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!)

It's astonishing how tragic children can look after having a lolly taken away. Not that I think there's anything more sinister than that. I know my children can look terribly piteous when thwarted.

What I don't like is how something so trivial (the taking way of the lolly) is used as some kind of comment on the state of the world. I can't take it seriously now I know how she got the pictures. I find it renders them meaningless for me.

But child abuse it is not.

they do pack an emotional punch and are strangely beautiful and compelling, if uncomfortable. as dh is pointing out, (i think he's showing off) in the split second that picture was taken the children who had lost a lolly were feeling the same intense emotion as a child who has suffered a more devastating loss. i think that's a more interesting point for the artist to make but not sure it makes me feel any better about manipulating the distress - which is real and intense, if fleeting. i suppose they do make you consider the intensity of emotion felt by even very young children (and where does it go as we all grow up and get socialised...?)

The photos are compelling aren't they? Just can't see the point of making a child cry for a few seconds for "art".

Children cry enough naturally.

actually one of the first thing I noticed was that there were no clothes to be seen, in fact this is the issue that I am trying to make sense more than other mentioned. so if it was done in order to avoid that clothes got some attention, it did not work.

Rationally, I am sure there is nothing malicious about that and there should not be any issues or thoughts associated with it. Nevertheless, in these days where you hear a lot of uncomfortable news, I could no help but being uncomfortable about it.

what did she do to the monkeys? show them pics of crying children?

wouldnt have 1 on my wall, but cant see anything that bad about them, but i dont think she needed to take anything away from them, why not just wait till they cried naturally? surely no more than an hour would have produced tears from them all anyway?

Nevertheless, in these days where you hear a lot of uncomfortable news, I could no help but being uncomfortable about it.

I find that really sad TBH. Some of the best shots I have of DS1 and DS2 are with them 'naked' on their top half. Not planned that way - just happened. I think the way that a semi-naked child has become 'taboo' is very sad.

I've made my children cry , but it was not premeditated and coldly calculated...(more borne of a moment of angst, and I was upset at the time too)

I think I am fairly open minded but I find this whole concept fucked up.

HRHQueenOfQuotes, yes it is sad and I am embarrassed. but there is a difference with natural pictures taken by the family for the family.

your next sentence says it all:
"Some of the best shots I have of DS1 and DS2 are with them 'naked' on their top half. Not planned that way - just happened. I have taken plainty of such picures and i would not think anything of it.

these pictures are 'prepared' and for 'public' consumption, by the way i dont think for a minute that there ever was any intent to sexualise the kids by the artist. But it suggests more vulnerability thuogh then if they are wearing a t-shirt, I think

anyway never mind. I have not anlysed in depth the artistic merit, or the ethics of the methods used, too much for my head at this time of the night

HORRIFIED . No mother in their right mind would feel comfortable looking at those pictures. It is pushing boundaries again and again and it makes me effing sick.
Whats next?

I think that, where children are involved, art has to be responsible. If you or I consent to having semi-naked pictures of ourselves taken in a distressed state, so be it.

Sadly there are very many twisted freaks who get off on this kind of stuff. Be aware that paedophilia is as much about power over children as it is a sexual content. In the same way that rape is about power rather than necessarily 'the act.'

Its just stupid, the artistic value is negligible, even if it were justified which it is not.
I question the motives of anyone who promotes this sort of nasty stuff.
In a former life I used to be a painter myself, always hated the bullshit aspect of the art world.

i just think it is bad art. I don't really think it is child abuse, just rather vulgar.

I think it's really mean. Child abuse probably a bit harsh but it's horrible, those poor children, give tham back their lollies!

It it emotional abuse of a vulnerable child, not necessarily child abuse of the sort that SS would intervene. The "artist" (I use that term loosely) said it was alright because the parents had consented and had received payment for it. What a sick thought to think that it is ok for parents to sell their children. A child can never give consent to being treated this way. Children are not possessions without feelings.

And there is something vaguely paedophilic about the pictures. So this woman is a mother as well? Hmmmmm

Why would anyone enjoy looking at naked pictures of children crying...........

I don't actually think the point of these pictures is to "enjoy" looking at them.

I have significantly less of problem with the 'half naked' issue (and most of the pics shown on TV were just head and shoulders) than I do with the idea of deliberately making a child cry for "arts sake". The pics have been doctored b the artist to give that shiny appearance, and she showed before and afters of a couple and the effect she uses does make the child look sadder than they often did in reality.

She said the pics reflect the sadness she feels when she thinks about the destruction of the environment - well, that's okay then! Show yourself crying! I was when she said it was okay because the children had been paid....

She has a daughter, and has a photo of her crying like this too.

PLUS...the pictures are horrible. Not art, just crap!

I haven't read all of this but the pictures were in the SUnday Times couple of weeks ago. Horrible IMO. Just why really? Why take them and why would anyone want to look at them?
I don't think it's abuse as such but a just a grim thing to do.

not my cup of tea but I dont think it is child abuse

They remind me a bit of those horrible naff paintings of crying children - you know, the ones that are supposed to be unlucky.

I don't completely dislike the photogarphs - although I wouldn't want one.

I think I would have more interest in them if she'd just spent time with children in the background and taken a photo when/if they began to cry of their own accord (as they inevitably do) if that was what she was after. The reaction would naturally be theirs to something then, rather than the artist orchestrating it.

It's rather staged looking - and unkind - to make them cry. Saying they were paid doesn't make it ok.

And while I don't think the artist was trying to sexualise them in any way the lack of clothes just makes them seem more vunerable - which was probably intended and also makes it more horrible.

I don't think that the uncllothed nature of them is a problem in terms of ethics of the shock horror 'naked children' kand - I think it actually makes the oictures, seen en masse, MORE tacky in a sort of 'mock arty' way. It seems cliched. Although i understand what geekgirrl says about focussing on the expresion. Maybe that means that the idea doesn't really carry through or it is not strong enough.

I think the whole idea is a bit weak. Though if i had a good picture of DS in a moment of spontaneous upset, i would see it as a powerful personal portrait. I think they are good portraits rather than a resonant artwork about the planet

I love children pugging. Now if she had got all the children to pug it would have been much more pleasing on my eye

I agree with blu. the images don't live up to the artists ideas. but she and her gallery will be pleased with all the debate anyway.