OK guys, if you see a photograph of a small, naked child in obvious distress, how does it make you feel? If it upsets you, and if you complain, Jill Greenberg thinks it means you're projecting your own desires into the image and you sublimate this obviously unacceptable reaction into anger at the photographer.
Read that again and think about what it implies.
Jill Greenberg is this photographer who undresses small children, makes them cry, then photographs them and applies a little photoshop. She thinks it's art. Moreover, she thinks it's art of a political bent because she interprets the children's distress in terms of her own distress at George W. Bush (who was it that was doing the projecting?) She's horrified that some people don't like this. I won't link to any examples from here, you can find them yourselves, they make me at best unhappy. But The Sunday Times (London) saw fit to put them on the front cover of its magazine and report:
Greenberg is appalled that some people even saw a sexual context to the pictures. “It didn’t even occur to me that people might think that. A lot of the people who’ve been upset are men. I don’t know if it’s because they project their own desires on these images and they don’t know what to do with them and blame me.”
I mean, wow. Some people should be banned from practising armchair psychology in public, especially "artists". The Times goes on:
So what’s next? Photographs of bears, she says. “I think bears can represent all the anger and scariness out there”.
Oh boy, so what are we going to get? Yogi Bear with an uzi? Winnie the Pooh raping piglet?
Technorati Tags: Jill Greenberg, photography, children, junk psychology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe 
RSS
RSSThis is not intended to be an anti-feminist blog, nor a reactionary fathers' rights blog. I just want you to think a little about some of the ways that men and particularly fathers are treated these days. Most of all, I want my son, but I doubt there's anything you can do about that.
The blogroll will be back soon. To contact me personally, leave a comment, and tell me not to publish it. If you want a reply, leave an email address.
3 comments:
This is sick. Who in the hell would say that making kids cry is art?
When people with Jewish names make "art," you can be assured it will have less to do with art and more to do with trying to topple over Christian values. Not that I give a damn about Christianity. I'm just pointing out that this is a characteristic of Jewish art.
This mindset was exposed when "The Passion of the Christ" was released, and Jews started screaming, yet don't let a peep out about everyone from Howard Stern to the Beastie Boys. Hmmm...what was the title of Sarah Silverman's movie? Or the title of the new Al Franken film?
Anyway, that's the context these pics must be viewed in. I'm not trying to be anti-Jewish here or pro-Christian. Religion is a joke as far as I'm concerned. I'm just pointing out the focus of an ethnic group. Jews have penis envy towards Christians and do everything to chip away at the society Christians created.
Anonymous, 3:47, to make blatantly anti-semitic statements and include the claim that you're "not trying to be anti-Jewish" smacks of some thoroughly distorted thinking. I cannot and will not judge any work of art on the basis of the artist's name nor possibe ethnic background. It is simply the content of these images that offends me, the photographer's name did not even register to me as anything significant and still does not. Please do not bring these ideas to my blog again.
Post a Comment