![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More discussion, this time about this exhibit. A woman provoked kids to cry to take pictures of them upset, then labeled them with things like "Four More Years." While I don't think it's child abuse, I think this woman is an asshole.
I don't like seeing photos of suffering. Sometimes I look at them anyway, because suffering is a fact of life, and it would seem cowardly to turn away. Like Abu Ghraib or that guy in Viet Nam who was about to get shot in the head. Often, it's depicted in art and can be beautiful. Coincidentally, I was just looking at such a piece last night in my guide to the Met in NY that was a beautiful piece with a horrifying and grotesque subject that I'd seen in person: a statue of Ugolino and his Sons imprisoned and starving. But that's a depiction of suffering.
What disturbs me about this is that it's photos of actual suffering where the suffering was caused by the artist to make a point. That strikes me as needlessly cruel. And her points, while I agree that the subjects are a big pisser, were ham-handed, simplistic, and unoriginal. In other words, in my judgment, the point she was trying to make with her art was not sufficiently justified by the suffering she caused to make 'em. I do think there are some instances where it's justifiable to cause suffering (like the case of Little Albert), but these things should be carefully considered and it'd better be a damn good reason. She's made political cartoons, basically, that could've just been Photoshopped, or drawn or painted based on just remembering what upset kids looks like- and there's certainly no shortage of upset subjects to study, if you go to any playground. The upshot still remains: what an asshole!
As an aside, I admit I generally have little stomach for depictions of death and suffering even in paintings. The pictures of dead animals in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
riotclitshave are quite distasteful to me, though I know some people find them fascinating. I remember seeing an old painting done of a man vivisecting an unanesthetized dog and I can barely look at it- even though I know this happened at the turn of the century, and it advanced science, and so on. I realize it's a part of existence, but it's just not something I enjoy looking at. In these cases, I do not fault the artist for making such depictions (though if I were to find out that someone killed an animal just so they could photograph it- well, then they suck, to say the least) but it's sure not something I'd want to hang on my wall.
I don't like seeing photos of suffering. Sometimes I look at them anyway, because suffering is a fact of life, and it would seem cowardly to turn away. Like Abu Ghraib or that guy in Viet Nam who was about to get shot in the head. Often, it's depicted in art and can be beautiful. Coincidentally, I was just looking at such a piece last night in my guide to the Met in NY that was a beautiful piece with a horrifying and grotesque subject that I'd seen in person: a statue of Ugolino and his Sons imprisoned and starving. But that's a depiction of suffering.
What disturbs me about this is that it's photos of actual suffering where the suffering was caused by the artist to make a point. That strikes me as needlessly cruel. And her points, while I agree that the subjects are a big pisser, were ham-handed, simplistic, and unoriginal. In other words, in my judgment, the point she was trying to make with her art was not sufficiently justified by the suffering she caused to make 'em. I do think there are some instances where it's justifiable to cause suffering (like the case of Little Albert), but these things should be carefully considered and it'd better be a damn good reason. She's made political cartoons, basically, that could've just been Photoshopped, or drawn or painted based on just remembering what upset kids looks like- and there's certainly no shortage of upset subjects to study, if you go to any playground. The upshot still remains: what an asshole!
As an aside, I admit I generally have little stomach for depictions of death and suffering even in paintings. The pictures of dead animals in
riotclitshave are quite distasteful to me, though I know some people find them fascinating. I remember seeing an old painting done of a man vivisecting an unanesthetized dog and I can barely look at it- even though I know this happened at the turn of the century, and it advanced science, and so on. I realize it's a part of existence, but it's just not something I enjoy looking at. In these cases, I do not fault the artist for making such depictions (though if I were to find out that someone killed an animal just so they could photograph it- well, then they suck, to say the least) but it's sure not something I'd want to hang on my wall.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Jul. 28th, 2006 05:07 pm (UTC)From:This woman just seems like she's cheapening her message once you hear the context, it's like -- ok you feel about Bush like a kid who lost their sucker? If she for instance, had painted (from imagination or other pictures) a kid at their military parent's funeral or an orphan in Iraq or something, that would have a stronger point. I mean it would probably be all glurgy and heavy handed and not my thing at all but still.
no subject
Date: Jul. 28th, 2006 06:27 pm (UTC)From:I read an article about it, and how she was defensive about how she handled it-- one of her justifications was that the parents were there the whole time and approved it. And when the shot was over, the kids were given a whole handful of lollipops to make up for the one that was taken away.
While we may hesitate to call it child abuse, I wonder if they realize the bigger impact on these children. They have been given a very big lesson that you cannot trust adults, because they will take things away from you. It doesn't matter if they give you more in return, they took something you wanted away. And that the parents who are supposed to protect and make sure stuff like this doesn't happen... are standing right there and being approving of the action. I won't be suprised if there's a followup and some of these kids have trust issues later on. :::Shrug::: I'm also given to understand that the artist used her own children in the shoot. Would be interesting to see how they'll feel about being used like that when they are grown up.
I guess I'm also having a problem with how she's handling the message. From what I'm given to believe, the whole display was to show how kids would react if they knew the world that they were going to inherit, including enviromental and all... first off, who knows how the world's going to be in the fifteen years it's gonna take these kids to grow up? Wouldn't it be more moving to show scenes of deforestation and such intersperced with the kids? Wouldn't it be better to do something, anything, then take candy away from the children?
no subject
Date: Jul. 28th, 2006 09:18 pm (UTC)From:The photographer is still an ass. This was all over the photo blogs a while back and set off the whole constructed reality vs. captured debate.
no subject
Date: Jul. 28th, 2006 09:35 pm (UTC)From:Speaking as a soon-to-be teacher, I would rather have my students not view all adults with suspicion and distrust. It's an uphill battle and not one I should have to fight. YMMV.
no subject
Date: Jul. 28th, 2006 11:32 pm (UTC)From:And so unimaginatively done.
Guh.
no subject
Date: Jul. 29th, 2006 02:46 am (UTC)From: