Between Art and Child Abuse - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-24-2006, 11:34 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Okay, thank you for getting back to discussion.

Is it just a measure of how long someone would remember the trauma?

You didn't address the physical trauma. If young children do not remember it, is that a deciding factor?
Well you are abusing the word trauma. Trauma by definition is damage that IS substantial and lasting. So you don't forget trauma. So yes the fact that it's forgotten does matter.

And I'm not sure what physical "trauma" you are talking about, from the article?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-24-2006, 11:38 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:02 PM
OK, in your definition, when does it become substantial and lasting?

The article does not mention physical trauma (just go with my use of the word for now). Some of the discussion was based on factors that seemingly would allow physical trauma in addition to the emotional trauma.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 11:46 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:02 PM
On the topic ‘End Times’

Regarding What is Real in Photography

We have a tendency to believe what we see, because "seeing is believing." We believe a photograph captures the truth because we clearly see ourselves on paper. While deception is not a new concept to art, photography may create one of the largest betrayals yet to one of our 'absolutes': a photograph is real, and that is how it is. Native Americans do not object to having their picture taken because it captures their soul, but rather because it tricks one into seeing the soul where it does not exist.

Photography has always been a very personal medium. The connotation we cannot seem to escape is the relation to our historical memory: we’ve used the photograph to witness the present as well as remember the past. Photography was not created for the purpose of art, but rather as a tool. In this tradition, it seems we have mis-catagorized contemporary photography by believing what we see as a reality, not a vision. Ansel Adams never saw what his photographs captured: he worked countless hours, countless years, to create the scene that his mind wanted. We didn’t flinch: we bought it as reality. Art had always been a medium of vision and expression. Artists make what they see, not what is. When we walk up to a photograph only to see it is actually a painting, we are amazed! But to walk up to a painting only to realize it is a photograph? No way. To believe that photography does not capture the real is instinctively impossible.

The confusing thing about the transformation of photography into a digital realm of art is that we don’t always see the hint, the proof, that we are being tricked. Photographers have played with this new technology to create magnificently abnormal scenes. A stock market floor, confused with seamless repetition, awes us with the potential photography holds for demonstrating an artistic vision, an altered truth.


But now these photographs are of children, children in pain nonetheless. We suddenly pause with our enamored amazement in photography and switch to a feeling of trespass and harm. A crying child naturally brings up emotion for adults and stir up an instinctual reaction to protect and care for the subject, to seek out the source of their pain and destroy it. The ‘trick’ is suddenly too good: Mrs. Greenberg’s talent with her medium may have finally crossed the line of what we know and what we believe.

Anyone who has seen one of Jill Greenberg’s pieces in person has had the fleeting suspicion they were paintings. Up close, the surface is unreal: it is saturated with colors and detail. The sensation of the never-ending now, the desperation, hope, despair, and agony are intended responses of the photographs, not the technique used to capture them. Because we ‘know’ a photograph must be real, these photographs must be wrong. But these images do not come from a photograph taken in a studio. The full-fledged emotion is what was added. This is Mrs. Greenberg’s ability, style, and her talent as a photographer. Referencing her other work it is easily deduced that her photographs are not of reality, but of a fashioned hyper-reality. This filtration through the artist’s eye onto paper is by definition what makes an artist.

Mrs. Greenberg is expressing this concern through what she does for a living: photography. She wants the faces we see in this series to feel the potential future ‘present day,’ but the children photographed did not feel this or anything like it. Without understanding the process and work utilized by the artist, without seeing the template used, we cannot judge the photographer’s ethics or actions. It is unfortunate that the content of ‘End Times’ is being overlooked because Mrs. Greenberg may be too good at what she does.

‘End Times’ is being subjected to a debate taking place outside of the art community. This debate is not about the new face and reality of photography, but rather about whether people agree that the artist is a bad person. Did she harm the children she photographed --making her a child abuser or child pornographer? Is she a cruel person, like Hitler? These are the questions being posed. Not even in movies, where we see ‘truth’ unfold in front of us, do we believe it is as truth. We have trained our minds to interpret a movie as a story, which is why we try over and over again to convince our children that the little boy’s mother didn’t really die --it was acting. Why, suddenly, are we looking at an artistic medium and wholeheartedly believing what we see on the surface?

