogs, Andrew, not that I am saying that it is ok to bring harm to animals.

Andrew says:

Ah, so it’s OK for Greenburg to do “no lasting harm,” to the kids, but it’s *not* OK for me to do no lasting harm to her by saying her parents died.

Yes, Natalia, that would be sick. I would never do it. But what Greenburg did is just as mean-spirited.

Call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is indisputable: She is profiting off the pain of others. You can say there’s no lasting harm, but so what?

What if she took a cheese grater and scraped their knees, then shot them while they were crying? By Karyn’s definition there’s no lasting harm so it’s OK. You seem to agree with that.

Me, I think that deliberately hurting someone so you can profit from it is sick.

Natalia says:

First of all Andrew, all she is doing to make the kids cry is taking their lollipop away and as soon as she takes her pictures,which takes less than 30 seconds, she gives it right back. For you to be saying what if she scraped their knees with a cheese scraper and all of that is ridicules because she is a human being with feelings and she has kids of her own as well. She is not abusing any of them. You seem to have no idea what child abuse really is and I am glad, well I do and believe me whe she is doing is harmless to kids. They cry for 30 seconds and as soon as they get their candy back they are back to their normal happy selves. Karen is over reacting, along with many, There are plenty of peopele in this world who are interested and profiting from weird art. Just think about Pornagraphy, it is compeletely not OK but you dont see such big deal being made out of it. That might not be the best example but I hope you see my point.

Karyn says:

Natalia, I was simply hoping to get through to Andrew about how analogies really work, trying to give him something to relate to and look at the bigger picture because he was too caught up on the technicalities, but I see now that it’s obviously not going to work no matter what is said. You are right, I don’t believe he has any idea what abuse really is, and
Andrew, I think you are only interested in picking out the points you do not like and criticizing/counter-acting them.

All of that said, I’ve shared my point of view and am not interested in arguing.

Natalia says:

Karyn, thank you for explaining to me your point of you and I completely agree with you about Andrew and I am not interested in arguining either. I just don’t understand why people make such big deals out of nothing really where we have so many other bigger issues we should be concentrating on.

Earl says:

hahahhaha child abuse! i feel sorry for u guys.

Anonymous says:

Earl, you are insensitive.

Jared says:

Millions of children each year die from horrible living conditions, starvation, disease, murder, etc… and your worried about a couple of well treated children in LA? Your priorities are off.
You are more interested in creating drama and conflict than coming up with any solutions. Children cry.

Andrew says:

Ah, so your logic is that because kids elsewhere are treated worse, this is OK. Got it. So Greenberg could in fact slap them across the face to make them cry, and that would also be all right because, after all, “Millions of children each year die from horrible living conditions…”

Perhaps I’ll take a soldering iron to my dog’s tail to photograph her in pain. After all, millions of dogs are treated much worse every day, and millions die each year from maltreatment.

And hey, let’s not arrest the guy who stole your car. After all, millions of worse crimes are committed, so why should we care about the small ones?

Methinks you need a refresher in Logic 101.

gnomic says:

Hey, I’ve got a solution! Bitch slap the bitch repeatedly until she crys then photograph her.

Its cruel, but others have done worse (like waterboarding) so its OK.

Randy says:

Whoa. I didn’t see this story when it was originally posted. Glad to see it resurrected via comments just so I could read what a terrible person she is. I concur - arrest her, bitch slap her, and throw her in prison with Butch Bertha.

It’s no more art than a proclaimed “art book” I saw about 15 years ago in a book store that had page after page of pre-teen and early teen girls playing naked on the ocean shore. 3-4 year olds can do that and be cute, but I wouldn’t publish a book of my kids doing that at that age. 10-12 year olds are acting inappropriately when they do that, and a book full of those pictures should result in the supposed artist jailed for a long damn time with an abusive cell-mate.

I’m fine with allowing art I don’t understand being labeled art - I’ll just ignore it. But pr0n and abuse being labeled as art is just absurd.

gnomic says:

Randy brings up a good point, perhaps unintentionally. What forms of child abuse can a parent consent to?

OK to take pictues of my naked kids?
OK to play little league football where the kid can be hurt?
OK to play little league rollerball where the kid will be hurt?
OK to let your kid play with Micheal Vick’s dogs?
OK to let your kid watch porn?
OK to teach your kid that its OK to hate people who look different?
OK to teach your kid that people not of your religion don’t deserve the same rights as you have?

