Abuse: In the name of art

[Jacques]

Jill Greenberg is taking babies and toddlers under three years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. ? so that she can then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs.". Although the children are not sexualized, I consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.

There is no informed consent. It differentiates sex from rape, boxing from assault ? an important concept. With kids of this age, there?s no way to make a legal or moral argument that they?ve been informed or have consented?that?s what makes it abuse.

And where the fuck were these kids? parents?

The photo's themselves are on public display at the Paul Kopeikin Gallery (Los Angeles) in a show called End Times. And it's fucking sickening therefore no links.

[colonel]

Two magic phrases there:

'There is no informed consent'

and

'Los Angeles'.

This evil bitch is probably subsidised by some institution to produce her art..and the First Amendment means she probably can't be stopped.

If someone sawed her arms off- would that be performance art? Just a thought.

[Steve R]

It sounds horrifying.

[DavidS]

It seems some people can justify anything providing they call it art.

[mart]

It might be sickening but why do you call it pornography?

Mart

[Jacques]

Typical response to a post from mart, has to pick fault instead of commenting. When are you going to do us all a favour and leave the forum?

[IdolDroog]

I do kinda agree with mart on this one tho Jaques.......pornography is supposed to be nudity/erotica specifically to arouse sexually. If this is suppose to be about some pretentious artists statement then why assume nudity is pornographic. hm?

Shes a stupid bitch all the same..

[strictlybroadband]

This thread reminds me of the Brass Eye programme on paedophiles. Every man and his dog jumped to comment before they'd even seen the programme.

I've no idea if this is "sickening" or not. I'll see it, and read what the artist has to say before I jump on the "shock horror me too" bandwagon.

I assume that Jacques has looked at the work before condemning, but how about the rest of you who jumped in? Are you writing from a position of knowledge or sheep-like ignorance?

[mart]

Thanks idoldroog, I don't know what jacques problem is. He's obviously another one of those forumites who likes to pick a fight. Did I disagree with the general tenor of his post?
I must have said something to upset him once ...so what.
Thought he had gone anyway.

Mart

[DavidS]

IdolDroog your definition of pornography is the correct dictionary one. However it is one of those words that has expanded and what is and what is not varies from individual to individual. Another word, by way of example, which is rarely used these days in its strict dictionary meaning is decimate. People who use do not usually mean to decrease by a tenth. I would not quarrel with Jacques for using the word pornography if he believes it is.