Because we care deeply, seeing an image of an American child so incredibly upset elicits a reaction. It is a good thing that people show deep concern for these children as well as others, and this is what the artist wanted from her work. Anyone who has voiced concern over the exhibition cares for his or her children. Hopefully this concern will lead to a greater good. Hopefully the attention can be focused on protecting our children so that they can grow old and lead a full life. Staying alert and educated with the conflicts in the world, taking seriously the ever-escalating power in the mid-east that is ushering on the new Holocaust for Western Civilization, seeking out those Americans who are actively welcoming the war to pave the way for the fulfillment of their vision of the apocalypse. These are the things that may help the future remain as fortunate as we are in the present day.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 11:58 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
OK, in your definition, when does it become substantial and lasting?
It's not my definition it's the Webster's and clinical definition. It becomes substantial and lasting when it creates lasting damage. But what we know of a 2 year olds mental capacity, this is not trauma.


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

The article does not mention physical trauma (just go with my use of the word for now). Some of the discussion was based on factors that seemingly would allow physical trauma in addition to the emotional trauma.
I would never support physical pain in order to create this scanario regardless if it didn't create trauma.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-25-2006, 12:05 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:02 PM
To the first part, when does damage become lasting? Do you know it when it is inflicted? Or is it only measurable after the fact?

To the second part, why? Is emotional trauma always lesser than physical trauma?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 12:25 AM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
To the first part, when does damage become lasting? Do you know it when it is inflicted? Or is it only measurable after the fact?

To the second part, why? Is emotional trauma always lesser than physical trauma?
To the first part. No one has all the answers on child rearing. If they did they could probably save the world. We have models and guidelines, and we have psychology experts that can help us. These things tell us that a lollipop will not create trauma. We do have these things to also tell us what things will create trauma.

To the second part, I'm not saying it's less, I'm just saying personally I can't condone it. I'm still torn on the issue of spanking as an effective way of dicipline.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-25-2006, 07:35 AM   #22
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:02 PM
I'm with nbc (I think this is his position? lol). I dont like the very intentional manipulation of a child's emotions. When you are a toddler your whole world is your parents, your food, your toys. Something about this really doesn't sit well with me.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 09:40 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Angela, you described my reaction perfectly. It would be easy to dismiss this story as just a small thing with very young children. But it is the intentional manipulation, the intentional infliction of distress that bugs me.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 09:48 AM   #24
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:02 AM
that's why I wouldn't let it happen to my own kids if I had them

but there doesn't seem to be much here that I would hold against other people if they would let their kids go through this
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 10:51 AM   #25
Refugee
 
Eliv8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A Place Called San Diego
Posts: 1,842
Local Time: 08:02 PM
ET was filmed in chronological order so the reactions from the children of him dying and leaving were real.
__________________
Eliv8 is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 11:57 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Emotional trauma can be worse than physical trauma. Physical trauma has a set time in which the wound will heal. It's more precise. Emotional trauma is more of a grey area, it's impossible to predict how long the emotional trauma from an upsetting experience is going to last.
In the case of the child and the candy, the child is hurt. They wouldn't cry if it didn't hurt. It's not right to inflict pain just to get an image. True,. the pain subsided when the lollipop was returned, but meanwhile there was pain.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 01:29 PM   #27
The Fly
 
Greenlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from a cup of coffee
Posts: 282
Local Time: 04:02 AM
I understood that peoples' earliest memories typically of from the age of 3-4 so it's highly unlikely that these toddlers aged 2 would remember this experience. I asked my own children aged 7 and 10 and two of their friends the same age what was their earliest memory and they were all very hazy of any event prior to the age of 3. Any parent knows that many toddlers will fly into short-lived apoplectic rages over the slightest thing that provokes or upsets them -it's all part of their developmental process.
That said I do find the fact that adults intentionally caused distress to a child however briefly, just in the name of art, rather disturbing. I also would question the motives of such parents who sign their children up at such a young age to modelling agencies.
__________________
Greenlight is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 09:29 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Angela, you described my reaction perfectly. It would be easy to dismiss this story as just a small thing with very young children. But it is the intentional manipulation, the intentional infliction of distress that bugs me.
This, I believe is the underlying issue.

If my child had a lollipop and I didn't want him/her to have it, I would take it away. He/she might cry, but that doesn't mean I'm abusive. It may mean I'm a good parent, in that I don't give him/her everything he or she wants (also known as spoiling).

So obviously, taking a lollipop away doesn't qualify as abuse.

However, the motives, the manipulation, and the intentional causing of distress that is the real issue. The question is: Is this action appropriate given the context?

Personally I'm not real comfortable with what the photographer did.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com