Where is the balance between the kids rights, parents rights, and state’s “right” (oblicgation) to protect the child?

Natalia says:

gnomic and randy, you guys have completely lost the point of the entire point here. We are not talking about what happened to many other kids, we are just talking about one issue here and to remind you it is about Greenberg taking pictures of crying kids. Do you realize that she is not abusing them at all because that is not what abuse is at all. She is not beating them up or doing anything horrandes to them. She is taking pictures of them crying and to let you know she gives the candy, which she takes away to make them cry, right back. I dont see anything brutal or abusing in that.

Andrew says:

Natalia,

It’s not about what you consider brutal or abusing. It’s about the fact that Greenberg is being deliberately hurtful to those children just so she can take their photos and call it art.

Once more: She is intentionally making naked children cry in order to take their photos.

I stick with my analogy. We should tell her that her parents/husband/children/whatever were killed, take her photos crying, then tell her it isn’t true. No abuse, right? All in good fun! All for the “art”!

gnomic says:

Natalia,

I’m glad your not my parent and hope that you don’t ever work near children. Especially my kids. Because if some adult is deliberatly hurtful to my kids (or my pets for that matter) for art, entertainment, or some other senseless reason, they will discover that I am a serious agent of evolution.

Natalia says:

First of all, the kids are not completely naked and second of all, you two missed my point. What she is doing is not abuse at all. You two are making way too big of a deal out of this. As soon as you two experience real abuse, then I would like to see what your opinion on this matter would be. I am not here to argue with you guys, I am just stating my point and it so happens my point of view on this is different than yours and there is nothing you can say that willmake me change my mind. Both of you have some valid points about it, but you are confusing the meaning of when it comes to taking pictures of kids, who are not naked just dont have shirts on.

Randy says:

Willfully making children cry for personal profit? Sounds, um, abusive to me. Guess I don’t get your point, then.

Natalia says:

Randy, I am not sure if you even know all of the facts about this issue or not but let me remind you that while she is taking pictures parents of the children are right there and Jill has their permission to take pictures. SO if anything she should not be the target here. She is not doing anything illegal. For your information, there are plenty of parents in this world who take pictures while their kids are crying, Do you think they are abusers too? Have you seen America’s Home Funnies Videos? If not, let me tell you how many videos they show of children crying because they hurt themselves, alot

Andrew says:

Natalie,

In how many of those America’s Funniest Home Videos were the kids deliberately hurt? (Answer: None.)

There is absolutely no argument here: Greenberg deliberately caused kids to cry so she could photograph them. You think that’s OK because an adult wouldn’t find the removal of a lollipop to be a big deal. Gnomic, Randy, and I (and a lot of others) think it’s not OK — that causing a child anguish so you can sell pictures is sick.

Oh, and that goes for the parents, too.

sal says:

this is a joke. these pictures are beautiful and Greenberg is an incredibly talented woman. I don’t think it would be a matter of trying to get them to cry … probably more just letting them. Obviously none of you have children of your own. Kids cry when they are tired, when they want something (not necessarily something they need or even should have), when they want to get out of their car seat, when they are cold, when they don’t want to do something. I hope all of you remember this when you try to give your children cold medicine and they cry because they don’t want to take it. A child crying is no indication of them being ABUSED. Lets be honest with ourselves and try to appreciate the incredible art Greenberg has made.

Andrew says:

First of all, these pics are second-rate at best, but that’s not the point. I do have a child, and yes, he will often cry over silly things.

But — and here’s where you’re missing the point — it’s only a truly screwed up person (the word “bully” comes to mind) who deliberately makes them cry.

The only reason Greenberg is getting any attention is because she had to resort to this kind of sick behavior.

Natalia says:

Andrew,
I am not trying to prove here whether she is deliberately making these kids cry or not. What I am trying to make you and many others to see is that it is not ABUSE. I agree with sal, she is a tallented woman and those her pictures are beautiful, no doubt about it. I can not believe you think that a woman with children of her own would hurt another child. If she was abusive she would not be allowed to have kids, but you dont see that happening. What she is doing is art,NOT ABUSE.

Andrew says:

No. At best it’s art and abuse. SHE HURT KIDS TO TAKE THEIR PHOTOS. She made them cry.

What kind of sick person deliberately makes children cry?

You want to argue over whether it’s “abuse” or just “awful treatment,” fine. That’s splitting hairs as far as I’m concerned.

