Cries of foul play for photographer
- Thread starter akane
- Start date
- Status
That's kinda strange considering kids are made to cry for films, commercials, photoshoots etc... all the time.
well....always remember that Americans tend to be extremist, whatever small small thing would be amplified by many folds. but for this crying incident, you can take it as an argument of whether invoking terror and fear in adolescents is worth a photograph.
when a child cries for a commercial, film or print advertisement, the child and the parent knows what to expect. They go for the shoot/filming with their eyes open knowing that they have to cry for their money. It is a job which they are train to do and it is a commercial transaction.
In this case it is diff. In the words of the photographer, she said that she gave the child a lollypop and than take it away, make the parent leave the room ( making the child fearful of being left behind ), in order to make the child cry for the sole purpose of her personal fulfillment of shooting something "diff". She even have the cheek to try to justify her actions by saying that she's doing this to describe how she feels about the Bush's Administration: frustration, fear, and angry. Which, clearly states that this is a personal statement, a personal project. The key word here is "PERSONAL". And after this Personal project is complete, she sells the images for US4500.00 each. And when she get blasted for it, she first make a complain to try to get it to stop, failling which she proclaim that the reaction are a testament to the power of the/her still images.
And the parent who allow their childern to be subjected to this kind of treatment.......
I think they all should be arrested, hand over to some hooligans who hate ang-mo for a few days to give them a taste of their own medicine.
We're talking about a poor, helpless child here!!!
In this case it is diff. In the words of the photographer, she said that she gave the child a lollypop and than take it away, make the parent leave the room ( making the child fearful of being left behind ), in order to make the child cry for the sole purpose of her personal fulfillment of shooting something "diff". She even have the cheek to try to justify her actions by saying that she's doing this to describe how she feels about the Bush's Administration: frustration, fear, and angry. Which, clearly states that this is a personal statement, a personal project. The key word here is "PERSONAL". And after this Personal project is complete, she sells the images for US4500.00 each. And when she get blasted for it, she first make a complain to try to get it to stop, failling which she proclaim that the reaction are a testament to the power of the/her still images.
And the parent who allow their childern to be subjected to this kind of treatment.......
I think they all should be arrested, hand over to some hooligans who hate ang-mo for a few days to give them a taste of their own medicine.
We're talking about a poor, helpless child here!!!
I think its more on sensationalizing and collective occurance. Same thing that 10 people dying in 1 accident seems worst than 10 separate accidents with 1 person died in each of them.
satay16 said:
But combined together it becomes a series and therefore influence the viewer to how he should react.
Anyway, I also do not see anything wrong with it and crying doesn't mean terror. Taking the lollipop away is more indignation than fear. As my example above, some teachers and parents still believe in caning and corporal punishments on their kids. On the other hand, I know a lot of parents who pretend going away and leaving the kid to "strangers" like uncles or friends, and see how the child react. In this case, all the children are related to the photographer as friend or relative. For the personal and commercial aspect, since I do not believe she did something morally wrong, then gaining from it doesn't make it wrong as well. So depends on how a situation is focused, it can either be accepted as right or wrong. No such thing as universal truth so there will always be 2 camps in every situation.
For those that agree with it and see nothing wrong, I have one question....
Would you do it ? to either your children or others for the sake of taking a photo.
Hey, if you would do this, post your nick so that I can add it to my ignore list.
Would you do it ? to either your children or others for the sake of taking a photo.
Hey, if you would do this, post your nick so that I can add it to my ignore list.
akane said:
:think: thanks for sharing the article
after some thought i disagree with the method used by the photographer
what puzzled me is the possible lack of knowledge of fear management in children as shown by the photographer when dealing with a topic as such. a lollipop probably means nothing to an adult but it can mean the whole world to a child. a child administered with fear and not properly 'debriefed' of the situation can leave long lasting psychological effects.
I think if it is a deliberate act to make a child cry, it's sick. If its spontaneous than its beautiful.
I don't blame the photog coz its a business for her and they have agreement with the parents, I blame the parents.
I am a parent, and I would'nt let anything like that done to my child. Imagine someone paying you to make your child cry and feel distress in the name of money. Imagine if you are the child.
If you call that art, I'll call that crap.
I don't blame the photog coz its a business for her and they have agreement with the parents, I blame the parents.
I am a parent, and I would'nt let anything like that done to my child. Imagine someone paying you to make your child cry and feel distress in the name of money. Imagine if you are the child.
If you call that art, I'll call that crap.
dawgbyte77 said:
Yes, there'll always be 2 camps to every issue and I respect you views. Just so happen that we're on opp. side on this issue.
The issue here which I can't stand is that this is done to a child with the intension of fulfilling a personal interest as well as to make money at the expense of a child who have no clue at all what is happening. Do you think it would be so diff. for her to get professional child models/talents to do this personal project of hers? Do you think she could not afford the cost of the child models/talents
When I cane my child ( happen twice ) it is because I have to impress upon him the importance of the error that he have done. Not to fulfill my own interest nor to earn any money out of the caning.
If I were to leave my child alone in public/the company of strangers ( which, luckily for me, I did not need to do ), it is to instill in him some fear so that they will not wander off on their own when we go out.
Maybe it is because I'm a parent, maybe because my kids have cause me to become a big softy, but the way it looks, at least to me, it is just a photographer fulfilling her own desire to do something diff, to make a PERSONAL point, to stand out but have fail to consider the feelings of the child. After all she did said that she did not say anything to the child except " hello, good bye and maybe I'm sorry". This is cold man.
Even if I'm doing a paying shoot, where the child model/talent knows what to expect and is paid to it, I'll not put fear into a child.
I have been able to get the job done without resorting to making a child feeling fearful.
i dun know why there are pp that actually finds it nothing wrong with it, but i dun understand. at the end, nothing productive comes out from it. you dun create an art piece from pp to enjoy, you dun create a journalistic photograph that informs pp. all you created is just a terrorized child + controversy + sadistic enjoyment from paedophiles. all this rubbish about depicting the child to a bush administration just doesn't make sense, if it make sense for some reason. i believe taking naked children crying would help solving the poverty in africa? PURE RUBBISH!! ART SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED TO THE EXTENT OF CAUSING EVEN THE SLIGHTEST SENSE OF PHYSICAL OR PHYSCHOLOGICAL HARM TO PEOPLE!!!!! DUN SAY THAT THE CHILD ISN'T TERRORIZED!!!! PROBLEM WITH THE ARTICLE IS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE CHILD SHOWN!!!! REMEMBER, HE TOOK MUCH MORE THAN ONE!!!!
satay16 said:
i agree the content is crap (bush rubbish) but really i dun think you can baby a baby so much. Some babies can really cry so it takes little effort to start them and babies cry for all reasons, to make it sound making a baby cry will drama (trama) them for life, WHOA! Please keep your little kid at home and dun bring them out!
- Status
