*****before I start please be carefull about clicking the 2nd link as althought not sexual could put you in an awkwad spot at work, to be safe asume NSFW*****

Just read a  blog entry about Jill Greenbergs End Times exhibition of photos.

this is the discription on the exhibition

QuoteLos Angeles, CA ? Los Angeles, CA April 28, 2006 ?End Times?, a politically charged photography exhibition by internationally acclaimed contemporary photographer Jill Greenberg, has been extended. The new dates are April 22nd through July 8th, 2006. A catalogue from the show is available. The work can easily be viewed at www.paulkopeikingallery.com or www.manipulator.com.

Following her enormously successful series Monkey Portraits, which debuted in October 2004, Jill Greenberg?s new work takes a more serious turn and has already hit a national nerve . "End Times" combines beautiful, poignant imagery, impeccably executed, with both political and personal relevance. Greenberg?s subject is taboo: children in pain. She utilizes this uncomfortable image as a way to break through to the pop mainstream and begin a national dialogue. Jill Greenbergs images are sharp and saturated, stunning and quirky; her work is soaked with realism and imagination.

Bill Moyer?s article ?There is No Tomorrow? more than touches on Mrs. Greenberg?s subject matter. In the article he states the amazing statistics: ?For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

please read the blog and look at the pics, is it right or wrong?

part of me thinks its oh so wrong,  another part says that the child will get over it, I think I side on more wrong than right, whats your say

(yes this could also go in SC but I thought it more apt here, at first)

art in the form of expression yes.

in the human form children shouldnt suffer.

A tough one ! I think it is hard to judge unless one were present and saw the whole scene, how the kids were treated before, after and during the sessions.

Photos only show from chest up so they arent obviously naked. The nudity which is shown is less than most nappy adverts shown on UK TV. No children were physically hurt durig the photos and I would assume they were given the lollies back as soon as the photos were taken.

TBH photographers have a massively difficult time anyway without idiots like this jumping to conclusions.

Id bet those kids havent been hurt, simply denied something that they want.

Serious mentions a lollypop for example.

Perfectly legitimate, no harm was done to the child and to be honest the world could do with less spoilt brats around the place.

Quote from: from blogJill Greenbergs husband, Robert Greenberg responds: im married to the artist in question. with that said, some facts: jill did not "abuse" the children, nor abuse them. they were given lollipops, and then those were removed from the kids. jill didnt speak to them--the parents were there monitoring the whole time. this is the EXACT technique used in ads and movies and TV. im a producer in two of those mediums and have been through this before, so i know whereof i speak.

ts at the bottom and clearly states what happened, problem is most people never read that far and find out the truth.

The point was made elsewhere though, that if this was a teacher or someone in another profession, the torment - of which the children have no say against - would be seen as ghastly, but because this woman wants be a sensationalist with her art all of a sudden its okay?

Art doesnt give you the right to cause anguish. Capture it possibly, but not create it.

What she is doing is entirely for personal gain none of this is for the sake of art.