But it amazes me that you condone her behavior. It’s astounding.

Natalia says:

No need to be so angry Andrew, I am just sharing my pointof view on this. She “hutrs” kids for only about 30 seconds. Those kids wont even remember the experiences as soon it is over. Permanent damage is not being done here, you dont see kids ending up needind serious psychological treatment. They are functioning just fine. You are mad that she is deliberatly making kids cry for 30 secnds, I can only imagine over what other little things you are stressing out about. Parents take away candy or what not from their kids all the time and yes they cry. You are a parent, so you should know all about that. Andew, she has kids of her own and I she knows darn well what she is doing. Child abuse is not what she is doing at all, she is making art. Yes! she is making kids cry, but who does not

Phoebe Nelson says:

I’m having a really hard time seeing anything that remotely resembles “art” in these photos. I don’t care what anybody says, being cruel to any other human being is wrong, and being cruel to children for monetary gains is loathesome.

Natalia says:

She is not being cruel

Anonymous says:

What about racism? isn’t that hurting a human being? What about immigration laws, that is also hurting someone, what about being pro-life instead of pro-choice, that is hurting someone, what about cutting someone off on the road that is hurting someone. This is the real world if you haven’t noticed nelson? Get real!! Life is a bitch so deal with it, let the woman have her fame with her beautiful art. What if your child accidently grabbed a piece of candy and you screamed at the child and said no and took it away. Would that be abuse? I think not. Well just think of it that way and leave Jill alone. The pictures are already taken and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. She is not abusing children or she would not have them. She is a fucking artist for crying out loud. Did you ever think that maybe when these children grow up that they would be completely understanding about the whole situation and actually find it pretty cool. They are wonderful pictures and obviously Andrew doesn’t really know art or he would think so too. But besides the point art is an opinion. So get over it people. She is not an abuser!!!!! Have you ever seen commercials with babies in them. How many times do you think they had to shoot takes to get the baby to stop crying? A lot! And don’t you think putting a baby through all that stress would be somewhat similar to this case, exactly? So why don’t you bitch about that instead of actual art and not an advertisement for baby food. Do you really think everyone in hollywood is happy about what they have to do, no it’s a fucking career. Models have to stand in the weirdest positions for a long period of time while their feet are hurting in the 5 inch pump high heels, but they do it for a reason. Well until those children are 18 years old their parents own them and if they want to give their child a lollypop and take away, so be it. There is way more important issues going on in this world that a child crying for a total of 30 seconds, get real people and open your eyes!

Natalia says:

Whoever this anonymous person is, I love you. This is exactly what I have been trying to say and in one form or another, I did but I guess my point was not got into thier heads. I completely agree with he or she had to say in their comment, it makes perfect sense. Jill is an artist and not an abuser, she could not be because she has kids of her own. I mentioned before that these kids in the future will think that they were part of something really cool and no permanent damage is being done to them. Parents take away candy, or what not, from their kids all the time and yes, they cry but we dont see any of them being acused of abusing their kids, so why are we saying that when Jill take away candy she is abusive

Randy says:

It is with sadness in my heart that I realize Anonymous and Natalia probably also vote. WinnaR! of the thread???

“Well until those children are 18 years old their parents own them”

I’m so glad my children don’t have parents who think like that. Thanks again Andrew for bringing this awful woman’s supposed art to light for us.

Randy says:

BTW, Andrew (sorry for the double post):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WExtRfBDPXo

You (or rather, your site) made the video. And Diane Sawyer thinks it is funny that the children are made to cry, as does her co-WTF. I guess there is something wrong with me for thinking that having a goal of making a child cry is just not right.

Natalia says:

Wow Randy, nice one. You are right about one thing. Those kids are owned by their parents and that is why Jill has their permission to take pictures, so according to you and Andrew those parents are abuseres too. Actually,according to you too half the populatin is abusive. I feel bad for your kids if you have any and if not I feel bad for your kids if you are going to have any. What is so so abusive about taking candy away from a child and taking pictures while he or she is crying? Plenty of parents do that to their kids and they do not see it as abuse.

Andrew says:

I do have a child, and, unlike Greenberg, I would never think of deliberately making him cry for my own amusement.

Plenty of parents take candy from their kids in order to make them cry? Huh? What kind of people do you hang around with?

Sure, parents do things that make their kids cry all the time. But you’d have to be a real sick person, like Greenberg, to intentionally make them cry.

