Art or Child Abuse? Discuss... just on ten o clock news

[EnormousChangesAtTheLastMinute]

so an artist give a child a lolly, snatches it back and photographs their grief/anger/bewilderment. amazing pics... but is it an 'ok' thing to do? (the report didn't say if she gave them the lolly back after she got her shot but the parents were paid - and happy!)

didn't like the pics, thought the methods were questionable.don't understand why anyone would want a pic of a crying child-one that wasn't their own anyway.

you can see pictures here

Hmmm....art, schmart IMO.

Maybe someone should take a photo of the 'artist' getting the lolly shoved up his/her nose by the child's brother?

At least that's what my children would do if anyone nicked their lolly!

Now that I'd pay to see.

Those pictures are just awful. I felt so sad looking at them i had to close the page.

Weird if you ask me. Why would anybody do that

what horrible parents to let someone do that to their child for a few quid

Urgh, just seen the photos. Why do the children have to be naked for a lolly to be snatched off them? Not sure why a parent would subject their child to this - I think the photos are really disturbing.

this was in the ST a couple of weeks ago. dd was intrigued by it, kept finding her staring at the pics.

the kids did get the lollies back, btw

Yes-pinktulips exactly, they must be disturbed

Greenbergs subject is "taboo - children in pain" ???????? !!!!!!!!! ?????????
WTF, why would anyone want to see children in pain ??? Unless they stand to make money from displaying the pictures..... Not good

Oh-well that's alright then

one of the kids was the photographer's daughter

that's pretty much what one of the chlldren on the report said humphreycushion. i do think they're powerful pictures. but not sure about manufacturing such dismay - i think it it expoitative as the children didn't/coudln't consent. i wouldn't let anyone upset my child like that. if they did they'd get a photograph of one mother - maybe that'll be her next series!
would you accept payment for someone to cause your child distress? i wonder if the thought of it being 'art' swung it for them...?

bet it did - expect they're all the offspring of photographer's arty mates

Just me then, but I think the photographs are beautiful. Much more mezmerisng then some bloody tacky Olan Mills picture.

Comparing it to child abuse is totally crap and OTT (believe me, I know )

Not sure who would want one on their wall though, unless it was the parent?

Anyway, lollies are bad for your teeth - so there!

Saw that in the Sunday Times.

Looked a bit desperate.

Gave it a swerve. So, no opinion.

well, I don't think it's all that terrible to make a small child cry as a one-off - mine cry/cried all the time at this age (ds is 2.5 and must have cried at least 10 times today) so once more isn't exactly going to cause permanent damage.

I don't like the pictures but I can see that they have merit.

I've not looked at the link but read a while ago that the artist did it to express her (and other people's) feelings about Bush's reelection.....

artist claimed on ten o clock news piece it reflected how she felt about the planet. i do think they're powerful pictures and before i had dd i think i would have pretty much shrugged shoulders at a toddler crying over a lolly, as you say geekgrrl, stick around a toddler long enough and tears will flow... but motherhood has turned me soft/given me a new perspective depending on your pov!

Well my opinion is that making children cry on purpose is wrong wrong wrong, be it for art, expression of feeling regarding politics, or anything. And why did they have to have no clothes on? I found the pictures horrible, completely uneccessary. Surely seeing children cry isn't art? but then some skedgy pants on a messy bedroom floor is art so who am I to decide what is and isn't art.

they're naked (from the waist up) so that there is no distraction from their expressions. Makes perfect sense IMHO, seeing the whole picture is about the child's expression.

I find seeing a child cry, and in this instance the children were forced to cry which makes it worse, upsetting with or without clothing.

Silly me I find children laughing far more pleasurable and yes I know they dont laugh all the time I have 2 under the age of 2 so know the tears all too well and try to avoid them as much as possible. I also know that this world of ours isn't perfect, that is made quite plainly clear by someone taking pictures of crying children in the name of art, but there are an awful lot of good bits in it so maybe if 'artists' concentrated on that our world might just get that little bit sweeter, how about celebrating life and our children instead of making them miserable?

Felt very uncomfortable looking at those - why why why would anyone want to see that?

I totally stand by artist's rights to make provocative work in the hope of making us think, but can't help thinking her methods are rather nasty. But its certainly not child abuse, and its just silly, and insulting, to suggest that it is.

I think they're quite interesting - some of the pictures remind of some of those awful pictures you see from worn torn countries of children who've seen more than anyone should see - except in those shots taken to make a 'good' news story - the children are left with those pained faces.

At least here the children was probably pleased as punch in a matter of minutes (if they're anything like my DS2 when I take somehting away because he's messing around - only to give it back minutes later).

I'd rather look at these photos of sad children than those that sell papers.

re geekgrrl's comment "they're naked (from the waist up) so that there is no distraction from their expressions. Makes perfect sense IMHO, seeing the whole picture is about the child's expression". The same effect could have been achieved had the children been wearing white t-shirts IMHO.