Ask people on the street: “What do you think of a person who intentionally makes a child cry?” See what kind of answers you get.

gnomic says:

Hey Natalia, does getting beat with a rake cound as child abuse? How about with a razor strap? Tossed out onto the street? Not fed dinner for weeks not completing chores or homework?

Let’s just say that I do know what child abuse looks like up close and personal.

As to what abusive, have you ever seen the Grinch movie where the EVIL grinch takes candy from babies. Its cliche, but on point. You are abusing a childs trust. Whats dispicable about it is that you are doing it for amusement. Sure, its not slapping the sh!t out of the kid, but that doesn’t make it right. The most memerable tramatic events usually don’t involve direct contact.

Look Johnny, do you remember when momeny made you cry for these pictures? Sure I do Mom! Gotta leave you in this urine soaked nursing home now.

Thinks its a joke? I ran a nursing home. Some of those people didn’t get visited by thier kids who walked past the place everyday. And some of them told me why. And some of those evil bastard parents deserved thier situation and worse (no stench of urine when I ran the place).

Plenty of parents abuse there kids, so its OK. Wow. In my day it was only to beat your kids until they wound up in the ER and toss them into the closet until they behaved. So that was OK too. I’m sure that you don’t see any harm in torturing detainees either. After all, they aren’t really people, right?

My dog would bite you. And she’d be right.

Natalia says:

Gnomic, not that it is any of your sorry ass business but I do know what abuse it very well. My parents left me when I was just a child. I was physically and sexually abused and I can relate really well to the kids who have been abused so how dare you telling me that I have no idea what the hell you and Andrew are talking about. You should really know what true abuse is making kids cry is NOT. I am not saying that making kids cry is alright. YOu and Adrew should never accuse people of something you have no idea about. Neither of you have been abused and you can not relate to the kids who have and Gnomic, just because you ran a nursuing home does not mean that you have any fucking idea what abuse is. So, next time you are goingt to tell someone that they have no clue what reall abuse is, think before you open your mouth.

gnomic says:

Wow. You should read your own posts. Bye.

Natalia says:

I am not the one who should be rereading my comments,gnomic. Just because you can not take my criticism does not mean I shuld be watching what I write.

Anonymous says:

She is an artist and not an abuser.

Andrew says:

Everyone, that’s just Natalia again (she posted previously), but this time she’s being anonymous and trying to start up this discussion for no reason I can fathom.

Leland says:

Obviously she wants to remind the world how much of a slime ball Greenberg really is. Either that or she is bored to tears with nothing better to do then drag this one over the coals again.

Natalia says:

The reason I did not have my name posted Andrew is because I just went straight to the message box and just submited the comment not because I dont want you to know that it was me. The reason I did it because I wanted to state my opinion againt and not because I have nothing better do to Leland. watch what both of u say.

Leland says:

I told you she didn’t have anything better to do.

Natalia says:

Leland, u r just an ass

Andrew says:

Quite possibly he is. I certainly am. But we happen to be asses who are right.

Admiral says:

Child abuse my ass. Those who say her pics are child abuse are truly ignorant to real child abuse. And, no doubt have lived a sheltered life.

She gave them a sucker and took it away. How is that abuse? Haven’t we all learned in life that something we have can easily be taken away? If anything she is teaching these children this fact. Call it abuse?! You know nothing of abuse.

And anyone who shelters (overprotects) their child is an idiot.

Natalia says:

Andrew you are right about one thing, you are an ass but who happens to know nothing about abuse.

Andrew says:

And I’m happy to let your comments and attitude speak for themselves, Natalia.

By the way, by starting this over-done thread again, you just push this page higher in the Google rankings….

Natalia says:

Hey, I am glad I could help. :-) Arent you glad now that i did start this over. You are so welcome!!!!

Jamie P says:

Jill Greenberg beyond doubt is a world class photographer, her creations exceptional, no wonder she wants to be seen, I mean if I could produce such images I would want the world to see them. Her tool to get her images into the public domain is controversy which fuels that reach and her objective is achieved. Just look at this forum for example it’s all promotion for her is it not.
controversy makes for very powerful advertising if something is not different then its the same, if its the same then your just another number in the masses, controversy makes it different, makes people look into it more than they ever would have before, it makes people think..
Nevertheless if she came near my 4 year old she would get a mouth full, it shows the type of person she is inside.